Post: #1

Its undeniable that there is a lot of anti success rhetoric coming at us from all different angles. So many films and t.v shows, depict rich people as being evil, lacking morals or pathetic in one way or the other. The ones who are the worse for this sort of mindset are ironically enough the middle classes.

I have lost count of the middle class I knew of, who could have really gone far in life. But they volunteer to hold themselves back, some outright do so because of some political affiliation. If you go to most student nights in the U.K, you will be granted to see middle class kids jumping up and down, singing along to the "common people".

But then there are a lot who dress down, and go out of their way to pick up degenerate behaviour. I remember plenty of girls who would go out of their way to have sex with men who were known scumbags. Not even successful scumbags, I am talking about the dumbest criminals. This is in line with the rise of tattoos, especially on the stateside, everyone has them. Its an identification with the so called down and out, to say that "I am one of you".

Of course, a lot probably see this is as some sort of act of rebellion, but when you tread a path so many times, and it becomes accepted, there is no real way of turning back. Which is why slowly but surely, you are seeing a decline in standards and virtues.

There was recently a thread sent to me by a RVF member about the 21 habits successful people hold. And it all makes complete sense. I went through the state school system, and it was only when I spent time around international business students, that I really had an understanding of how to attain success. Creating your own culture, your own inner circle so to speak.

As most people, are toxic in this sense and I believe a lot of it comes down to the culture, which has somehow taken on a new testament form of alturism and combined it with this cultural revolution, 1960s bullsh*t.



The purpose of this thread is to discuss, what actually happened, and how you can insulate yourself from some harmful outside influences.

Post: #2

I think the power of the sexual drive is underestimated by economists. Heartiste calls the current era of decline the age of the "renegade alpha." Which really means sigma/outlaw/"bad-boy", etc. Consciously or unconsciously, guys will pick up on it and copy those traits which attract women.

Post: #3

(09-28-2014 10:05 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  The purpose of this thread is to discuss, what actually happened, and how you can insulate yourself from some harmful outside influences.

Easy, remove all influences that don't help you attain what is most important to you.

Everything else is pure crab mentality. People want to think their choices in life were right and in order for them to do it they want to push those choices onto everyone else.

The more people making the same choices validates them and they feel all happy.

Post: #4

I think it's a natural consequence of a stagnating economy. When times are booming (e.g. the mid 80s and late 90s) success is something people feel they can realistically achieve. They see their peers become insanely wealthy overnight and think, "why not me?". On the other hand when things are stagnating it becomes very difficult for people to see the route to success. Salaries for the middle class have shrunken moderately in nominal terms and significantly when compared to the top earners. Working hard and being able to afford a nice home, a decent car, college tuition for the kids and a healthy retirement used to be a very realistic objective. Today it just isn't for most people. The natural response is to make it ok not to try.

Personally I see it in my own salary structure. It used to be that most companies offered their employees generous short term and long term incentives. The marginal return on an extra hour of work was very real. Although I get paid well my short term incentive is nominally 5% of my base salary and maxes out at 10% and my company offers no long term incentive. If I make the company a ton of money I see very little of it. This past year my team of 4 people was directly responsible for $5 million in variable margin and an estimated $20-25 million over the next 4 years. We did this on a shoestring budget - spending less than $25k in capital and completing the project in about 6 months. In return for our efforts myself and the engineer on the project got a $100 gift certificate to the company store. The project manager and team lead both got polo shirts and a thank you plaque. Why would I ever bust my ass for the company again? Why would I mentor younger employees to bust their asses? The return just isn't worth it.

People recognize on some subconscious level that society is sick. I think girls hooking up with obvious losers is a reflection of this as well. The types of people historically successful in today's society might not be in tomorrows. Their instincts are telling them to diversify away from what is culturally considered 'good' because the society is sick and doesn't know what's good anymore.

Post: #5

Define rich.

For some it means being an expat, for others it means being Hooligan Harry/Gringuito

Post: #6

Society has always been about "anti-success"

Society wants you to be a worker drone furthering its own goals, content with being rich (as in middle-class) rather than an independent thinker who can see through society's lies and rise to the elite 1%+

If too many people could see the chains and shackles and thought control that society exerts, that would spell the doom for society and the elite status quo. Can't have that.

Post: #7

(09-28-2014 11:14 AM)monster Wrote:  Society wants you to be a worker drone furthering its own goals, content with being rich (as in middle-class) rather than an independent thinker who can see through society's lies and rise to the elite 1%+

I dunno, it seems like today the idea of being a worker drone isn't in vogue. I don't know anybody who wants to just do a 9-5 for the rest of their lives. I also don't think there's a direct correlation between being able to see through society's lies and rising to the elite. I know most of what we hear is bullshit but I don't know what to do about it.

Post: #8

Because it's much easier to be an average loser. Success in any facet of life (game, business, etc.) takes a fair amount of commitment. You need to be willing to put in the hours, but more importantly, you need to be willing to fail time and again. The thing that separates successes from failures is if you learn from your mistakes.

A loser will try something once or twice, fail once or twice, not learn, and give up. A successful person will try something once or twice, fail, learn, try again, fail again, learn, and eventually succeed.

Post: #9

(09-28-2014 10:51 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  Easy, remove all influences that don't help you attain what is most important to you.

Everything else is pure crab mentality. People want to think their choices in life were right and in order for them to do it they want to push those choices onto everyone else.

The more people making the same choices validates them and they feel all happy.

This thread asks a very good question that I've asked more times than I can count over the last few years. I'm putting a TL;DR response at the bottom.

I think there's more than just "pure crab mentality". Success, at many levels, means that you end up separate from fellow members of whatever affinity group you belong to, and that's a harder blow than people realize. Not that long ago in western societies, you worked hard, got a decent position, and you stayed a part of your society, or moved and joined a more or less comparable group. If you did better than that, you moved up into known other groups (Country Clubs, political party slots, trade associations, etc.).

Now, with the fragmentation caused by the cheapest transportation, communication, and financial technologies in recorded history, you're giving up your affinity group for..what? Can you join the local Harvard club? Does the local country club have anything to offer you other than a tee time? Does the local chamber of commerce remember your name if you're not old money? Do you even want to lower yourself to local political office? You can't hang around the bar with your co-workers anymore, and your home life, if anything to speak of, is unlikely to be all that pleasant.

Any reference group you get from the media is worthless, and that's assuming you don't get sucked into the MTV/HBO "party life" shows. You're not going to know people who "made it", because they aren't going to hang around with people who don't want them around.

Most of the stereotypical success stories you hear locally (not Silicon Valley or Wall Street) are either the local sports kid who made it (rare) or the kid who made it to the right schools and got a great job. Both of which require that someone's on the road to success with a very motivated and resourceful support structure before the age of 14, at the latest. That's not something you see everyday in the last few decades.

TL;DR: To take success in anything but the "traditional path" is a road that has little social support, and you effectively give up all of your social connections. That's a road few are willing to drive far as it takes.

Post: #10

There have been some good points so far, so I won't cover the same ground. I will point out two other things though.

Firstly, Western society is still Judeo-Christian at its root. Cultural Marxism, socialism and secularism have merely inherited much of that, minus the God part. There is a certain thread in Christianity that is anti-wealth and so on. Socialism has definitely inherited that.

The second point regards the OP mentioning how the rich are portrayed in TV and the movies. I actually think that is somewhat of a pressure release valve. It's absurd, obviously, when people in Hollywood (actors, producers and directors) make movies about rich people living decadent lives and so on, because those people in Hollywood are those rich people leading decadent lives and so on. Likewise, when clowns like Al Gore make documentaries about the global warming and then fly all over the planet in jets it is also absurd. That's not the point though. It's partly about status and morality signalling (certain left wing causes being high-status), but I believe a lot of it is distraction. Slacktivists can watch the latest Elysium-esque movie and get all riled up for two hours, then they can go back to buying the latest mePhone or some other consumer shit. It's like voting. It's all a distraction. It makes them think someone cares and that someone is listening, that the average Joe is important and involved. That's enough to release their angst. If these kinds of things didn't exist, then they might actually take real action.

Post: #11

Did something actually happen?

Losers have always hated on winners. It's not clear that losers in our culture hate on winners any more than losers hated on winners 200 years ago, 2000 years ago or even 20,000 years ago.

Post: #12

(09-28-2014 02:49 PM)Dragonstone Wrote:  TL;DR: To take success in anything but the "traditional path" is a road that has little social support, and you effectively give up all of your social connections. That's a road few are willing to drive far as it takes.

That is why I consider it crab mentality. There is no reason why the majority of people around you/us can't support someone who is trying to better their life. We are talking about someone who these people supposedly care about yet they would rather see them held back for fear they may fail while deep down also fearing they will succeed.

Most people either can't can't conceive of massive success or don't want to see someone else reaching their potential when they haven't even tried. It's a smack of cold water to their face.

The idea that life can be more can be upsetting to many.

The road is tough and it takes a mental toughness to continue to believe in yourself when most people don't. You need a clear vision to guide yourself because, for the most part, you are on your own.

Post: #13

Successful people have always been hate don however I definately agree ther'es much more a hate the rich hate those who are successful sentiment going on today. Who would have thought that politics would turn into anyone who's rich or has multiple houses is attacked for that reason solely. I can see if you run some business that preys on people to make your money but legitimate businessmen are hated for having success as if they are bad people.

It's easier to be lazy than it is to try to strive for success. Government has been steaily increasingly propping up losers and hating on winners, society seems to be adapting and following that mode of thinking.

Post: #14

(09-28-2014 10:05 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  Its undeniable that there is a lot of anti success rhetoric coming at us from all different angles. So many films and t.v shows, depict rich people as being evil, lacking morals or pathetic in one way or the other. The ones who are the worse for this sort of mindset are ironically enough the middle classes.

I have lost count of the middle class I knew of, who could have really gone far in life. But they volunteer to hold themselves back, some outright do so because of some political affiliation. If you go to most student nights in the U.K, you will be granted to see middle class kids jumping up and down, singing along to the "common people".

But then there are a lot who dress down, and go out of their way to pick up degenerate behaviour. I remember plenty of girls who would go out of their way to have sex with men who were known scumbags. Not even successful scumbags, I am talking about the dumbest criminals. This is in line with the rise of tattoos, especially on the stateside, everyone has them. Its an identification with the so called down and out, to say that "I am one of you".

Of course, a lot probably see this is as some sort of act of rebellion, but when you tread a path so many times, and it becomes accepted, there is no real way of turning back. Which is why slowly but surely, you are seeing a decline in standards and virtues.

There was recently a thread sent to me by a RVF member about the 21 habits successful people hold. And it all makes complete sense. I went through the state school system, and it was only when I spent time around international business students, that I really had an understanding of how to attain success. Creating your own culture, your own inner circle so to speak.

As most people, are toxic in this sense and I believe a lot of it comes down to the culture, which has somehow taken on a new testament form of alturism and combined it with this cultural revolution, 1960s bullsh*t.



The purpose of this thread is to discuss, what actually happened, and how you can insulate yourself from some harmful outside influences.

I think it can be boiled down to one simple cause....more money... doesn't necessarily lead to getting more pussy....well not like it used to anyway..unless of course you live overseas.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycott...1594036756

Post: #15

As for when it started, we can all look back to when all kids began receiving participation trophies.
In the real world there are winners and losers, and growing up denying this very fact puts off any chance of self-improvement.
That way, once you're grown up, you're filled with envy, spite and sour grapes.

Way to go, parents and teachers.

"Envy is an affront to ambition." -- Somebody on the internet

Post: #16

(09-29-2014 03:06 PM)Sombro Wrote:  As for when it started, we can all look back to when all kids began receiving participation trophies.
In the real world there are winners and losers, and growing up denying this very fact puts off any chance of self-improvement.
That way, once you're grown up, you're filled with envy, spite and sour grapes.

Way to go, parents and teachers.

"Envy is an affront to ambition." -- Somebody on the internet

Bingo.

People who are only framing it in terms of wealth are missing the larger picture. It's not just anti-success, it's anti-excellence, in all matters. That is why now we have the horrible crime of "elitism". The rubes are always quick to accuse someone of elitism. Everything that is good or excellent is "elitist".

Elitism of course just means accepting that the better is preferable to the worse. Being rich is better than being poor. Being educated is better than being uneducated. Being smart is better than being a moron. Being fit and well groomed is better than being a slob. But of course the minute someone dares to say the pitchforks come out. What, you think you're better than me just because you poured your blood, sweat and tears into bettering yourself and I didn't? How dare you make me feel inadequate by not indulging in my bullshit fantasies!

It's a loser's attitude because you handicap yourself right from the beginning just because you can't get your ego in control . The first step toward improving yourself is admitting that you are deficient, or that there is room for improvement. And let's face it, there is always room for improvement.

I have a somewhat skeptical view of Nietzsche but I think he was right on the money when he talked about resentment and the reversal of values(or whatever he called it).

Post: #17

The easiest way for the weak-minded, less capable and lazy to not feel inferior and climb the stairs of hierarchy themselves, is to try to push the strong and successful people down while pushing themselves up without even trying.

The whole democracy and "equality" has been built for the weaker, lazier and inferior to raise in ranks. Equality is a concept of the average people to compete in the natural hierarchy of the society - "equality" is ultimately a tool, a weapon of the liars. It is not about equality because understand that not a single concept/idea is never about the thing itself. Democracy and the whole western society is a system which promotes the weak and hinders the strong. Then they call this good "just because".

If you want to climb the stairs excellence and success then you picked up the wrong society because the western society doesn't only give you extra weight through taxes and regulations, the general attitude is also completely against you - you are continuously shamed for being a real man who follows his desires.

Post: #18

(09-30-2014 08:05 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  The whole democracy and "equality" has been built for the weaker, lazier and inferior to raise in ranks. Equality is a concept of the average people to compete in the natural hierarchy of the society - "equality" is ultimately a tool, a weapon of the liars. It is not about equality because understand that not a single concept/idea is never about the thing itself. Democracy and the whole western society is a system which promotes the weak and hinders the strong. Then they call this good "just because".

Equality of opportunity is absolutely essential to a dynamic and healthy society. I do not mean equality of outcome. Ideally, every kid should have the opportunity to attend schools which educate them and gain the opportunity to compete for spots their natural talents and hard work qualify them for.

How soon we forget the problems with inequality. 100 years ago, the ruling class of the dominant power on earth, the British Empire, was largely hereditary. For a long time, officers in the British Army bought their commissions and promotions. Pedigreed social class and connections were far more important than performance. For an entertaining look at that system see the Flashman novels.

The promotion of pedigreed incompetents to senior rank led to several military disasters, including Balaclava and the Somme. Eventually the British Empire bled itself into morbidity until the system changed somewhat during and after WW II out of necessity and the lower classes were given some opportunity to rise.

Post: #19

(09-30-2014 08:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:05 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  The whole democracy and "equality" has been built for the weaker, lazier and inferior to raise in ranks. Equality is a concept of the average people to compete in the natural hierarchy of the society - "equality" is ultimately a tool, a weapon of the liars. It is not about equality because understand that not a single concept/idea is never about the thing itself. Democracy and the whole western society is a system which promotes the weak and hinders the strong. Then they call this good "just because".

Equality of opportunity is absolutely essential to a dynamic and healthy society. I do not mean equality of outcome. Ideally, every kid should have the opportunity to attend schools which educate them and gain the opportunity to compete for spots their natural talents and hard work qualify them for.

How soon we forget the problems with inequality. 100 years ago, the ruling class of the dominant power on earth, the British Empire, was largely hereditary. For a long time, officers in the British Army bought their commissions and promotions. Pedigreed social class and connections were far more important than performance. For an entertaining look at that system see the Flashman novels.

The promotion of pedigreed incompetents to senior rank led to several military disasters, including Balaclava and the Somme. Eventually the British Empire bled itself into morbidity until the system changed somewhat during and after WW II out of necessity and the lower classes were given some opportunity to rise.

How's that worked out for Britain then? I mean comparing where they were at -- militarily, scientifically, economically, culturally -- in the nineteenth and twentieth/twenty first centuries?

Post: #20

(09-30-2014 11:31 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:05 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  The whole democracy and "equality" has been built for the weaker, lazier and inferior to raise in ranks. Equality is a concept of the average people to compete in the natural hierarchy of the society - "equality" is ultimately a tool, a weapon of the liars. It is not about equality because understand that not a single concept/idea is never about the thing itself. Democracy and the whole western society is a system which promotes the weak and hinders the strong. Then they call this good "just because".

Equality of opportunity is absolutely essential to a dynamic and healthy society. I do not mean equality of outcome. Ideally, every kid should have the opportunity to attend schools which educate them and gain the opportunity to compete for spots their natural talents and hard work qualify them for.

How soon we forget the problems with inequality. 100 years ago, the ruling class of the dominant power on earth, the British Empire, was largely hereditary. For a long time, officers in the British Army bought their commissions and promotions. Pedigreed social class and connections were far more important than performance. For an entertaining look at that system see the Flashman novels.

The promotion of pedigreed incompetents to senior rank led to several military disasters, including Balaclava and the Somme. Eventually the British Empire bled itself into morbidity until the system changed somewhat during and after WW II out of necessity and the lower classes were given some opportunity to rise.

How's that worked out for Britain then? I mean comparing where they were at -- militarily, scientifically, economically, culturally -- in the nineteenth and twentieth/twenty first centuries?

They were a crippled nation by 1919. They've been hobbling along since then, with the USA's help. Now they're another European nation, not an empire.

The Great War hurt them a lot more than any post WW II social changes did. The lingering effect of debt, disillusionment and destruction of resources.

The Great War is a great argument against the concept of aristocracy.

Post: #21

(09-30-2014 12:07 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:31 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:05 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  The whole democracy and "equality" has been built for the weaker, lazier and inferior to raise in ranks. Equality is a concept of the average people to compete in the natural hierarchy of the society - "equality" is ultimately a tool, a weapon of the liars. It is not about equality because understand that not a single concept/idea is never about the thing itself. Democracy and the whole western society is a system which promotes the weak and hinders the strong. Then they call this good "just because".

Equality of opportunity is absolutely essential to a dynamic and healthy society. I do not mean equality of outcome. Ideally, every kid should have the opportunity to attend schools which educate them and gain the opportunity to compete for spots their natural talents and hard work qualify them for.

How soon we forget the problems with inequality. 100 years ago, the ruling class of the dominant power on earth, the British Empire, was largely hereditary. For a long time, officers in the British Army bought their commissions and promotions. Pedigreed social class and connections were far more important than performance. For an entertaining look at that system see the Flashman novels.

The promotion of pedigreed incompetents to senior rank led to several military disasters, including Balaclava and the Somme. Eventually the British Empire bled itself into morbidity until the system changed somewhat during and after WW II out of necessity and the lower classes were given some opportunity to rise.

How's that worked out for Britain then? I mean comparing where they were at -- militarily, scientifically, economically, culturally -- in the nineteenth and twentieth/twenty first centuries?

They were a crippled nation by 1919. They've been hobbling along since then, with the USA's help. Now they're another European nation, not an empire.

The Great War hurt them a lot more than any post WW II social changes did. The lingering effect of debt, disillusionment and destruction of resources.

The Great War is a great argument against the concept of aristocracy.

And the nineteenth century? e.g. this rather unimpressive aristocrat.

Post: #22

(09-30-2014 12:13 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 12:07 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:31 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:05 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  The whole democracy and "equality" has been built for the weaker, lazier and inferior to raise in ranks. Equality is a concept of the average people to compete in the natural hierarchy of the society - "equality" is ultimately a tool, a weapon of the liars. It is not about equality because understand that not a single concept/idea is never about the thing itself. Democracy and the whole western society is a system which promotes the weak and hinders the strong. Then they call this good "just because".

Equality of opportunity is absolutely essential to a dynamic and healthy society. I do not mean equality of outcome. Ideally, every kid should have the opportunity to attend schools which educate them and gain the opportunity to compete for spots their natural talents and hard work qualify them for.

How soon we forget the problems with inequality. 100 years ago, the ruling class of the dominant power on earth, the British Empire, was largely hereditary. For a long time, officers in the British Army bought their commissions and promotions. Pedigreed social class and connections were far more important than performance. For an entertaining look at that system see the Flashman novels.

The promotion of pedigreed incompetents to senior rank led to several military disasters, including Balaclava and the Somme. Eventually the British Empire bled itself into morbidity until the system changed somewhat during and after WW II out of necessity and the lower classes were given some opportunity to rise.

How's that worked out for Britain then? I mean comparing where they were at -- militarily, scientifically, economically, culturally -- in the nineteenth and twentieth/twenty first centuries?

They were a crippled nation by 1919. They've been hobbling along since then, with the USA's help. Now they're another European nation, not an empire.

The Great War hurt them a lot more than any post WW II social changes did. The lingering effect of debt, disillusionment and destruction of resources.

The Great War is a great argument against the concept of aristocracy.

And the nineteenth century? e.g. this rather unimpressive aristocrat.

By "aristocrat" I do not mean people honored for achievement, like Isambard's father was. I mean hereditary privilege. I doubt hereditary peers would consider the Brunels as "members of the club."

Scientific endeavor and business were among the only means for commoners to rise.

Post: #23

(09-29-2014 03:09 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Did something actually happen?

Losers have always hated on winners. It's not clear that losers in our culture hate on winners any more than losers hated on winners 200 years ago, 2000 years ago or even 20,000 years ago.

It's always been an element of every society, but the modern cult of victim worship has definitely expanded it.

Post: #24

(09-30-2014 08:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Equality of opportunity is absolutely essential to a dynamic and healthy society. I do not mean equality of outcome. Ideally, every kid should have the opportunity to attend schools which educate them and gain the opportunity to compete for spots their natural talents and hard work qualify them for.

I said the word "equality" and like a robot, it produced a defense reaction to protect that lie (all concepts are fundamentally just lies because they are opinions).

I don't care what is "good" or essential. I just say how I feel I see it.

The equality is a concept to hinder the strong. The western democracy wants to keep me in chains and that's the reality. I want to have superiority over myself, I want to be my own authority - if you believe in the lies of the weak, lazy and incapable, then you are not living for "equality" or any other concept which elevate the weak and hinder the strong. You are being the submissive one and chaining yourself to words for no other reason than because someone sold you a silly idea.

Unless you are the weak, lazy and incapable... then you are a genius. But I am not, and as a man I don't want to give authority of myself to anyone else, even if they are stronger than me, I will fight.

Post: #25

(09-30-2014 08:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  How soon we forget the problems with inequality. 100 years ago, the ruling class of the dominant power on earth, the British Empire, was largely hereditary. For a long time, officers in the British Army bought their commissions and promotions. Pedigreed social class and connections were far more important than performance. For an entertaining look at that system see the Flashman novels.

Haha, I love those books! Flashman is one of the funniest literary characters ever. That series (or at least the first one) should be on the official RVF reading list.