http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/12/mailvox-low-morale-men.html
TL;DR: Hamstering and shaming tactics because we will not set our lives on fire for that which has no value. How dare we not risk everything in exchange for nothing, because MUH WHITE BABIES! Oh and if a bullshit system rules against you just kill everyone who took part in it and then yourself! That'll show em!
I'm not even joking.
"No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That's why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way - because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality."
So Islam is stuck in the 7th century and we should fight against it because it drags us back in the past. Ok. So that's what, 1,400 years ago, approximately? I'm fairly certain Roman laws are a bit older than that. Who is dragging us in the past, again?
Funny, I thought acts of mass murder destabilized society. I also thought being rampant criminals were the act of "degenerate minorities", and being a law abiding citizen was a factor of being an high IQ white. Their words, not mine.
Dear TradCon cucks,
It is a wonder the current civilization model held for thousands of years, given that it offers nothing of value in exchange for the slavery of men. To be explicitly clear here, women do not have value. Were the ancients wiser, they'd have picked a more useful motivation, and a more valuable one. They did not, and it still held as long as it did because of beta cuck conditioning and indoctrination. That indoctrination is breaking only recently, and that might very well make THIS society collapse.
So instead of crying that people more intelligent and less delusional than yourself will no longer play stupid games and win stupid prizes, this is the part where a new society is created, one with actual valuable incentives and one in which men are workers and not slaves. This could be created by you, us, sand in my boots invaders, or any other group. It doesn't even especially matter who creates it as whoever is in charge will very quickly become the Animal Farm pigs, anyways.
This by the way, requires that women become second class citizens. Either treat them as the mental children they are, or treat them as adults until they actually start mentally maturing beyond the age of 13 but in either case never let them rule over men for any reason. If you do not do this, someone will simply replace women entirely and we'll make MUH WHITE BABIES without them because there are MGTOWs interested in procreation, just not in the part where they fuck a mental midget liability in the process. Kids certainly are not my thing, I prefer adult women which are a near extinct species already.
TradCon cucks will never do this. You cannot have a stable society, or any society if women can vote. Period, end of discussion. Women must always serve under men, lest they go and damn the entire human race because even a perfect, omnipotent being was not good enough for their hypergamish instincts. Adam should have just asked for a do over, honestly. Yes, even your religious texts open with a red pill carpet bombing.
And you talk of abolishing divorce? Sure, that'd nullify divorce rape, the conventional kind anyways. Thots still have an eject button, but now you don't because you foolishly bought that which is better rented because it has at most 12 years of value. Meaning, instead of hiring the amateur prostitute that is a woman, you hire a professional prostitute who charges less and get a dog and you now have more companionship and more sex with fewer liabilities. Win/win. Anyone not blinded by delusions of living in the past sees this.
It's quite funny isn't it? Only men are capable of accepting or rejecting religion, yet hamstering is only observable in women and religious men. Draw your own inferences from this. Or attempt impotent shaming tactics like "Gamma" that only work on the weak minded, like women and SJWs. Don't Lie or Double Down or Project on me now.
And in the incredibly unlikely event any TradCons have the capacity for logical counterpoints, riddle me this. 20% of men are being divorce raped, so they're being taxed at an effective rate around 70% that does take effect retroactively. In other words, if he becomes a more productive member of society and gets a raise, his divorce rape is retroactively increased and he owes massive backpay. Do you think this 20% of men (it's probably more than that) is being productive? No, they see no efforts for doing so and only punishments for improving. By chasing pussy instead of value they have actively become anti productive. Had they simply gone their own way they'd still be working that high paying job and applying motivation in ways that actually help beyond being a base broodstallion.
Also riddle me this. Say you offered me a unicorn right now. The absolute perfect woman, 0% chance of divorce rape, 0% chance of theft, 0% chance of adultery... absolutely nothing can go wrong with her, ever by her conscious choice. What, of value do I get from this? Keeping my place in order was replaced by automation 5-6 decades ago. Pussy is a low value and depreciating asset. What does she bring that is worth anything, much less all freedom, time, finances...? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
And one more question for the TradCONers, if you will. If you believe that everything is genetic, which I understand you do that would also make MGTOW genetic. Meaning us "defective humans", because we won't stick our dicks in crazy are evolutionary dead ends and will die out in a few decades at most, meanwhile you "good, noble humans" are fucking like rabbits and outbreeding both us and the sand booters in the Middle East. So what, then, is the problem? Why so threatened? By your own logic we've forfeited before a single battle and will die out. So why be concerned?
...Could it be, perhaps that anyone living in the present, not the past or some idealized fantasy world is a MGTOW even if they don't know it yet and that therefore MGTOW will only grow, meanwhile "alt right women" are doing damn near everything except being babymaker machines, because they were chameleon thots in the first place? Remember, women CANNOT accept or reject religion, they can at best chameleon it until they secure beta bux. And you're stuck needing those women because MUH WHITE BABIES, and your religion and identity politics will not let you replace them. That is why MGTOW threatens you, it is not dependent on ideology. That is why you're crying about it now, instead of acknowledging that in every aspect except your own identity politics, we have the same enemy (SJWs), and oppose the same set of identity politics. On every aspect except for the TradCon cuckery, I actually agree with the alt right. And yes because of your sperg like obsession with it, I can only make the KEKing intensify.
[–]Devilsgun24 points25 points26 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chadattack10 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zentow 17 points18 points19 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link
-- Dunno that I'd agree with the whole notion that an "Alpha" is necessarily 100% immune. More like they've got a degree of immunity (aka "thick skin") but it's hardly complete/perfect.
-- The Achilles' heel is the family/kids and -- if you actually understand pack "hierarchy" -- then you know one cannot truly/really claim to be an "alpha" without that "pack";* i.e. the "family."
-- IOW -- by definition -- there is no such thing as a "Alpha 'lone' wolf" there is only the potential for a 'lone wolf' to become one (or in the instance of some disease or other tragedy that destroys his pack-family, for him to have previously been one).
-- * What most PUA/Game "bullshitters" don't comprehend (or get entirely wrong) is that the "wolf pack" (and likewise with "Lion Pride" etc), isn't so much a "social" group as it is a "FAMILY" group -- that is, it is not like a "family" it literally (genetically, biologically) IS a "family." The "Alpha" male isn't some dude who gathered a "harem" of females to have sex with (much less a bevy of ass-kissing males as "suckup" subordinates), he's the FATHER of nearly all of the "pack" members. (There is the possibility that the pack might still contain his "mother" and potentially "sister" siblings, and a somewhat more remote possibility it contains some of his "brother" {younger, not quite mature } siblings; though usually any other adolescent/near but-not-quite-full adult males in the pack {often mistakenly called/referred to as "betas"} will be "sons" from prior litters).
Now of course, that said, HUMANS are not wolves.
(Nor are we lions, nor -- despite the greater similarities -- are we really "apes" either.)
We ARE "social" (and social "hierarchy") creatures, but of a literally higher "order" (i.e. one or more orders of magnitude larger in terms of the size of our "packs"). We're also capable of recognizing and maintaining both larger (extended) families, and for far LONGER than the typical "animal" pack/pride endures -- that is we recognize/include relatives that are more distant than parents/children/siblings (though I think is debatable/dubious just how practical vs problematic that is).
AND beyond that we're also capable of forming broader & more flexible "packs" (with some, or even ALL members being NON-relatives**), and subordinating ourselves (at least temporarily) within a larger hierarchical structure for long-term benefits (ideally "win-win" where the major benefits accrue to both to the group AND ourselves {plus our close "nuclear"*** family/pack group}).
-- Point of that...
Is that while to be an "Alpha" you NEED (MUST HAVE) a "pack/family" -- that pack/family need NOT be your direct relatives. Thus an "Alpha" CAN also be some man with a "crew" or "team" or "business" (employees), among whom there may NOT be a single person that is biologically related to them -- these are in essence "adopted" quasi-family structures.
And via that -- the "quasi-family" -- THAT "Alpha" is then also "vulnerable"... in part because he's not just protecting "himself" (as the Sigma does/can); one of the chief aspects of being "Alpha" (and of maintaining the respect/loyalty of the "pack") is that he is the leader of the DEFENSE of that whole pack... attack one member of his pack and you're in effect attacking him (and his leadership role/position).
In no small part that's where the whole "warrior-chief" thing comes from -- albeit again, most PUA/Game types are woefully mistaken of how that plays out -- no one really wants some "berzerker" warrior (nor anyone posing as such) to be their "Alpha" leader (such idiots are just as, if not MORE dangerous to their own "pack" as they are to outside attackers; they don't create thriving packs, they destroy them from within). People want a "general" (wise, astute, able to retreat, salvage & rally his forces to "fight" only when it is necessary on another {better} day, etc) the do NOT want some jackass thrill-seeking "commando" type (such critters are USEFUL at certain times, but they're NOT "leaders").
-- ** We are of course, much more likely to "work well" (especially long term), or sort of "pack up" with people that we "grew up with" -- that is to say friends, neighbors, acquaintances, childhood playmates & classmates that are or become sort of "quasi-siblings" (indeed, it isn't UNcommon for their to be a greater "sibling-like-bond" {think litter-mate} between same/similar aged school kids than they have with their ACTUAL blood-siblings) -- and that MAY very well "link" us to people of significantly different ethnic groups (but with whom we STILL nevertheless likely have a LOT in common, simply by having been raised in close proximity, and thus likely have similar, possibly almost identical "cultural habituation"). We mesh or "work" LESS well with people whom we do not share that "experience" with. (Although of course dramatic/traumatic events CAN change that: to wit "Army buddies" and/or "Band of Brothers" style comrades).
-- *** Seemingly trivial (but important) point, is that term/phrase by the way -- despite the frequent confusion -- has SQUAT ALL OF NOTHING to do with the "back to the 1950's" tradcon stuff (i.e. "Nuclear Family" long predates, and does NOT refer to "cold war/atomic era" -- but to the Latin term nucleus meaning "nut" or "core" -- so it basically means "core family" {parents/kids} versus "extended family" {grandparents, adult siblings, cousins, etc}).
Apologies for (yet another) of these long, meandering (and digressive) comments... but for whatever reason today (and in this thread), I'm in a verbose "writing" mood. (And since at least SOME of y'all* seem to truly LIKE IT when I write these longish meandering comment things... well anyone who doesn't can just "kiss my ass," capiche?)
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link
Certainly, the point is that "Alphas" have vulnerabilities -- they're "spread thin" so to speak and not "castled up."
--
Agreed, but the "pack" (and the kiddies/puppies in it) don't necessarily see it that way... meaning leader ("Alpha") has to run along and boost their morale by appearing to engage/thwart the (non-attack) "attack"... which is mostly then bluff charging, etc. (And macho/machismo types are good at "bluffing" -- in fact it's just about their only "talent" or "skill" -- they only run away {like to Italy} when the threat is REAL.)
LOL
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+]DWShimoda [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I'll agree with that.
-- But this...
Not so sure; think you're mistaken in assuming the "beta/gamma" followers KNOW the threat isn't real (and ergo a "shit test"), when in fact the whole point is that they DO treat it as "real" (even though it's not).
As for the "entering their frame" ... no, the bluff charge is part & parcel of the "hodling frame" -- just like Vox's pink "rifle" T-Shirt -- it's playing the "role" (but again really only in "rehearsal" mode... only when the threat ISN'T "real").
-- Whenever the "threat" actually becomes real (even if distant rumbling) then the faux-Alfalfa runs for the hills (of Italy, etc).
Also... given our present context (VD's blog), then which of the following applies:
or
(Hint: we're talking a "mass" audience here, engaged with only remotely... over the intertubes.)
Nuff said.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
Oh it's worse than merely "dumb."
It's one of the STUPIDIST shirts I can imagine. (Kind of thing I'd expect from some "low IQ" store -- "Spencer's Gag Gifts" etc -- where it would chiefly be a "parody" item that blatant SLUTS would buy & love!)
-- And I think all of the "butthurt" at the negative reaction -- is CHIEFLY because he's entirely CLUELESS what it represents -- and worse, he really DID expect it to be a BIG seller (he was already counting his chickens!)
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JosephBancor 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]zurrain8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MyFailedExperiment0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
-- There are Lots of things wrong with "Teddy" (aka The-o-dore! {as you can just HEAR his mommy shouting})
In addition to the cowardice you've noted; he also can't really "deal" with his male pattern baldness... that's part of where the "shaved head" comes from (and in his case, in nearly ALL of his photos, the "uber-serious" frowny-face look -- which is apparently supposed to be "threatening").
-- Also... all of the bullshit "machismo" crap about SHOOTING a judge (jury etc) over a divorce case... pure bullshit that came from his tax-evading (and now imprisoned) daddy.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hernes321 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BHeletrica4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ruby-xy3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zentow 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Miscrotesoft4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MyFailedExperiment2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (23 children) | Copy Link
"Teddy" is a hypocrite (and a coward*).
First, he doesn't even live in the US (hasn't for about a decade -- he ran off when his daddy was being hunted down, presumably to fetch/live off of some of daddy's money Swiss Bank Account money -- seriously, you can look it up)... IOW he "ran away" -- talk about "coward."
Second, for all of his bloviating, he only claims** to have one child... seriously ONE child; that's not even "replacement."
* And of course, also a massively arrogant (delusions of grandeur) opportunistic apostate/heretic/false-prophet -- he is neither the "voice of God" (Vox Dei/Vox Day), nor the "voice of the people" (Vox Populi)*** -- and the rest of the "satirical" nicknames (Dark Lord, etc)... well to use his own terminology, they smack of nothing more than an uber-Gamma fragile ego (a little-boy posing as a "tough guy"; in comic-al fashion).
-- ** A claim (like the existence of the "space bunny" wifeoid) which is open to doubt.
-- *** And yeah, I get the reference to "V for Vendetta" -- but really that's just another example of how "LAME" he really is -- a true "Gamma Wannabe."
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
Tax Evasion... BIG TIME tax evasion (of he "I'm so smart, I can be STUPID" variety). Just go look him up "Robert Beale" (add on IRS, tax evasion, etc)... lots of entertaining reading (and similar "delusions of grandeur" etc -- possibly schizoid as well).
IIRC he's serving 15+ years in the federal pen. (Oh and the wife {Teddy's Mom} "stripped" dear daddy of his company, houses, etc -- IRS took a huge chunk, wife took the rest -- it's sheer speculation {but it definitely FITS} on my part that one {if not THE main} motive for "Teddy" doing the expat thing {especially northern Italy} was to help "secure" {and/or abscond with/live off} various funds that Daddy had tucked away in Switzerland, etc.)
--
Agreed. My main point there is that -- even if we accept his claim at face value -- he himself is a "low fecundity" male... only 1 child is NOT how you "save the race".
-- It's similar to the argument I made with my own parents whenever they pressured me about "grandkids" (that I should marry to provide them a boatload) -- I simply told them if they truly WANTED lots of grandchildren then they themselves should have had MORE CHILDREN of their own to begin with (not just TWO).
--
BINGO. I have friends who might be able to upbraid me because they had LOTS of kids (one guy had EIGHT {count em!})... others had 6, 5, 4 etc.
But to claim that OTHER men need to "step up" when these guys themselves have NONE (or only 1 or even 2)... just doesn't cut it.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
-- And even if one agrees that in principle the entire (present) taxation system is "unconstitutional" etc...
-- It doesn't take a "Rocket Surgeon" to comprehend that you pick your battles WISELY.
-- You NEVER go "full retard" (which is exactly what Teddy Beale's daddy did...)
--
-- BINGO. And/or you learn to work the tax system (operate as a contractor/business entity, maximize your deductions, etc -- you play it more like Trump does -- and not Irwin Schiff).
-- Tax "protesting" by tax EVASION is the opposite of "UHIQ" -- its the move of a Dunning-Kruger mediocrity.
--
Divorce raped BIG TIME... seriously, daddy was left with NOTHING (and his "chink" fiancee -- yup Daddy tried to get a new "squeeze" and went ASIAN, LOL! -- got bupkiss as well)... and of course is now "cooling" his cheeks in the pen.
-- As for "Teddy" (the younger, lesser, always sort of "directionless," son)... ayup. Didn't learn a DAMNED thing from Daddy (well, other than perhaps the numbers on a couple of Swiss Bank accounts that Mommy never knew about).
Mine have come around -- especially now that they're seeing what is happening with my cousins (lots of first-cousin divorces & divorce-rapes) -- and with many of the grandkids (can you say "single mommy" with multiple baby-daddies, and various "mystery meat" kids? Ayah.)
Not to mention a whole shitload of other "Drama & Chaos" -- kids/grandkids in jail, into drugs, tattoos & piercings, or going "gay" (and worse), etc. -- makes for FUN FUN Holidays I'm sure.
Meanwhile my family is (relatively speaking) pretty "peaceful"... and *I* personally am NEVER a source of any anxiety or drama... so they've learned to appreciate that. (Bit late, but still.)
Yup, and now that you know the "family context" -- you understand the source of the "lame" (Gamma? Schizophrenic?) insanity that's being revealed.
-- Like I said, Teddy has a LOT "wrong with him."
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
Oops missed this part....
Yeah, /r/K selection (albeit personally I think that's a GROSS oversimplification, it does have some application) -- has a bit of validity to it.
Of course it's really NOT some "new" discovery -- it's just a new "name" for a phenom that has been LONG known (in fact, the "poverty"* of r-types is what Malthus was originally/really talking about).
-- As for examples... simply look to the Amish (and Mennonites, other "old order" groups, etc). They are literally expanding along an exponential curve -- doubling every 15 to 20 years -- and doing so by... having a half-dozen kids per family (following that "age old" equation/formula that I noted in that other comment).
* Malthus wasn't a "doomsday" person, his book "An Essay on the Principle of Population" was initially an attempt to address the underlying reasons WHY Biblical statements about the persistence of poverty** were true (i.e. the HOW it played out in practical/pragmatic terms, that populations would ALWAYS expand to & then a bit beyond the limits of the food). He's been woefully misunderstood by virtually everyone (the vast majority of people of course -- whether advocates OR critics -- have never actually READ his essay).
-- ** EDIT: To wit, as even the Wikipedia article notes in the "Overview":
And then Malthus is quoted in his own words:
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
-- These days -- and if you live the standard "conspicuous consumption" life, yes that's true.
But of course children really DON'T cost a quarter million each to raise -- hint: big portion of that "guesstimated cost" is an actuarial "burdening" of each child with 1/3 (if an only child) or 1/4 (if 2 kids) of the TOTAL cost of the house the parents bought/are paying for; and likewise with ALL household expenses, including vehicles, etc (the majority of those are "lifestyle/status" costs and are NOT truly "direct" costs of raising the child; likewise things like "daycare/childcare" are dubious & debatable, more "wife wants career" {i.e. feminist "having it all"} costs than actual unavoidable costs).
When it comes right down to it, the REAL (true/direct) cost of raising a child is a fraction of that -- the cost of (at most) an additional room ON an existing house, and then of food, clothing, etc. -- moreover MOST of those costs are incurred with the FIRST child, and (should) get progressively cheaper with each additional child (especially if same gender -- i.e. multiple boys can easily share a single bedroom even share a bed {if necessary}, wear "hand-me-down" clothes, share toys, tools, etc; likewise with girls {and there is NO "third" gender, LOL}) -- end result is well BELOW $100k per kid (across a 20 year time-span), less if the family is truly "frugal."
-- And of course historically -- especially on farms (which is true of most Amish) -- kids were not JUST an expense/liability, but were a source of labor/active contributors to the household; even small children can tend animals, help plant & harvest vegetables, fruit, and when older even field crops & other trade work.
-- BTW Amish also avoid several other MAJOR "lifestyle costs" that even a non-Amish "farm family" likely has -- first of all even if they DO "borrow money" to build a house/buy a farm, they DON'T borrow it from a bank (at interest), but rather from other Amish (typically family) -- secondly they DON'T own that other major "wasteful" expense, the "automobile" (payments, gasoline, maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc), instead they walk, and/or have a "buggy" (often DIY from "kit"), pulled by horse(s) which eat hay, oats, etc (no gasoline or oil, etc), and they DON'T buy "insurance" (of any kind, car/home/life)... Then of course they also DON'T pay into "Social Security" (at the price of never getting any SS benefits either).
That's because they would probably have to admit it is as much if not more about LIFESTYLE as it is about actual cost -- more specifically the WIFE would have to admit it is about her "career" (feminist notions of "having it all"), as well as all of the trinkets, gadgets, and kitschy/trendy CRAP she blows her paycheck on (at least whatever is left after paying for the day/child-care, the "convenience" foods, the remodeled kitchen, the "brand new" second car, etc).
In certain ways, various countries have and/or are ALREADY trying to do this -- that is they give "couples" extra cash bonuses for additional children -- and that's over and above the "tax credit" or other "assistance" (i.e. like the EIC "earned income credit", etc).
By the way, it isn't working.
--
Well, problems here are two-fold.
First, as the commenter under the "Vox" article noted, MEN ARE ESSENTIALLY IRRELEVANT (an interchangeable "commodity") when it comes to reproduction (literal "birth rates")... it's the WOMEN who have to be "enticed/coerced/pressured" into having kids (much less more/additional kids).
Secondly, you mentioned the TABOO word: abortion. Until and unless abortion is either made illegal again, or at least "constraints" placed on it (i.e. husband/father consent required), then it really doesn't matter what "incentive" you aim at the husband.
-- And in my personal opinion (plenty of data & evidence and reasons to back it up)... about the ONLY way to truly "incentivize" men is to give them ASSURANCE they will not lose THEIR children: default FATHER full-custody, period. (No more "alimony/child-support/chilomony" -- no more "cash & prizes" for divorce or "single mommy of bastards" etc).
Basically we have to go BACK to "Partriarchal" family structure -- that's what BUILT civilization, and it's the only thing that can maintain it, mush less "salvage/recreate" it.
-- And note that is NOT the Tradcon "let's go back to the 1950's" position -- it's a back to ~1800 position (before the "Tender Years" doctrine starting the whole "divorce = cash & prizes" thing) -- which is substantially different (and "abhorrent" to so called "tradcons" -- who strive to remain at least partially "politically correct" and partially "feminist friendly" -- in short they're "cucks").
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
No. They don't. Seriously, they do NOT need "more shit" -- they may WANT more shit, if allowed to be in charge of the wallet, they may SQUANDER money on "more shit" -- but they do not NEED it.
-- Moreover -- as I noted quite extensively -- the "wife and kid(s) really ONLY need some few additional costs over and above the shelter (house) the man already must provide himself. We're talking maybe $2k a year (per person & on avg across the ~18 years) in food, and possibly an additional $1k a year (again per person, on avg across 18 years)... if you're blowing MORE than that you're buying "lifestyle" crap, not "necessity" stuff. (And yes, I left out "healthcare" because THAT too is largely a "lifestyle/status" affectation -- most doctor visits are worthless and entirely unnecessary -- they're a "superstition" more than anything of value... ACTUAL "medical supplies" are a trivial expense if you've raised kids properly.)
Residing and raising a family in a "HIGH cost of living area" is the epitome of a "lifestyle" choice.
But it WILL reduce the frequency. You've SWALLOWED a massively fallacious feminist "argument" (and uncritically accepted it as valid, when it's not).
Let's "rephrase" that argument, shall we?
Hmmm... that's true too.
Should we then be in favor of "legalizing" ("decriminalizing") murder? What do you think the (entirely predictable) effect of that would be? The same could be said of say "burglary" and "theft" and "fraud" -- making those "illegal" obviously doesn't completely prevent them from happening -- so perhaps ALL such "criminal" laws should be repealed.
Do you see now, why that argument is FALSE. It is a version of "if we can't achieve 100% perfection... then we shouldn't even try."
End result: CHAOS.
Well, that's what we have with abortion -- chaos -- as reflected in the demographics AND the "sexual" & familial spheres of society.
You missapply the point (which is the MGTOW viewpoint): INDIVIDUAL MEN are "irrelevant" -- that is ANY man can "do the deed" (and with dozens, hundreds of women per year).
Males are NEVER the controlling factor in birth rates -- that's not what men "say" -- that's a literal biological FACT, period.
What they (the various "SJW's" whether of the feminist variety OR of the "Vox" tradcon/tradcuck variety) are CRYING about...
Is a complete "Red Herring" -- that is it's just an excuse to distract, mislead, and shift the blame away from the REAL causes of the problems (abortion & the "whoring" chaotic sexual marketplace, etc etc etc) -- to make/use MGTOW as convenient "scapegoats."
And yes, they've FUCKED UP in raising their daughters (again, as I noted any father who thinks he needs that "pink rifle" t-shirt... has obviously ALREADY FAILED as a "father" -- he's raised a "slut-hoe"; and is proceeding to play "white knight" for her).
What he REALLY ought to be doing is creating a sign for his daughters door that says: "If you get pregnant... you're OUTTA HERE." (Shooting the "baby-daddy" doesn't accomplish a DAMNED thing... so long as little princess is certain that HER "daddy" will ALWAYS "forgive, love, and 'fix' whatever problems she creates" well, that's a blatant "pussy pass" for her to do whatever the fuck she wants, virtually "consequence free" -- if she gets preggers, HER "daddy" will take care of her, let her move back in, help her pay for the crotch-spawn, etc.)
The ROOT of that whole problem is the altogether evil notion that "love" should be "unconditional" --- nonsense, love that has no "conditions" is NOT actual "love." (BTW that is not a "Christian" much less "Biblical" concept -- it's a recent "false doctrine" that came in via psychology {i.e. Freud the cocaine addict and his ilk}.)
True dat. (I've made the argument myself -- including noting that 1950's era "feminist" argument for why women "needed" to get into the workplace was that they were "bored to tears" and had nothing to do all day long at home -- that "technology" and chiefly "electricity" and electrical home appliances... are more or less at the ROOT of women's "rebellion".)
Hence -- ironic as it may seem -- the AMISH lifestyle actually makes a SHITLOAD of sense.
Not only do they keep their women (and children) BUSY, but arguably everyone is "happier" to boot.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
Do you mean from Italy? Be interesting to see those.
-- Also, just as a sort of FYI, I'm fairly certain that his present "gamma sperg-out" attack on MGTOW is chiefly caused by the negative reaction to his most recent "wares"...
Specifically a pair of black t-shirts (with really LAME "pink" statements etc) that I think he was hoping would be (or more likely counting on being) BIG "holiday" sellers. (Does Teddy need some cash?)
The BIGGEST negative reaction seems to have been over at Dalrock, and chiefly the comments by MGTOW-types who -- along with Dalrock -- reamed him a new one (LOL) over the tshirts (and what they REALLY represent -- i.e. Daddy married/raised a "slut-hoe" and he's a macho-poseur who has ZERO control over wifey/daughter, hence the pseudo-tough-guy rifle-armed "white knight" {with frigging LASERS!}).
Also, as a "bonus" on just how truly LAME this guy was/is in real life... go listen to some of the crap from his former (early-mid-90's) "band" on youtube... Psychosonik (sp?)
But fair warning, best be sitting down (and NOT drinking anything that is "spewable") before hitting "play." LOL
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
Ah, gotcha. Yeah read those, and they're semi-brutal.
But the comments over at the Dalrock blog (on the t-shirts) -- are even MORE so... Truly GOOD stuff.
--
It really is... not only HILARIOUS, but PATHETICALLY CLUELESS -- and of course very "revealing" of "Teddy" boy's mentality (which has ALWAYS contained it's own "inverse SJW" like "chip on shoulder" -- its one reason why his "insights" on SJW's are in fact fairly valid, and pertinent... because he's {unwittingly} revealing his own SOP so to speak).
-- To my mind, all someone has to do is compare the description of Aristotle's "Superman" (cf Durant's "History of Philosophy" for decent English translation) to the actions/behavior patterns of Teddy Beale.
Then have them try to claim he (Teddy) is an "alpha" (or "sigma")... ROTFLMAO.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
Oh, I think it's worse than that. Teddy's not just "living in the past" but rather in a sort of "fantasy world."
-- He's definitely "correct" on a few things (although none of it is really "his" in even the least remote form, it's entirely stuff OTHER people have elucidated, and he's merely regurgitating, sometimes coherently, other times he garbles it) -- but on many other things, he's so far off base & clueless ... well as we've noted, it's rather funny (pathetically so).
--
I dunno that Teddy-boy is necessarily a "false" alt-righter -- he may be (in fact I think he largely IS*) quite sincere -- it's more that (like alas so many in/around ANY "alt" or "fringe" or even "independent" group/collection/category)... he's got a shitload of baggage & delusions (including some borderline "insane" stuff -- in his case, quite literally, and possibly genetic/familial in origin {schiz isn't entirely heritable, but it does tend to repeat in families, whether that is nature or nurture, genetic or "environmental", is still an open question})... and of course is (again like many) a sort of "opportunistic" parasite/con-artist.
-- * More's the pity.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
I do think there is an inherent "tribalism" and a reality that "ethnic nationalism" tends to be more stable than various "polyglot" empires -- history backs that up -- and I don't buy the whole "History is over" bullshit.
Yup... per Teddy's own definition (and claims*), he ostensibly belongs on a "reservation."
* Which I think have about as much "truth" in them as E. "Fauxcahontas" Warren's do... I think the whole "part native american/indian" is a bullshitting affectation (i.e. self-delusional fraud).
But at the same time -- and here's a slight/significant digression (my apologies) -- as another sort of "perfect example" of a kind of delusional-ignorance: is Teddy's repeated statements/claims that the MAIN/dominant "white" culture/ethnicity is entirely "English."
That's WOEFULLY ignorant (and in about a dozen different ways).
Here's a map -- one that I rather highly doubt Teddy's ever looked at (or if he did, he never comprehended what it reveals). Of course that is "present day" -- but the "American Revolution" era map shows a somewhat similar picture (albeit with fewer ethnic groups, major Irish & Italians {as well as others} immigrations are fairly recent). But the colonies were no where NEAR "all Englishmen" -- and to posit that is to demonstrate a near complete ignorance of the era (and the prior century plus of colonial history) -- entirely ignoring/missing both the ACTUAL "Dutch" (New York, previously "Niew Amsterdam") as well as the vast numbers of "Pennsylvania Dutch/Duetsch" (aka "germans" lower case "g" because "Germany" was not yet a nation-state, but a somewhat vague regional/ethnic term), and the various "Scotch-Irish", etc. (And moreover, one mustn't be fooled by the physical SIZE of the "colored" areas on the map... the regions of dutch & germans especially were much more "densely populated" (cities and highly productive small farms) than much of the ostensibly "English" regions.
Actual "English" at the time of the revolution were probably around 60..65% of the "free" population (perhaps closer to 50% if you include slaves in the southern colonies); but they were already (even prior to the war & independence) being rather rapidly overtaken by a significant influx of (and natural growth by) germans & scotch-irish, who along with the dutch occupied (and were the majority of the population in) the "keystone" center colonies area. Moreover, though it isn't talked about much there was a significant "outflow" of a lot of "Tory" English, both leading up to, during, and after the war & the decades that followed; the outflow wasn't enough to reduce the total number, but it did sort of "plateau" the English, who generally DIDN'T expand into the interior/frontier of the country, whereas the germans and scotch-irish not only did, but already had been doing so prior to the war, and increased substantially thereafter (in fact by the Civil War, the majority of the "Northern" states were not so much "Yankee-English" as they were "german"; something that has persisted to this day).
-- Again, apologies for the digression.
Yeah, it's why I say they're HYPOCRITES as well as "opportunistic" parasites.
Yup, same here.
I do consider myself a "race realist" -- in that I think there ARE substantive differences between ethnic groups -- and that are revealed in the aggregate-average as well as crudely summarized in "stereotypes" (which have an element of applicable truth, else they wouldn't exist/persist; yet at the same time aren't some "iron law" when it comes to the specific cases) -- i.e. while "African" IQ collectively/averaged is unquestionably lower than the collective/average of "European" ethnic IQ, that doesn't mean there aren't a LOT of blacks who are 1+ SD's above a whole HOST of whites.
Saying that of course... most would then go REEEEEEE RAYCISS!!! probably even call me a NAZI (especially if they knew my blue eyes & blond hair, as well as incredibly handsome Nordic-Germanic face & physique!!!).
LOL... too true.
But you make it sound like it's a BAD thing. (Which I suppose depending on your motive, it CAN be... but it doesn't HAVE to be... instead of calling it "mind control" or "living rent-free in their head" {as humorous as that imagery is}, I prefer to think of it as having "planted seeds" that have then taken root.. hopefully to some positive "fruitful" end.)
-- Moreover, unlike all of the "opportunists" who ARE seeking after some "mass audience" (both to service their ego: they need the applause & validation, and crumble without it -- as well as for the cruder, pecuniary benefits: masses buy books & other "wares" that Khajiit has for sale {if you have coin})... I really couldn't care LESS about the "masses"; but instead am all about "planting seeds" with the proverbial Remnant (and sans any applause OR the coin).
:-)
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]UnKnownSurviving [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Nobility is mundane. Every man is replaceable, and no one is of noble blood.
This constant shit of "breeding my lines" is weak imitation of the spirit of "being alpha", which is just a concept spewed by women themselves (Alpha fucks, Beta bucks), and even PUAs have no control of it, because they didn't invent it themselves. They are not alphas themselves, either. Women knows who is genuinely authentic, and keep quiet, because they have tingles for the guy is sexually uncontrollable, rather than just play the game (reactionary). Not only that, the guy doesn't need to chase women, because they are plenty of them out there; plus, he doesn't care. He is not tied to pussy.
Only PUAs care to chase women, using game (reactionary), but they're not authentic, and they're not honorable, because they would betray other men, just for women. And PUAs are tied to them. Especially, so-called red-pillers.
Getting women is fine. But betraying other men is NOT. Betraying is a serious offense, and I'd kill them for betraying. Look, I like women as the next guy, but I don't LOVE THEM.
This is why I'm MGTOW. I love going my own way. I feel peace this way. But any attempt to fuck me up or get me back into the plantation, my bite is worse than your bark.
I have no restraints for anyone, anymore.
[–]Folwart1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rippierippo1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]rippierippo1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fyodor0071 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stringedbeams1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]stringedbeams1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]stringedbeams1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]stringedbeams0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]john_the_other1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throw_7 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link
-- The ONLY "value" she brings to the equation...
The ONLY thing you (or at least most men*) cannot really afford to or practically "obtain" any other way (yet**)...
-- Is her "womb" and ability to bear YOUR children.
But... that presumes you (rather desperately) WANT children; it also presumes that she's still fairly FERTILE (pre-wall, basically WELL UNDER 35; and with no womb-damaging STD's, no damage {physical, emotional OR psychological} from prior "abortions" and/or miscarriages); and generally "sane." The changes of THOSE being true with the present crop of women... slim to none.
-- MOREOVER, if/when she DOES bear you any children... well NOW she has a "weapon" (and/or "hostage") -- one that is (especially with legal/court assistance) capable of "NUKING" your life (your family, your children, the things you were so desperate to obtain that you wed her!) Even IF things like "no fault" divorce were eliminated... because it is all too easy (in our present society/environment especially) for her to contrive/create some "fault" scenario (false claims -- believed and often PROSECUTED -- of "incest/child abuse" are a bog-standard divorce, custody, and "chilimony" strategy).
AND -- in my opinion the NAIL in the "coffin" -- perhaps worst form of "torture" it would be possible for such a man (again the man who DESPERATELY wants children of his own)... is to lose "control" over the ability to raise/guide those children to adulthood (later, "teen" years being just as critical as the "tender years" of infancy)... and to thus see them turned into "socialized-monsters" (or worse) by the system, and by a "single/divorced mommy" along with her subsequent "boyfriends" (OR lesbian girlfriends, etc.)
Personally, I'd sooner have my (potential) children NEVER BE CONCEIVED than to see them subjected to/turned into THAT! (My offspring -- if somehow they pre-exist as unconceived "souls" -- are safely ensconced and "Vaya Con Dios"... no less or more than the OTHER kids that are not conceived/born to couples who choose to LIMIT their number of kids {i.e. unless they truly keep "popping them out" every ~9 months or so -- ala "every sperm is sacred" -- until they cannot anymore}.)
* Surrogacy, while an option, is HUGELY expensive (not practical for most guys; works for people like Cristiano Ronaldo) -- and while "adoption" might seem to be an alternative, for "single/bachelor men" (hetero) it's really NOT a viable "choice/plan" (i.e. the "feminist" dominated "child protection" system {aka foster/adoption} quite literally ABHORS single hetero men); so "single hetero guy" adoption really only happens in cases of family tragedy (i.e. you get stuck with your sibling's kids as the ONLY close relative).
-- ** Or at least until (if ever) the "artificial womb" is developed, perfected, rolled out on an "affordable" basis (and proven to be without major debilitating/developmental side effects, something that arguably HASN'T proven to be true of even "natural womb" IVF babies).
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
I agree, and if I were 20-something (and financially "fortunate" at that age) instead of mid 50's...
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
-- But true "Fathering" isn't just about impregnating, -- any "dog" can do that (it's not a mean achievement*) -- it's about raising and guiding the child to a successful (and fulfilling) adulthood -- transferring your own beliefs and values into a succeeding generation.**
-- And while my own father was still hale and hearty well into his 80's, I don't particularly fancy the idea of being 70+ years old and trying to keep up with an active (flexible & sprightly) teenage son while we traipse around the woods, etc.
-- Plus... and this is to my mind a much LARGER issue... I'm not certain that bringing a child into THIS present world (nor what it will be like in the near future) would be anything other than a curse.
And again, even IF one posits that there IS some kind of "pre-conception" existence to a "soul" -- for which I will note there is not only no evidence, but not even a hint of a notion in any "scripture" (Christian or otherwise) -- it would be quite a stretch to then ALSO posit (as a corollary) that such a "pre-conception" existence was a kind of purgatorial (or worse) "prison" from which said "soul" was longing to escape into THIS world (and will feel somehow betrayed by my not conceptually "creating" the body for them -- and positing that to be the ONLY possible such "corporeal incarnation" -- to inhabit).
-- I'll go even further (again) and note that IF that whole series of (extremely "stretched") speculative posits were true... then it is EQUALLY true of every possible "copulation" I might achieve with EVERY woman.
The notion of which is light years beyond "absurdity."
* And frankly, those men who think THAT (impregnating a woman) IS in fact their sort of "highest achievement" (or life "goal") -- well, IMO they must have otherwise led pretty pathetically SHITTY (banal & useless) lives -- if successfully "jizzing" within a vagina is their primary "accomplishment"... well not only do DOGS achieve that, but mice and rabbits are MUCH more "accomplished" at it.
-- ** A thing which I have rather effectively (certainly MORE effectively than most "fathers") already done -- repeatedly in fact -- and to one way or another with a whole array of younger men to a fairly significant degree (one in particular {a sort of quasi-adopted "son"***}, a handful of others {enough that they keep in touch, some 2+ decades later}, and to a somewhat lesser degree a good dozen or so more {who nevertheless still claim that I had a MAJOR impact on their lives}).
And here (above) I am talking about young men that I know personally, in real life -- not mentioning the many other (full number unknown) young men who read my various little scrivenings and (so they claim if/when they write, often after reading/lurking for months or more) which have apparently had a not insignificant effect as well.
-- *** Not to go into too much detail, but whom I more or less (his words) "saved his life" -- and in more than one way (that is he was literally suicidal and I pulled him back "from the brink" as in minutes away from him ending his life, and in a fashion that would have been quite effective/fast -- as well a somewhat more metaphorically in taking him in, and "re-parenting" him, helping him get on his feet as an adult, etc)... far too long (and too personal) of a story to go into any further, but suffice it to say that (somewhat against my better advice) he married and has his own son now (a sort of "quasi-grandson" for me).
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
LOL... possibly. But I'm also getting "set" in my cycnical old guy ways... excuse me a moment, BRB...
Hey you, kids... get off my lawn!
Now where were we? Oh yeah, me getting old... not sure I'd wanna bother with the "mewling babe" year, the "terrible two" & "toddler" stages, etc. -- never really was any good with 'em until they were at least walking & talking.
Ironically, I mostly enjoyed working with them when they were at the stages everyone ELSE wanted to avoid them -- the "why? why? why?" stage, and then the later "teenage" years.
--
True, and I'm well aware that it CAN be argued as a "cop out" -- from the view that the world has NEVER been a "safe" place -- it's just that IMO it's gone totally insane, and these days has become especially "dangerous" (in ways that are HARD to parentally combat) for boys...
Also, I wouldn't have the LEAST clue what to do with a "daughter" -- and even with IVF, there's not a 100% guarantee on the sex/gender of the kid -- and yet there is NO WAY that I would ever intentionally "abort" a girl... better to just NOT go there.
--
Neither of which is a problem for me -- I've made my peace with NOT being a father (at least that I know of) -- and have ZERO need for "sex" with THOTS (or anyone else for that matter)... I long ago (multiple decades in the past) achieved "control" over my "hormonal" urges.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
-- Nope, not gonna happen.
See I'm about a decade ahead of you on that thought. Shortly after I retired* (early 40's) I looked into, even started the process (spent about a year) of becoming a licensed "foster" home (req'd in my state to potentially "adopt")...
And found out that there was NO WAY the system was ever going to place anyone** with me -- not even the boys that were (literally) "tagged" as needing a "single male/all male" household (usually because of major prior abuse/trust issues with females -- btw that's a LOT more common than people know)...
Why would they NOT place anyone with me? (or anyone LIKE me?) Two main reasons:
The CPS workers are nearly all radical-feminist "man haters" -- and they quite literally believe that ALL men (particularly white "hetero" men) are rapists/pedophiles -- moreover they sincerely believe that ANY single male that is even REMOTELY interested in adopting a kid, has essentially just "confirmed" that he's a pedo, period. The only way a white hetero single male can possibly NOT be a pedo... is if he HATES having kids around (ergo by definition such non-pedo's do NOT apply to become foster homes). Insane? Sure... but also factual.
Worse than he above, I was also "ineligible" because I was independently "financially secure" AND "intelligent, knowledgable, etc" -- that combination you see is seen as a HUGE potential threat to the system -- the system exerts "control" over the foster homes (i.e. earns/obtains their SILENCE regarding all of the "incompetence" and massive "screw-ups" {past as well as present} of the CPS workers/system) via the financial NEEDINESS of the foster parents -- anyone who DOESN'T NEED their money is a potential "threat"; particularly if they were to foster or adopt some older child (one that has been "in the system" {and therefore almost by definition "abused" by it in numerous ways} for several years), that foster parent MIGHT actually gain the "trust" of he kid, and thus learn about that stuff... and then "go to bat" against the system, both to DEFY it's "commands" (i.e. putting the kid on meds he doesn't need, is being "fucked up" even more by), as well as potentially (independently) hire legal counsel for the kid (and other resources, PI's to investigate & independently document past "system" abuse, etc) against the agency... they cannot have that (it's a threat to everyone*** that works IN/WITH the system, potential loss of job, pension, benefits, etc).
Now they don't "officially" discriminate against such men... they just do it "unofficially" -- you need to file form XYZ -- oh, but they don't have that available for you to DOWNLOAD (heaven's no!) they have to send it to you (US Snail Mail), then you fill it out and they will "process" it -- OOPS, looks like you somehow got & filled out an "obsolete" version of that form (gee wonder how that happened?) -- oh well, we'll send you the "new" one... Fast forward a couple of weeks, still no form... must have gotten LOST in the mail, we'll send another -- which actually arrives (Hallelujah!) -- except, shit! it's missing pages 3 & 4 (page numbers are 1 of 6, 2 of 6 and then 5 of 6 and 6 of 6)... so they send ANOTHER, this one has 6 pages, but page 3 is back up by another copy of page 3... try again...
Finally (3 months later) you've submitted a complete (and hopefully "current") copy of form XYZ... now it needs to be "processed" (don't call us, we'll notify you)... a month goes by... call anyway, oh they show they received it, but the woman that processes those "is sick/on leave/on vacation/retired and her replacement hasn't been able to catch up..."
-- Get the picture? I was starting to... about a YEAR of various things of that nature -- every POSSIBLE excuse, "accidental" screw-up, any and every other means of "delaying" each and every STEP of the process.
You think that's NOT intentional??? (Would you by any chance be interested in buying a bridge? Seriously, it's located on some "primo" real estate -- very nice swamp land -- in the Florida everglades... give you a GREAT deal on it!)
-- Seriously, I got SO pissed I went and "squatted" all morning at the HQ of the agency in our state capital... kept getting the brush off (she's in a meeting, she's on the phone... etc).
Finally a MAN (older guy, 60+ish) came through the lobby area headed out for lunch, gave me a meaningful "nod" signal ... I followed (everyone was going on "lunch break" so no point in staying); ended up having lunch and a "private/unofficial" chat with him... he gave me the lay of the land, and basically told me I'd be spinning my wheels for YEARS and never get anywhere.
He "explained" (as long as I agreed it was "off the record" he'd deny it anyway) ALL of the above to me (and the *** "footnote" below, though he didn't put that bit quite as crudely & bluntly as I have -- told me a few other things as well, things you probably wouldn't believe, things I found hard to believe at first, but on reflection those too "fit" and made sense).
Why did he do that, explain all of that to ME? (Trust me, I asked.) He simply stated that he was himself nearing retirement, and obviously was cynical... especially with latest "bureaucratic reorg" & etc -- turns out he'd "eavesdropped" & heard me (I wasn't exactly whispering!) telling the receptionist who I was/what I was there about (enough that he could look at my application processing record in the system, dates etc) -- explained to me that he thought I was probably a really GOOD guy, and that the system would NEVER work with/for me because of that -- people (especially MEN) like me, too thorough, too capable, too intelligent, too independently resourceful, and NOT needy... and thus NOT seen as a resource or a "controllable" team player but instead only as a potential THREAT -- he hated to see me waste even MORE time on a fruitless endeavor (and that since he was retiring, well he wouldn't be able to actually DO anything for me, other than explain).
--
Was he TOO cynical? Struck me as more "weary" and even sympathetic than cynical.
Was he bullshitting me? If I'm ANY judge of character, no.
Have things changed in the past decade? (And changed for the better -- relative to men like me?) Wanna BET on any of that?
Is it just MY state? (BTW a relatively conservative, stable "mid-america" state) Think it might be easier/better in some other, more "liberal" coastal state? (For a *"cis-boo-hiss-gendered"* hetero WHITE male?) Again.. wanna BET on that?
If I wore a dress & makeup, claimed that I "felt" like I was a woman inside; or had a gay lover... THEN I'd be in one of the "oppressed" victim-olympic-status "protected" classes -- they'd probably bend over backwards to dump multiple kids in my lap ASAP -- but since I'm not transgender, and not gay... as a "white male" I'm personna non grata, and SOL (not "fit" to be a foster/adoptive parent).
-- Not joking (or bullshitting) about ANY of that.
* Technically "semi-retired" to working remotely from home on (occasional) contract basis -- everything paid off, money in bank, monitoring investments, etc -- so why continue with the daily commute grind? (Hint: said "Fuck that" & never looked back).
-- ** Well, I say "never" and "anyone" but that of course ISN'T entirely true -- there would always be the remote possibility that they might USE (abuse) me as a place to temporarily house some really "problematic" kid -- like the kind that has sexually/physically abused other kids, started fires in prior foster homes, etc -- and where they needed someplace to "stuff" him for a few days (emergency) prior to bringing charges against him, sending him off to juve jail or even adult prison, etc. (And the kicker would be that they would NOT inform me of the kids "pending" problems/history -- basically set me up to be a "disposable fall guy" -- let the kid steal from ME, burn MY place down, falsely accuse ME of sexually/physically assaulting HIM, etc.)
-- *** Most people mistakenly (naively, innocently) think that the "Child Protective Services" are about "protecting children" -- nothing could be further from the truth -- what they REALLY ARE is more like a "dairy farm" where troubled kids are used as a means to MILK & BILK the system for the benefit of the people that work in it/with it/for it -- the case-workers, the social-workers, psychologists & other "counselors", the higher bureaucracy, and of course the various "foster parent" homes, etc ... ALL of them are largely in it mainly if not SOLELY for the career, benefits, money.
Basically it's become a "wealth" redistribution scheme (taking the place of "welfare" -- aka "workfare" instead -- with the majority of employees being "single/divorced moms" {sent to school to get a "degree" at government expense, and guess what they choose?); who often also then double-dip as "foster homes" themselves {ayup, the majority of foster homes are "single mother" homes, with foster kids packed in with/on top of prior "bio" kids, the foster kids being a PRIMO source of extra household cash, especially when the foster kids have been "diagnosed" with "emo/psych" problems, which they virtually ALL are; instant meds, and extra-extra-cash, both for the agency [from "federal" grant programs for "special needs" kids] as well as for the psych/med staff, and of course last but not least the "single mom/social worker/foster parent"... can you say "triple-dipping"???})
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]darksats1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tiredofshit0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Which is what many of those "men" have actually become... seriously, they may as well change their name to "Caitlyn" and start wearing dresses AND makeup.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link
Guess our salvation will have to come from the progressives. We can all don our pussy hats in solidarity while the metoo bidness runs its course.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 2 points3 points4 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I see them a little differently. Somehow they changed the narrative from the truth (them being the party of slavery) to the other side is They simply exchanged the slavery from the plantation to the mailbox.
It is obvious to me that for most of them the country will not be a paradise till it is all like Chicago, Flint, Detroit etc.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link
Except they didn't.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link
-- Yeah, I get what you're saying...
But I still say "no" they really DIDN'T "Liberate" men. Because you see, men COULD remain "bachelors" even back in the day (not only 1950's but decades & centuries before, all through history in fact) -- now, was their "social pressure" (especially from FAMILY)? yes... but in many ways it was a lot LESS pressure.
Why? Simple. To begin with most families (prior to "Baby Bust" of GenX) had way more than one or two kids... and LOTS of kids (half dozen or more) meant lots of "spares" when it came to kids giving you "grandkids" (especially when THEY in turn had... a half-dozen or more) -- so if one or two of your kids DIDN'T marry/have kids, it was less of a "big deal."
Moreover, WITH so many kids, there was often a NEED (especially for the sons) to a least DELAY marriage -- to seek/make "their own fortune" (or at least the start of one) BEFORE getting married. Ergo the chief "pressure" to marry was on DAUGHTERS... sons often had a good decade (or more) and weren't expected (nor was it even thought GOOD for them) to marry until they were approaching or past age 30. At which point in time, THEN they might be pressured to seek/take a (young, teen to early twenty-something) wife & start a family.
Point being that guys generally had a good decade (or more, especially since "adulthood" was often seen as starting in your mid-teens, not uncommon for a guy to be working {often "apprenticed" and UNABLE to marry for several years, at least not until reaching "journeyman" if not "master" status in his trade} or else off at college etc -- at age 15 or even 14 yrs old) -- to basically live as a "bachelor."
Then around age 30 (but easily up to 40) he could/would/should marry, have the family (young wife can pop 'em out about 1 every year or two for the next 10 to 15 years = ~5 to ~10+ kids) -- be "married" for around 20 years or so -- and pretty much enter senility/die somewhere in the 60 to 70 age range (when most of the kids would themselves be grown, "adults" or even the youngest likely at least in "teens" and thus daughters married off, sons working/apprenticed/off to school etc).
-- Plus families weren't necessarily against one or two of those kids REMAINING single -- Catholic families quite often even "tagged" one of the boys to "serve God" as a Priest/Monk, etc, daughter as Nun -- and others quite often welcomed having ONE kid (or two) to "stick around" and help the old folks (take care of aging/dying father, and post-menopausal mother).
-- What sort of "fucked up" that whole (long standing) equation... was the "Liberal" (enlightenment/Romanticism) crapfest of "true love" and age-mate ("soul-mate") marriage, etc.
So what little LATER "feminism/liberalism" did to "liberate" men -- was essentially ONLY to loosen the BONDS -- that prior iterations of "feminism/liberalism" had placed on men to begin with.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link
Oh, absolutely.
In fact, Teddy quite clearly demonstrates that with his "Catholic" dismissal of James citation of Paul's instruction in the I Corinthians passage:
-- That's COMPLETE "Popish" nonsense... and actually WORSE, it's lay Catholic bullshittery. Which by the way shows he doesn't even know actual CATHOLIC "doctrine" much less does he have he least understanding of that passage.
-- And the line "Don't misquote the Bible" -- is truly INFANTILE in terms of hermeneutics.
When it comes to ANYTHING from the Bible, Teddy is so clueless that it beggars belief (but is, naturally par for the course with majority of "Christians" and especially "Catholics").
-- BTW, he absolutely is saying "marry the sluts (just pretend they're NOT 'sluts')" -- which is the mindset of a "cuckold".
-- I do sincerely fear for what he's likely to do when he finds out that (assuming she exists) his "spacebunny" has been cheating on him... and when (as seems almost inevitable, given the "schizo" progress) she divorce-rapes his arse (takes over Castalia House, etc); well let's just hope the family-court judge is made aware in advance of his various violent pre-threats to the judiciary, etc; that way he can perhaps be "committed" and locked in a nice safe rubber room (deprived of sharp objects, etc) so he CAN'T "go postal."
I think it's going to "unhinge" him (much more than at present) in one way or another -- sadly I've seen that TOO many times with guys who are certain (100% guaranteed) that their "honey" was a unicorn; and then found out not only WASN'T she, but that she'd been cheating on him for years (in one instance over a decade) -- odds are he WON'T actually "go postal" but will (like Daddy) "lose his shit" (crying in beer/suicidal style) and will end up running away, trying to hide, sneak off, etc.
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
LOL. Never mistake "macho/machismo" for actual "masculinity" -- the former is mostly a bloviating "bluff/pose/act" (think TRP "hodl frame" and "lift" -- paricularly the "fake to 'til you make it" mentality -- all of which is facile {superficial} & largely "perception" based).
--
Exactly. Just because a woman doesn't give into every temptation, doesn't mean they haven't given into any of them before (or at present); much less does it portend what they are likely to do in the future.
--
Yeah, that's the key -- how/where (in what social-pressure circle or "culture" -- including the degree of "outside" cultural penetration*) were they raised/trained. And moreover, what was the REAL (actually practiced) type of moral restraint that the circle/culture engaged in -- was it in-line with what was stated -- or was it "undermined" by actual activity? (This is where "Amish" for example for the most part can/do still raise/rear essentially "traditional" women -- the whole mini-culture sustains & supports it in a VERY strong manner; and exerts a HEAVY price {expulsion & shunning} of violators -- doubtless it's not a "perfect" system {i.e. doesn't catch ALL "cheating" women}, but it IS for the most part effective, and those who DO "cheat" are NEVER able to flaunt it, but rather do everything they can to HIDE it}.)
So in that way, Amish** culture is (somewhat) like a proverbial "nunnery" -- and is most certainly "sheltered."
-- * Per example, how many young (ostensibly) "Christian" girls... nevertheless were "bathing" in things like "Sex and the City"; and the idolized the Carry Bradshaw (et al) characters. That is the kind of "outside" cultural aspect that can EASILY penetrate the majority of parents attempts to "shelter" daughters; add in that -- despite some ostensible "moral" standard that has a superficial pretense of "abhorring" sluttishness -- the hollowness of that becomes readily apparent in that most "Christian" cultures are supportive of "feminism" in other ways (and/or at least SOME "feminist" ideals -- to wit: women SHOULD go to college, get education & careers, etc) ... meaning that the whole "SATC/Carry Bradshaw et al" is partly/mainly "in line" with the "mixed message" of the family/social circle standard (particularly if/when the women IN the community have jobs/degrees, etc).
-- ** Problem with that -- as I've noted many times -- is that (and this is one critical way the Amish are ABLE to maintain their culture) virtually no one from "outside" can JOIN them... IOW you basically cannot "marry into" that culture (and if you attempt to "peel off" some Amish chick as YOUR wife, ensconce her in a family OUTSIDE of her Amish group, she'll end up just like every other chick -- in part because her own Amish family will be forced to "shun" her). Technically, of course, it IS possible to join the Amish, it's just VERY VERY difficult, and moreover it requires you to BECOME "Amish" yourself -- accepting all of the constraints {including abandoning most modern "tech"} etc -- and men not only DON'T want that, they fundamentally aren't capable of it.
AYUP.
Although, in this case, in defense of "mommy" and her turning/betrayal/divorce of Daddy-O... one can see that it wasn't necessarily entirely "selfish" motive. Daddy-O was arguably literally "insane" and was essentially going to "burn the family assets to the ground" (i.e. lose it ALL to the IRS); so what she really did was "salvage" a significant chunk of it for her and the several kids (and grandkids).
Not sure whether "Teddy" got any of that... he seems to have been the "black sheep" of the family; and his "expat" thing seems far more in-line with trying to get/protect whatever Daddy-O had managed to keep secret.
Also, when you look at the several and various (otherwise seemingly inextricably "weird") things that Teddy has done with his "business" things -- i.e. why domicile his book publishing "Castalia House" company in (of all places) Finland? -- especially while LIVING in Italy?? -- much less CLAIMING to still be an "American"???
What DOES make all of that "make sense" (method to madness) is if it is at least in part a "money laundering" operation.
I haven't really dug into it far enough to have any actual "evidence" -- and thus his is SHEER 100% SPECULATION -- but it wouldn't surprise me (at all) to learn that Teddy Beale avoids returning to US territory at all costs... IOW he may very well not be an "expat" solely by personal choice.
Oh, and as a side note, to the above; the whole "a marriage that doesn't fail in the first decade will almost certainly last forever" line... it's bullshit.
That may have been a fairly accurate/operable "rule of thumb" a few decades back (prior generations, i.e. "Silent" gen etc), but I guarantee you it's no longer applicable with Boomers & GenX.
I have several (multiple) friends & relatives who celebrated their 10th, even 20th and 25th marriage anniversaries... only to divorce a year or two later. (Occasionally "amicably" and sometimes rather nastily -- but usually after the "reveal" that wifey had been riding the CC {or at least occasionally hopping onto & doing a round or two on one of the "ponies"} for much if not all of the "marital bliss" period; in some cases it isn't publicly known {or even privately admitted} that they "cheated" ... but the speed with which the woman then "shacks up" with some Chad or Jody certainly puts the lie to the "loving/loyal wife" schtick regardless {if the ex-wife wasn't already fucking Chad/Jody et al, she certainly had them on "speed dial" and they were her "backup plan" guys}).
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CucksandWhiteKnights-1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]CucksandWhiteKnights0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CucksandWhiteKnights0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link