Post: #54151

(12-21-2016 11:55 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  Sheriff Richard K Jones, an Ohio elector, burns letters sent by whiny liberals which were begging him not to vote Trump.



How can we win so much?

That is the most Pepe-like picture of a human being I have ever seen in my life.

Post: #54152

Regarding California:





In other news:

Quote:Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.

Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.

Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

The outgoing president believes his administration was a net positive for workers, however.

"Since I signed Obamacare into law (in 2010), our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs," said Obama, during his farewell press conference last Friday, covered by Investing.com.

Post: #54153

This is why I hate those statistics about X number of jobs created in month Y. The number is meaningless without knowing what classes of jobs were created and in what sectors. Similarly the unemployment numbers are meaningless. CNN produces fake news reports and the government produces fake jobs reports (not even limited to the current administration).

Post: #54154

With all of Mexico's whinning about possible Trump tarrifs or taxes on money sent by illegals back to the homeland, it conveniently forgets that it has a tourist tax for anyone going further than about 20 miles South of the border. It works out to about 20 something US dollars depending on exchange.

I don't really mind paying to plunder Mexico's best resource: latina pussy.

Post: #54155

Forum member spotted.

   

Post: #54156

Post: #54157

(12-21-2016 03:35 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  In other news:

Quote:Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.

Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.

Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

The outgoing president believes his administration was a net positive for workers, however.

"Since I signed Obamacare into law (in 2010), our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs," said Obama, during his farewell press conference last Friday, covered by Investing.com.

This is where the supposed job recovery comes from, is not that there are more people with jobs, but people who used to have full time now have part time, if you had a full time job that is considered one job position, but you get fired or laid off because Obamacare you have to get two part times jobs that is considered two job positions.

That is like taking a cake, slicing in 6 peaces, the the next guy takes the 6 peaces and slice them in smaller parts and make 12 smaller peaces, and the guy now claim there is more cake.

Obama destroyed full time jobs, created smaller part time ones and now claims there are more jobs.

Also, in some studies if you don't have job but are looking for one they consider you with a job.

Post: #54158

Guys, breaking news!

Remember when the "historically black" church in Mississippi was mostly burned down with "vote Trump" spray painted on the side, like a week before the election?

They have a suspect in custody and the result MAY SHOCK YOU!

(it won't, it's a black congregation member)

So an obvious hoax being confirmed as obvious is a huge win and I hope people start tweeting this shit all over the place, the article was posted about 40 minutes ago it seems. I also want to see a youtube compilation of all your CNN and MSNBC talking heads admonishing this and blaming Trump for the rhetoric, just to have their thrown in their face. A BLATANTLY STUPID, OBVIOUS HOAX and it got a lot of airtime at the time too, Trump had to say some words about it and everything.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...church-and

Here's the best part though, because this confirmed hoax wasn't enough:

Quote:Despite the political graffiti that was found on the burned church, a state official was hesitant to conclude that the act was politically motivated.

"We do not believe it was politically motivated. There may have been some efforts to make it appear politically motivated," Mike Chaney, a Mississippi fire marshal, told the AP.

You think that action, and those words, 7 days before election, weren't politically motivated. Fuck off with that.

Post: #54159

(12-21-2016 06:24 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  Guys, breaking news!

Remember when the "historically black" church in Mississippi was mostly burned down with "vote Trump" spray painted on the side, like a week before the election?

They have a suspect in custody and the result MAY SHOCK YOU!

(it won't, it's a black congregation member)

So an obvious hoax being confirmed as obvious is a huge win and I hope people start tweeting this shit all over the place, the article was posted about 40 minutes ago it seems. I also want to see a youtube compilation of all your CNN and MSNBC talking heads admonishing this and blaming Trump for the rhetoric, just to have their thrown in their face. A BLATANTLY STUPID, OBVIOUS HOAX and it got a lot of airtime at the time too, Trump had to say some words about it and everything.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...church-and

Here's the best part though, because this confirmed hoax wasn't enough:

Quote:Despite the political graffiti that was found on the burned church, a state official was hesitant to conclude that the act was politically motivated.

"We do not believe it was politically motivated. There may have been some efforts to make it appear politically motivated," Mike Chaney, a Mississippi fire marshal, told the AP.

You think that action, and those words, 7 days before election, weren't politically motivated. Fuck off with that.

This has happened before. Back in the day there was a bad rash of church burnings across the south. One of the burnings was not racism but a member trying to collect insurance and donations.

Post: #54160

Thanks Last Parade - posted the CBS link and guess what time it is ?

Post: #54161

Oh look, it's Trump's magic wand again.

Post: #54162

Quote:Artists working around-the-clock to unveil new Madame Tussauds wax statue of Donald Trump

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/12/21...nald-trump

Artists are working around-the-clock at Madame Tussauds headquarters in London to have US President-elect Donald Trump's wax figure ready before he is inaugurated in January. A behind-the-scenes video shared by the wax museum shows the artists paying painstaking attention to detail, right down to painting the capillary veins on Trump's face. Artists have spent the last four weeks inserting hair strand-by-strand on to the wax sculpture. The video was filmed after two days of work but will need a few more days before it can be properly critiqued, according to colouring supervisor Verity Talbot.

Approximately 20 coats of paint will be used in order to create a realistic likeness of the President-elect. "Once that's all completed, he'll go to the hair stylist, who will wash and cut his hair to exactly how he has it," Ms Talbot said. The sculpture will be on concurrent display at the wax museum's locations in Orlando, Washington DC, New York and London from January 20. This is not the first wax sculpture Madame Tussauds have made of Trump. In 1997, they unveiled a wax statue at their New York museum - making Trump the first US president to have been immortalised in wax prior to taking office.

Post: #54163

(12-20-2016 05:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  [quote='John Michael Kane' pid='1468482' dateline='1482267747']
[quote='Samseau' pid='1468436' dateline='1482263906']

Quote:4. Get married and have kids. Not an easy sell on this forum given all we know about the risks. Still, game-aware men have a much better chance than your average beta schlub about what makes LTR game work. If we want a conservative nation worth defending, we have to have the kids to combat all the liberals having kids or importing kids. This is non-negotiable if you want a long-term victory, and not a short-term one regarding Trump. Trump is a once and done if we don't give him and others like him a future flank of young voters who can turn the tide.

Gotta fix the marriage laws, and change the culture regarding family and women. First one should be doable within 8 years, but the second one we might never live to see.

Politics (and thereby, law) are downstream of culture. Trump made it hip to be politically incorrect. That is a cultural victory, and a huge one I welcome. Milo, Gavin, Roosh and others are lending their own voices. Being dissident is hip if you have a sense of humor and can swing people to your side. Trying to win people over on arcane Family Law statutes causes peoples' eyes to glaze over. Only legal nerds and MRA's care about that.

Women aren't going to be convinced to randomly hand over their legal advantage. It is far easier to change a culture than it is the law. What are you going to do in the mean time? Tell every man to boycott marriage? There are those of us in our late 20's, 30's and beyond that are old enough to get married and see the societal benefits of doing so.

Yes, there are risks, but they can be considerably mitigated if you are red pill aware, and filter accordingly BEFORE marriage. These last two points should be where your efforts should be focused, teaching men how to filter out bad women for LTR's/marriage and filter in good women.

Quote:Overwhelmingly, in my own social circles, the people who have been married, stay married. Both the men and women work on the marriage. They homeschool their kids or send them to good private schools, often at the expense of not living a wealthy lifestyle. Waiting for Family Law to change is a paper tiger spouted by MGTOW and MRA's. There's too much money at the moment being printed to keep the lawyers, social workers, etc. employed to see that cash cow disappear.

Quote:You sound like someone who thought Trump couldn't win.

Lol, Samseau you must have missed many, many posts in this thread. I've always thought Trump stood a decent chance of winning and have said so. Even took a lot of flack from my family for supporting him early on. Told even skeptical types that Trump is a convincer, he will convince many of the fence sitters. You astutely predicted his rise to power, and I give you full credit for that. Not sure how that is relevant to the point I was trying to make, but good job on the political insight?

Quote:The problem, if it is to be solved, will have to done so on a spiritual and social level, not a legal one.

Quote:It needs both.

Spiritual and cultural first, the legal will come as a result of that. You can't legislate anything that the culture isn't ready to accept. Just like you can't repeal gay marriage until enough people see that the "gay" lifestyle is really rather a depressing and ugly one.

Talking about laws, legal strategies and so forth regarding gay marriage, divorce laws, child support and so forth is a no go until culture demands the change, then the laws change. If you can present some evidence to the contrary where laws are changing culture (for the better, not SJW-inspired laws) instead of the other way around, I'm all ears as to how you think this approach is working. From this vantage point, I don't see it.

Quote:Laws only enforce bad behavior, whereas the bad behavior must be shamed and curtailed long before that.

Quote:Complete nonsense. This is like saying we don't need to make murder illegal because murder is just a cultural problem, and making it illegal is therefore redundant.

I never said you didn't need laws, of course we do. We just can't use them as a first line of attack, because the current culture is too permissive of bad laws on the books. Honestly, I think we need more hardship as a country (world war, massive economic downturn, etc.) before people harden up enough to accept that the culture (and thereby the laws) has to change.

Quote:Laws are extremely important. Human culture forms around laws just as much as culture leads to new laws being created. It is a two-way street.

You may be able to do some good work on the fringes with laws, but until the culture changes, many of your otherwise well-intended laws will be repealed in court. There isn't enough public outrage, despite all the outrageous stuff going on. First you have to win the crowd (culturally) and then you get the lawyers and judges you deserve to actually change the law.

Quote:I know a 20 year old girl in my social circle. She just got a huge tattoo on her thigh. She was explaining it alongside of another young girl I know. I looked at the girl with the tattoo and in a concerned way, that's really too bad. So many less people will employ you, and men will judge you harshly. I hope you reconsider it. The girl next to her was shocked, and later on told me it was ballsy for me to tell her friend that. I told her that smart girls don't destroy their natural beauty, and she agreed. You can't save everyone in a culture at any given time, but you can certainly drop some red pill paternalism here and there when presented the opportunity. The United States will perish as a country long before the Family Laws are changed if we aren't fighting the culture wars in our own social circles. It takes courage to do so, but that's where hearts and minds are won. Not on some cold, sterile law book.

Quote:I don't think what you did took any courage at all. Speaking up to women is tough if you're a huge pussy, which means the problem is that men are huge pussies if they cannot state basic truths.

Far more effective is convincing men over the internet, which leads to legal and cultural changes.

You may not think it takes very much courage to tell a girl off for getting a tattoo, but many men wouldn't do that. I don't say that to hype myself up, but rather to highlight the massive permissiveness the average man has towards bad female behavior. This is true of fathers, brothers, friends, boyfriends and husbands. All men bare individual and collective responsibility for this mess we find ourselves in.

As men, we need to open our mouths when we see women act up. Women have, and always will, get away with exactly (no more, no less) what the men around them are willing to put up with. You are correct in stating that many men can't state basic truths. That's where the second point you make really hits home! Educate them online, and mentor them offline as well too. If you mentor a man properly, he will gain the courage to speak up against female excess. They go hand in hand, but the mentoring, as you highlighted, has to come first.

Quote:If an American man finds it too much of a risk (even with extreme filtering for a conservative, sweet, feminine girl, etc) to get married in the USA, then he always has the option to move to a more traditional country and re-invent his life there. I'm currently weighing the options of marrying inside of the US if I found the right woman versus moving abroad. Each man needs to make that choice for himself, but not marrying and not having children represents a net negative for all cultures of the world who wish to see a return to patriarchy. Good men sitting things out because the laws aren't good at the moment only results in more children born out of wedlock and further degeneracy. Good men must take calculated risks, otherwise they are doing nothing to help the current situation.

Quote:Getting married in another country is again a false solution because it means you're giving up on America.

Importing a wife would be viable, except once the imported wife learns about the corrupt divorce laws the odds increase dramatically that she takes advantage of them.

I'd like to hear what you think is a viable action plan for a man in his mid-20's onwards who is interested in being a patriarch? Does he wait it out 5 years? 10 years Indefinitely? I am in no way saying there are no risks in getting married in the United States at this point in time, but waiting forever seems to be a no-go. Playing on the sidelines only helps leftists import more troublemakers into the country. We don't have demographics or time on our side NOT TO MARRY/PROCREATE.

Quote:Even Donald Trump made every wife sign a very strict pre-nup. He has the right idea. The pre-nups couldn't stop his marriages from ending, however.

Thus, if we don't take advantage to secure laws in favor of family formation and retention, it's just a matter of time before leftist feminists get into power again and destroy the effectiveness of pre-nups.

Moreover, pre-nups do not help anyone except the richest of men. We need a society where middle class men have no problems finding and keeping a marriage intact. We do not have such a society today. The easiest changes to improve the situation is to push for legal ones, as the slower cultural changes take effect.

You made valid points about pre-nups. They only really protect very wealthy men most of the time. Not to mention, many women would be totally offended by even suggesting one before entering a marriage. It is an assumption of bad faith, something that destroys trust. If I were dating a woman who made more money than myself also presented me with a pre-nup, I'd be insulted too.

I don't think most women go into marriage thinking about raking a man over the coals in a divorce. The main point is that culture has to change before laws change. Laws are important, but until you change the cultural zeitgeist, people aren't going to clamor for legislators to change them.

Post: #54164

Any woman who rejects a prenuptial has seriously considered leaving you.

Post: #54165

(12-21-2016 07:15 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  <SNIP>

Quote:Overwhelmingly, in my own social circles, the people who have been married, stay married. Both the men and women work on the marriage. They homeschool their kids or send them to good private schools, often at the expense of not living a wealthy lifestyle. Waiting for Family Law to change is a paper tiger spouted by MGTOW and MRA's. There's too much money at the moment being printed to keep the lawyers, social workers, etc. employed to see that cash cow disappear.

Quote:You sound like someone who thought Trump couldn't win.

Lol, Samseau you must have missed many, many posts in this thread. I've always thought Trump stood a decent chance of winning and have said so. Even took a lot of flack from my family for supporting him early on. Told even skeptical types that Trump is a convincer, he will convince many of the fence sitters. You astutely predicted his rise to power, and I give you full credit for that. Not sure how that is relevant to the point I was trying to make, but good job on the political insight?

<SNIP>

We don't use textspeak on this forum and your response seemed odd towards an established member so I checked your claim out:

Here's every single one of your posts in this thread (with others you quoted stripped out in order to be succinct). They total 5 posts. It's clear you painted a picture of yourself that your post history does not support. The absolute best endorsement you make is one that I placed in bold below, and is barely if any support to your claim:

(08-10-2016 06:44 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Color me shocked if that is actually the case. My money would have been 10-to-1 he was going to unfurl a Stop Trump the Fascist banner once he got to the top.

(05-04-2016 04:01 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  I have quite a few Asian male friends. Most of them are struggling in the dating market, no doubt. The ones that are not struggling, are actually working hard at being attractive. The ones who are perpetually single are often big-time complainers. I once knew a Korean kid. Smart guy, had a job at a tech firm here in California. Videogame addicted nerd though. Never came to the gym when I offered to spot him. Didn't work on his finances, and is still without a car. This guy would randomly send me angry text messages about how unfair girls are. I told him, if you want a woman in your life, then start being an attractive man. He just got really hostile and told me that I didn't ever have to work for it because I'm a tall, white man. Oh well, I tried to help him, but he was such a whiner.

I think Asian men can have strengths, but like any other man, they need to leverage them. In this day in age where most American women are fat and/or entitled, there's a massive competition for the few remaining attractive, feminine women. No race of men can just "show up" to the party and expect instant results. You have to work for it. Asian guys as friends have been cool in the sense that all of the ones I have are smart nerdy types, but seem underdeveloped in terms of potential. For those who are willing to listen, I try to mentor them.

(05-04-2016 02:15 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  They are tribal in the sense that they are conformist to what their subculture dictates. Tiger Moms are one example of this. I have plenty of Asians in my social circle, and they push the living hell out of education, which generally merits them good results. This is a good example of the tribe (even if on the familial level, but it extends to the group level) looking out for their own, which isn't a bad thing. More educated Asians = Better society in my book.

So how can Asians be both tribal and cucks?

Consider this:

Asians broke for Obama versus Romney 76 percent versus 23 percent. For those who aren't experts in math, that's better than a 3 to 1 ratio. Mitt is a family man, very well-educated, and financially successful. Who does that sound like? A lot of Asian-Americans. Who did these Asians vote for overwhelmingly? A community organizer (lol!). They voted in the nations first black President, a utterly unqualified and ignorant man. Obama is the product of affirmative action, without which, he and his ilk would have never risen to power in a true meritocracy. Affirmative action hurts Asians in college and in the job sectors where they are overqualified compared to black and Latino candidates. Yet they still continue to vote in huge numbers against their collective interests.

What could explain that?

I've heard everything from jealousy from white men dating Asian women to the fact that Asians, as a group, see themselves as "minority" status than "achiever" status, which puts them closer to many whites. Quite frankly, I don't have a solid explanation as to why Asians are so in love with a Democratic party that is full of SJW's that are anti-family (note the very low Asian divorce rates), love affirmative action (Hello Obama!) and in general don't do much for the Asian-American community.

Just because someone is tribal doesn't mean that they can't also be cucks. You can be tribal and act against your own self-interest. It sounds crazy, but humans backwards rationalize their choices, not always use reason and logic, then make choices.

(05-04-2016 12:51 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Trump has certainly helped her popularity, and has said as much, saying that without him, her ratings would be way, way down. He has flipped the script on her. A lot of people think she is a stuck up bitch. A lot of women I know don't like her. She has become increasingly masculine. The only people that like her are the National Review super-cucks that are hoping for a Clinton win.

She may have more money now, but Trump is going to have the last laugh if he can win the general election. Even though she'd never admit it, even if put on the torture rack, Kelly has soaked her panties for Trump. He's a ZFG Supreme Alpha that didn't take her shit. Then she want to reconcile with him, in Trump Tower, on his turf. Trump made her come to him. That's the power of frame.

(04-30-2016 08:12 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  These are harsh truths that not even Trump can speak openly of, but those in the know, know better. Can we take in some of these people? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it is in the native-born Americans' interest to let in an unlimited number, and especially if we aren't going to screen for drug dealers, gang bangers and loafers who sponge off the taxpayer doles. Just as men wise to game use game to filter out bad women, America's next administration needs filtration game to screen between good migrants and bad ones.

EDIT: Added link to thread search for his posts.

Post: #54166

(12-21-2016 07:49 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Any woman who rejects a prenuptial has seriously considered leaving you.

Pre-nups are a relatively new legal tool. I don't blame the wealthier spouse (usually the man) for wanting to get one. Still, being legalistic about marriage isn't a way to strengthen the institution. I'm more in favor of getting the government out of the whole arrangement thank you very much. Sadly, until the culture changes, I don't think the laws will change. I've asked many times, despite the valid points that many MRA's make, what actual progress in terms of getting laws changed have they actually made? If they have made any progress, I haven't heard about it, or it is very minor.

For an American man who wants to get married, he has three options:

1. Get married, no prenup.
2. Get married, with prenup.
3. Get married, but abroad, keep the wife in her home country.

Option number one is what the vast majority of American men and women do. It fits with romantic ideals of marriage and not forcing your partner to be in a contract.

Option number two is exercise mostly by wealthy or law-savvy men. Even still, I've read more than one law brief stating where the man's pre-nup was thrown out on the pretext that the wife was under duress to sign it before they were married. A large payout to the ex-wife is usually the next step. Pre-nups are far from bullet-proof from a legal standpoint, and in my opinion, don't deal with the underlying issues as to why marriages fail.

Option number three is viable only for a small percentage of American men. Most men can't afford to move abroad, or have the desire to learn a completely new culture and language. While it might work for them on the margins, it isn't something for everyone.

Which gets back to my original point: What do American men who want to get married, that don't marry abroad, really have in terms of options? I haven't really heard a lot of answers, but I'd like to hear them.

Post: #54167

@John Michael Kane

What is your "cultural and spiritual" solution to fixing marriage laws then?

As far as I can see your advice of 'get married anyway' simply prolongs the bad deal.

Simple supply and demand - if high value men refuse to get married then women themselves will be screaming at legislators to make it more fair so they have a better shot at landing a slave, I mean husband.

There's no reason why you can't simply have kids whilst not married. Unplanned pregnancies happen surprisingly often to high value men.

Post: #54168

#Hillary2020

Post: #54169

(12-21-2016 08:20 PM)Valentine Wrote:  @John Michael Kane

What is your "cultural and spiritual" solution to fixing marriage laws then?

As far as I can see your advice of 'get married anyway' simply prolongs the bad deal.

Simple supply and demand - if high value men refuse to get married then women themselves will be screaming at legislators to make it more fair so they have a better shot at landing a slave, I mean husband.

There's no reason why you can't simply have kids whilst not married. Unplanned pregnancies happen surprisingly often to high value men.

Valentine,

I propose no easy solutions, because I believe there to be no easy solutions at hand. My belief is that to fix this problem we will need a variety of long-term plans that need to be set in motion.

1. Men need to stop giving attention to women who don't deserve it. I don't care if it is a drunk slag at the bar or some Instagram attention whore. I don't care how hot she is. Stop liking her shit and hitting on her. American women writ large need to tone down their egos. Their egos are there because collectively as men we've all fed them. We've put up with fat for too long. We've also gotten too fat ourselves. Why should girlfriends and wives respect men when we don't respect ourselves?

2. We need to actually filter for women who are good for LTR, not just one-night-stands. I'm not going to sit here piously and pretend I haven't enjoyed some uncommitted sexual action in the past. Still, I know that isn't the way to maintain a civilization. When I date a girl, I test the living crap out of her. What does her social media like? Is it full of selfies, or does she take pictures with her grandparents? Is she supporting left-wing causes, or does she actually post content consistent with being a sweet, feminine woman? Social media is a glimpse into a woman's soul. Many men who claim to be duped by women could have seen the handwriting on the Social Media Wall a long time ago if they only but looked and tested. How about exercise? If you take your girlfriend on a long-camping trip, does she bitch about the rough spots or when she's tired? Does she eat a healthy diet? What are her friends like? Catty or wholesome? How many men actually vet their women? I'd say they are in the severe minority. That needs to change, and that's on each one of us as individual men.

3. Samseau is all for pushing for the changing of marriage and family law to be more fair. I'm all for that in theory, but how are we going to pull it off in actuality? Unlike filtering and running LTR game on a girlfriend/wife, I have no direct control over how California Family Law Statutes are written or enforced. I could marry a girl in a more friendly Family Law state to minimize risks. Still, in the near term, with all the feminist media (all major cable networks, the newspapers, magazines, most online news journals, etc), where's the push going to come from to actually get the laws changed? I want the laws to change, but I'm on record in stating that we need more Breitbarts and alternative media outlets to smash the current media cartels. Public opinion about Family Law will change when our voice is being heard. RVF and ROK are great outlets for that change, but they are still minority voices in the grand scheme of things. We need to grow RVF, and I recently applauded Roosh for opening the doors to registration recently, even though it let in a few trolls. Those of us who have been here for several years reported them and life went on. We still need more alternative media. I think we're moving in the right direction, as there's quite a few good alternative Youtube/Twitter/Facebook channels, but even those major companies can always clamp down on censorship at any moment. We need more original websites and platforms to get our message out there. With Trump in the White House, and Bannon close by, I'm hopeful. Still, the media, Ivory Towers and all the other entrenched interests aren't giving up easily. We need to amplify our attacks, and spread our message.

As for prolonging the bad deal regarding getting married, yes, that is a valid argument to make. If you look over the three proposed options, you just added a 4th to the mix. I've worked in the financial industry around wealthy clients. Overwhelmingly wealthy men get married, some with pre-nup, some without. I've read their trusts. Bottom line is, in the wealthy ranks of the American rich, getting married is a sign of status. It is a bond. Wealthy people tend to have close social circles. The idea of having kids with a woman you won't marry wouldn't even register with most of them. I sincerely doubt from my own time spent interacting with wealthy individuals that the men are going to stage a marriage boycott anytime soon. The least married class of men are working class. These are men that many women don't find particularly attractive. Sorry, but you can't boycott if you weren't attracting anyone in the first place. That's where MGTOW gets it wrong. If a middle-class man decides to have kids with his girlfriend but refuses to marry, that is certainly one legal strategy, and one that offers him some protection. Still, does that encourage the fixing of marriage? It just seems like a rather hapless solution to say the least. I'd say a better option is to teach men game, make them more attractive, and hold women more accountable in the dating stages. I can't begin to tell you all the stories I've heard from men I've tried to mentor over the years on how much pussy worship they've committed during the dating stages. By the time they are married, they are already finished!

I'm all for more ideas as to how we can fix this mess. You just suggested a 4th option. That's what I'm waiting for from the other posters in this thread. I'm a 32 year old American man who wishes to have a family. What do you suggest I do? I'm all ears!

Post: #54170

   

Post: #54171

Phocking CNN " Trump may be emulating Nixon's Madman Theory" After AC360 fat bezatch on the Panel in Hysterical meltdown how Trump o my getting weekly briefings when they are labeled prez daily briefings... Oh my oh no it's supposed such a dangerous world... Yeah Hitlery and Obozo the clown serving Soros and the ((((Globalists))))) agenda made it Dangerous. Trump went to NYMA and was trIained by Majors Colonels and Generals a admires and respects them and knows they do not have to be micro managed like a community organizer and his twatted staff Alinsky ruled by radicalz Marxist Feminists.

Just the opposite the 4 Star Flag Generals and Admirals will keep a lid on things ... Work with capitalist Russia to contain Communist Red Phucking China and rebuild the USAs strategic industrial manufacturing base with new nationwide infrastructure and powerful new military financed by American Tech Stem and energy innovation. The arrogant Red Chinese Commies have overplayed their had and shot their was along with their shriveled evil Clintoxic Globalists. The 21st Century is now the NEw GREAT AMERICAN century. ...

Post: #54172

Regarding #1 and #2, these could be in our favour. Pump and dump. The market quickly responds to it's customers, so as long as men don't wife these hoes then it doesn't conflict with the goal of improving marriage laws. They realise that what they're doing isn't getting men lining up to marry them so they'll change (and if they don't their younger sisters or the next generation will see these cat ladies and choose to avoid their fate).

#3 agreed, the end of the Old Media will have a massive effect on the culture.

#4 wealthy men also have such vast resources that getting divorced isn't nearly as much of a threat to them. For the common man however we need to be sensible. The working class are responding to the lack of incentives appropriately, but too many men are still walking straight into the meat grinder.

As for what to do, vote with your actions. Either have kids whilst unmarried, move to a state with better marriage laws or move to a different country. Accepting a bad deal isn't doing anyone any favours.

Post: #54173

(12-21-2016 09:09 PM)Valentine Wrote:  Regarding #1 and #2, these could be in our favour. Pump and dump. The market quickly responds to it's customers, so as long as men don't wife these hoes then it doesn't conflict with the goal of improving marriage laws. They realise that what they're doing isn't getting men lining up to marry them so they'll change (and if they don't their younger sisters or the next generation will see these cat ladies and choose to avoid their fate).

I've thought about that option before, but I really don't think men will ever completely abandon marriage in significant numbers to radically change womens' collective behavior. I could be wrong, but I've seen so many beta males that are desperate for female companionship that they aren't going to form an effective boycott.

Quote:#3 agreed, the end of the Old Media will have a massive effect on the culture.

What Roosh and all the other contributors do here is the Lord's Work, no doubt. Thank God for the internet.

Quote:#4 wealthy men also have such vast resources that getting divorced isn't nearly as much of a threat to them. For the common man however we need to be sensible. The working class are responding to the lack of incentives appropriately, but too many men are still walking straight into the meat grinder.

Many of the working men are saddled with crazy child support payments, even as they rake in poor wages. Their lack of participation in marriage hasn't saved them from misery. That's why I think we need more of a cultural and spiritual narrative that suggests marriage should be run by a man, and that women need to get on board with that message. I attend a very conservative church that preaches that. My pastor has balls, unlike many others. We need a revolution from the pulpit, RVF, social media and all other outlets to push a counter-narrative.

Quote:As for what to do, vote with your actions. Either have kids whilst unmarried, move to a state with better marriage laws or move to a different country. Accepting a bad deal isn't doing anyone any favours.

Agreed. Which is why I am researching all my options instead of quickly pulling the trigger. An American man in 2017 that wants to have to get married and/or have a family has his work cut out for him. I come from a very happy family with two great parents, and I know the sacrifices they made for me, and how it helped me be the man I am today. On the inside, not finding a woman and having kids at all is ultimately an act of defeatism to the leftists who hate strong families. Fuck them! I will have a family regardless of the struggles it takes to get there. It is my belief that a man becomes stronger, the tougher the challenge. Not sure of a more tough challenge than going for family life in 2017 America.

I brought this up because in spite of Trump's faults, the man appears to care deeply about his family. I really admire that about him as an individual. He has loyalty and has mentored each one of his kids to stay out of trouble and teach them the family business. We can't all be super rich like Trump, but he certainly has game down on a very expert level, which includes LTR game. I say emulate and cut out your own legacy with your own family. Hopefully in the coming years we'll see a change in the law. In the mean time, we have to fight a more covert warfare against the culture, and more directly, screen for better women!

Post: #54174

(12-21-2016 07:08 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Donald Trumpsson, the Viking warrior

Post: #54175

(12-21-2016 08:43 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  I'm all for more ideas as to how we can fix this mess. You just suggested a 4th option. That's what I'm waiting for from the other posters in this thread. I'm a 32 year old American man who wishes to have a family. What do you suggest I do? I'm all ears!

Pump and dump sluts in liberal population centers until your game is tight and you have a decent bank roll, then move to a conservative state with a low cost of living and decent women to raise a neo patriarchal dynasty. Thats my plan anyway.