Post: #51

There aren't enough women who are marriage material. The ones who are have enough orbiters to fill the colosseum.

If they want to fix this, the government should implement an immigration program only for attractive women. It will never happen, but it should at least be discussed.

Post: #52

(03-12-2015 01:37 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  I went to Colombia, I saw poor families with 4, 5 kids and they seemed relatively happy.

But nobody wants the standard of living of the average Colombian. The "poor but happy" thing doesn't work for me. Most of urban Colombia is a dump.



Having lots of kids in these countries means more workers bringing in meager wages. That's the only way the poor can get by in the absence of any social welfare system.

Post: #53

Another thing to point out is that all those single women in their 20s and 30s are not only making more money than the men their age but they are sitting in the jobs that those future husbands of theirs would have had 50 years ago which would have made them marriage material. Feminists like to claim it isn't a zero-sum game but it is. There are only so many jobs, and even fewer good jobs. Just like there are only so many slots for medical school or law school. For every woman who gains a slot, a man was denied an opportunity. So when you hear them complain about "the lack of good men" you might remind them about how the reason their doctor hasn't shown up to marry them yet is because her slutty room mate in college got his slot into medical school.

Post: #54

(03-12-2015 11:07 AM)RIslander Wrote:  This will lead to an effort to destroy the bachelor.

Bachelor taxes
Implementation of 'common law' spouses
Bachelor shaming

The government will be forced by the future feminist agenda to pressure bachelors into marriage. The other option is to make marriage attractive again and a worthwhile investment. Which path do you think will be chosen?

Bachelor taxes? Sure, pussy motivates a man...but money is the next biggest motivator. And if a man knows he has to fork up more money just cause he is not shacking up with pussy, there will be a revolt. Even alphas will revolt against it, not just betas.

Common law marriage? Just don't live with a woman or have kids with her.

Bachelor shaming? Just another societal shit-test from disgruntled negative women and white knights for men to over come.

Post: #55

(03-12-2015 01:48 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Kind of reminds me of when people complain about Uber surge pricing, and blame Uber. Apparently these people think it is 'wrong' that people would only come out and drive their cars for passengers at 2am on Saturaday night at a higher price, and that Uber should just keep the price the same. As one of the Uber directors put it: "sure we can do that, and you'll all be staring at your Uber screens at 2am reading 'no cars available'".

Basically what the Left complains about is that they cannot enslave men. They want the ability to fuck men over, give them a raw deal, and force them to take the deal nonetheless. They want to be like a salesman who, should the customer not like the deal he offers, puts a gun in their face and says "it's a good deal; you'll be taking it".

Sometimes I fantasize about having a wife. To forget about 'I want this one, I want that one', and just have one really nice woman lying in my bed every night instead of the frivolity of chasing, fast lays, and moving on. A girly affectionate woman who doesn't agitate for conflict, who likes doing things for her man, who has good morals and character. I even fantasized once about coming back from work and walking up to the front door of a nice house I owned, imagining the streets and the weather as it was in my birth town, and seeing my wife greeting me at the door wearing a nice dress and smiling, having shuffled our kids off to their den, giving me a kiss, sitting down with me on the couch for a chat and handing me my favourite drink, then returning to getting the dinner ready. No one can tell me that that sentiment is wrong. No one can tell me that when a girl cooks me a dinner, that happiness I feel is some form of deviancy.

Instead of this, this most natural human process that has occurred so easily since the dawn of time, I have to expend immense amounts of time, effort, research and planning, traveling around the world, self-improvement, to attempt to get to anywhere near this. I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Left. Those evil fuckers ceased doing anything but wrong a long time ago. Every single thing they do sends us down the path of degeneracy and social malaise. The Left are degeneracy. They are the self-sustaining fire that burns a building to the ground.

Excellent, just excellent.

We are all stuck having to game women because of the degeneracy from the left.

I enjoy learning about women, and about life, and about other subjects. But I shouldn't have to spend my free time and energy using game just to get what is a normal process in life, and then come up with far less in the end.

My free time and energy should be spent on far better pursuits. And by that, I mean having kids and teaching them what I know and enjoying every second of watching them learn it. Because in the end, that is what men do. We build, we create, and we pass that knowledge on. And the risks/benefit of having kids/marriage in the west has been destroyed.

And the sad thing is, it some how manages to continue to get worse and worse.

Post: #56

It wont be long before the women in the US go to big daddy government to get the support they are entitled to from those born with a Y chromosome. Look for more laws leading to common law marriage after shorter periods of cohabitation and increased taxes to pay for more social programs/childcare.

The sad thing is the betas and gammas will be paying to support these women's offspring without even getting the chance to get their dick wet... Ah well enjoy the decline!

Post: #57

(03-12-2015 02:11 PM)Troll King Wrote:  Another thing to point out is that all those single women in their 20s and 30s are not only making more money than the men their age but they are sitting in the jobs that those future husbands of theirs would have had 50 years ago which would have made them marriage material. Feminists like to claim it isn't a zero-sum game but it is. There are only so many jobs, and even fewer good jobs. Just like there are only so many slots for medical school or law school. For every woman who gains a slot, a man was denied an opportunity. So when you hear them complain about "the lack of good men" you might remind them about how the reason their doctor hasn't shown up to marry them yet is because her slutty room mate in college got his slot into medical school.

It's funny how women are cognitively dissonant that they demand 'equality' yet are completely unattracted to any man who is inferior to them whether it be his job or his physical stature.
If a man makes less money than her, she mostly wont be attracted to him much less marry him. She recognizes its a bad deal. So a truly smart, 'empowered' woman with a good job already has a narrower pool of men to marry.

Women are attracted to superiority. The quotas at med schools have ensured the number of bachelor male doctors is being widdled down.
These bitches deserve what they get when they can't find a husband.

This wise older woman took heat for recommending women be paid less and men be paid more
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ap-between

Quote:As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do. As such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married because they will be “unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."
The solution, obviously, is to increase the pay gap so that men will earn more than women so that women, in turn, will have a better opportunity to find husbands.

Everyone mocked this older woman for advocating women be paid less, but her logic is coming to fruition and hitting women hard. Women with good jobs are having a hard time finding husbands.

Post: #58

(03-12-2015 02:58 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  This wise older woman took heat for recommending women be paid less and men be paid more
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ap-between

Quote:As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do. As such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married because they will be “unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.”

What happened to this woman's hamster? Is it on strike, or did one of her cats eat it?!?

Post: #59

Shes 90, so she was 19 in 1943. Growing up with hardship and building a country after a war invariably gives you some red pill views on the world.

Women's issues[edit]
Main article: Phyllis Schlafly's social policies

Schlafly told Time magazine in 1978, "I have cancelled speeches whenever my husband thought that I had been away from home too much."

In March 2007, Schlafly said in a speech at Bates College, "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape."
In a March 30, 2006, interview, Schlafly attributed improvement in women's lives during the last decades of the 20th century to labor-saving devices such as the indoor clothes dryer and paper diapers.[43]

She called Roe v. Wade "the worst decision in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court" and said that it "is responsible for the killing of millions of unborn babies".[44]

Considering 1/4 to 1/3 of American women are on anti-depressants, Id say women should heed Phyllis Schlafly's recommendations.

She should write a guest article on ROK, that would be money

Post: #60

Everyone mentions divorce law as the ultimate marriage deterrent, but that can be negated by a prenup.

I can think of a much better deterrent: fatpocalypse. I notice that few girls under 30 are actually obese--the ones who are tend to be cartoonishly delusional and fucked in the head--but very, very few are thin and fit either. Most younger girls I see are just a tad on the chubby side; that is, they do just enough to get by without completely fucking up their prospects.

What do you think will happen to these "just enough to get by" girls when they have the lower metabolism associated with aging, and the comfort/complacency associated with marriage?


I would estimate that 80-90% current young women will be too fat to be attractive once they get well into their 30's. Can you imagine anything more depressing than being a fit, hard-working man in the prime of his life tethered to someone like the woman pictured above? THAT is why I'm scared of marriage.

Post: #61

Schlafly's view on wages is on point, it goes to the very core of women's nature.

Go into a room of 17 year old boys and ask them "how many of you would like to earn enough so that your spouse doesn't have to work?". Nearly all of them would put their hand up. Its not out of social conditioning, for men its noble and fulfilling.

They regard the need to acquire the material as having a limit, and frim that point once that is satisfied, go off a build social capital, such as more time with kids, and knowing neighbours.

Now ask the same question to women, and they will recoil in horror. "honey, you're earning two million per year, that's all we need. I'll stay him and watch the kids"... Yeah, shell be happy with that.

Women's nature cannot reconcile that, there 'needs' to be more, and especially so that her man is not getting a free ride.

Paying women is a waste because its not in their nature to be generous to anyone other than a retailer flashing a 'must have' shiny bauble in their face.

Post: #62

(03-12-2015 11:55 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:34 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  I'm 30 and only a couple of my friends from HS are married. Many have kids and long term girlfriends, but don't seem to be in a hurry to get married.

I'd say most guys from HS don't have particularly well paying jobs, even the college educated ones. Most don't own homes and mostly seem to living paycheck to paycheck.

Now, most of us come from lower-middle class families whose parents struggled their whole lives also. So there isn't much family money or connections. The ones I see doing best career wise seem to be firefighters. They make decent cash, but throw in a wife, baby and mortgage and they are basically living paycheck to paycheck also I think.

From what I see, it seems more difficult for people now to get a job that pays enough to live that American dream that leads to marriage, having kids, buying homes, etc.

My grandpa is 76. He got out of the army, went to work for PG&E for 30 years, got married, raised a family, bought a home, and got a very good retirement. Maybe it's just the area I'm from, but I don't really see that happening much anymore.

Combine all of that with divorce and custody laws and I think men my age just don't want to get married. I also think they see how miserable their parents are and don't want to repeat the same mistakes.

This. I really do feel that economic stability is at the heart of this. From studies I've seen, most young men DO actually want to get married and have families. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this 70% are a bunch of red pill players with who are having too much fun to get married. The truth is far from that. Most men will sleep with less than 10 women in their life. And what that article said about college is a joke. That men are controlling the terms of relationships and women can't find guys. Bullshit. Most dudes in college actually aren't getting laid much. It's the jocks and top frats that getting laid the most. A lot of guys graduate from college with little sexual experience. I don't remember the number right now but I read a sizable number of guys graduate college without losing their virginity.

The cost of rent and housing as a percentage of your income is steadily rising. As is the cost of an education, and day care if you want kids. And since public schools in many cities are shit, you may have to shell out extra for private school if you want a good education for your kids. And then you have to put something away for their future education which will be even more expensive than yours, and still try to sock something away for your own retirement.

My whole theory behind this is that laissez-faire capitalism and rising inequality is destroying our social fabric. All the gains of our productivity and GDP go straight to the top 10%. The average person hasn't seen a pay increase in many decades adjusted for inflation. Yet everything is getting more expensive. An apartment I rented for $1150 a month several years ago now lists for $1600. My health insurance plan like rent goes up every year and never goes down. Ultimately responsible people want to plan their families and give their kids the best chance. They don't want to start a family under unstable conditions where you are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Many will opt to just stay single and not have kids than have to endure that kind of stress. And now that there's no stigma to perpetual bachelorhood, there's no pressure to dive into marriage when you're not ready.

You're 100% right that this is an economic issue more than anything else. However, I disagree that laissez-faire capitalism is the problem. In a later post you clarified that it was more post 80s deregulation that was the culprit, but I've never bought that explanation either. It's been the reasoning of people who think that the 1950s were the good ol' days and everything was fine until Reagan came along and fucked everything up.

The 50s didn't come out of nowhere, it came from being the last power standing after WWII, which in turn came from being the preeminent economic and industrial power in the first place. That ultimately had its foundations in the economic boom that took place between the Civil War and WWI, which was based on perhaps the closest system to textbook laissez-faire capitalism that has existed, certainly during the Industrial era.

Of course it wasn't perfect, and not everything that happened should be emulated, but having access to history, we should be able to note what worked and what didn't and mix in the good elements with the modern advancements to propel ourselves even further. Unfortunately, things like minimal regulation, no federal income tax, and stable money in the shape of a gold standard were deemed unworthy of making the cut.

Closer to the topic, the elimination of the classical gold standard, over a period of 60 years from WWI to 1971, has probably done more than anything else to create the economic disparities you describe. One of the features of a gold standard is to limit the amount of debt that can be realistically created, not only by governments, but by bankers.

By 1971 the GS had already been bastardized, and only lip service was paid to it. The reason it was formally ended was political. Over the prior 10 years, the US expanded its money supply massively to pay for the new welfare state and Vietnam. Other countries who held the dollar as reserves (particularly France) noticed this and wanted to cash its dollar chips for gold, which it had the right to do under the GS. Nixon's response was a gigantic middle finger, and he announced that the dollar was no longer redeemable for gold, thus removing any restrictions on the US to keep its financial house in order, and in turn removing any restrictions on the banking system in general to do the same.

Ever since then, we've been on an exponential track with respect to outstanding credit levels. Look at any historical chart relating to outstanding credit and you'll see a clear line in the sand around 1971. Before that date, credit expansion was more or less flat, with a bias to a steady rise over time. After that date, it's been exponential to the present day. Case in point:



Generally, when the economy as a whole takes on more debt than it can handle, a crisis is around the corner. We've seen that multiple times in the last 15 years. The problem, in this post gold-standard era, is that we have the illusion of a get out of jail free card - more debt. The proliferation of debt makes it seem like we can keep on spending, which keeps driving prices higher and higher, until the point where we can't afford it any more and must start paying down debt and accepting lower prices.

But this sobering reality is untenable for mainstream economics phd's and central bankers, so the 'solution' is even more debt, to an even greater degree than before, because otherwise prices won't rise. All of this is impossible under a gold standard because you can't create gold out of thin air in unlimited quantities. So from time to time, the economy was forced to 'revert to the mean,' flush out the bad, keep the good and build again. To be sure, this was a painful process for those who were on the wrong side of it, but completely necessary for overall progress.

Today, we never have to revert to the mean, at least on the surface. We can seemingly take on debt in perpetuity, which enables the continued accumulation of material goods, which builds a false sense of abundance. But all we've really done is pledged our future labor for the right to consume in the present.

It is this illusion of abundance that allows feminism/cultural Marxism/SJWism/r-selection to flourish. It's no coincidence that those trends have grown in concert over the last 50 years with the cessation of the GS, as the loss of economic discipline basically financed the loss of social discipline. Some have argued that we need a war or some other catastrophe to keep women and SJWs in line, but I'd argue that the return of economic discipline is more than enough to do the job.

Upthread Phoenix had a nice post describing essentially what was The 'American Dream.' Roughly speaking it is a sort of life plan that looks like this:

Go to school > Get a Job > Get married > Buy a house > Have 2 kids + dog > Move up in the company and settle in at middle management > Retire at 60-65

An average person starting on this track in 2015 is plunged into debt slavery literally from the first step. Owing to some of the economic forces I've already described, tuition has risen to the point that 18 year olds are on the hook for crippling debt, where they once could have paid their way through school waiting tables over the summers.

Assuming you get an adequate job, and find a girl worth marrying (lol), all you've really done there is sign on to pay for your wife's student loans as well as yours. On top of that you need a car, so there's auto loans. Buying a house? Prepare to plunge even deeper into debt, as the powers that be are deathly afraid of home prices dropping, even though all economic fundamentals suggest home prices should be nowhere this high (recall what I said about endless credit allowing us never to face reality). Then there's rising maintenance costs, rising utility costs and of course taxes.

All of that means that you're not retiring at 65. Along the way, the fact that prices keep rising means that on top of your debt, you might have to turn to credit cards, or your wife has to work, which means a suboptimal environment for your children. Saving for your retirement, or for your children's inheritance is almost out of the question.

Virtually the only way to avoid some version of this fate is to be rich already, or to own assets that continue to appreciate along with the inflation driven by this continued credit expansion. Therein lies the inequality we're seeing now, because with most people drowning in debt of some sort, it is only a few who have the means to own income producing assets, in addition to those who are already rich.

In addition to that, the way out is to avoid the 'American Dream' track as I wrote it. Constant self improvement, side hustles, being reliant on yourself and not a corporation necessarily. Understanding women, and children/family life by extension. All things that are discussed regularly on this forum. But outside of this forum, how many are attuned to these sort of issues?

Most will hop on that American Dream track because it's what they were told to do by their parents, guidance counselors at school, etc. This article suggests that they're beginning to see the flaws and starting to back out before its too late. For me, that track will never be viable again until the economics change.

Post: #63

Post: #64

Quote:“Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.”

Women have overestimated their leverage.

While it is true that they control the sex, that fact is only true for the beginning of the relationship.

Once you've hit it, you've hit it.

Meanwhile, there's absolutely nothing they can do to force us to co-habitat nor can they force us to propose.

We will always control the level of the relationship, because the relationship will be whatever we allow it to be.

We have biological needs that we will get met with women, i.e. fucking, but the rest of this bullshit is completely social in nature, and since we've figured out that society at large is bullshit from the word go, we concentrate on getting what we want out of this situation while swerving on the rest of it.

We're playing chess, while they play checkers.

Checkmate.

Post: #65

(03-12-2015 08:36 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  Virtually the only way to avoid some version of this fate is to be rich already, or to own assets that continue to appreciate along with the inflation driven by this continued credit expansion. Therein lies the inequality we're seeing now, because with most people drowning in debt of some sort, it is only a few who have the means to own income producing assets, in addition to those who are already rich.

In addition to that, the way out is to avoid the 'American Dream' track as I wrote it. Constant self improvement, side hustles, being reliant on yourself and not a corporation necessarily. Understanding women, and children/family life by extension. All things that are discussed regularly on this forum. But outside of this forum, how many are attuned to these sort of issues?

Most will hop on that American Dream track because it's what they were told to do by their parents, guidance counselors at school, etc. This article suggests that they're beginning to see the flaws and starting to back out before its too late. For me, that track will never be viable again until the economics change.

Great response. To follow up on this, is there any other country out there with the right type of economics in your opinion to give the type of lifestyle and assurances that we had in America a generation ago? Or have all nations followed this same path?

Post: #66

(03-12-2015 02:13 PM)Lucario Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:07 AM)RIslander Wrote:  This will lead to an effort to destroy the bachelor.

Bachelor taxes
Implementation of 'common law' spouses
Bachelor shaming

The government will be forced by the future feminist agenda to pressure bachelors into marriage. The other option is to make marriage attractive again and a worthwhile investment. Which path do you think will be chosen?

Bachelor taxes? Sure, pussy motivates a man...but money is the next biggest motivator. And if a man knows he has to fork up more money just cause he is not shacking up with pussy, there will be a revolt. Even alphas will revolt against it, not just betas.

Common law marriage? Just don't live with a woman or have kids with her.

Bachelor shaming? Just another societal shit-test from disgruntled negative women and white knights for men to over come.

Revolt against what? The most advanced military the world has ever seen?

Post: #67

(03-12-2015 09:25 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 02:13 PM)Lucario Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:07 AM)RIslander Wrote:  This will lead to an effort to destroy the bachelor.

Bachelor taxes
Implementation of 'common law' spouses
Bachelor shaming

The government will be forced by the future feminist agenda to pressure bachelors into marriage. The other option is to make marriage attractive again and a worthwhile investment. Which path do you think will be chosen?

Bachelor taxes? Sure, pussy motivates a man...but money is the next biggest motivator. And if a man knows he has to fork up more money just cause he is not shacking up with pussy, there will be a revolt. Even alphas will revolt against it, not just betas.

Common law marriage? Just don't live with a woman or have kids with her.

Bachelor shaming? Just another societal shit-test from disgruntled negative women and white knights for men to over come.

Revolt against what? The most advanced military the world has ever seen?

The revolt will probably come in the form of masses of men getting paper gay marriages to avoid the bachelor tax and to avoid women being able to claim co-habitation. They'll be open marriages of course.

The narrative won't allow them to criticize gay marriage or legislate against it in ways unequal to real marriage.

Post: #68

(03-12-2015 09:40 PM)Bear Hands Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:25 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 02:13 PM)Lucario Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:07 AM)RIslander Wrote:  This will lead to an effort to destroy the bachelor.

Bachelor taxes
Implementation of 'common law' spouses
Bachelor shaming

The government will be forced by the future feminist agenda to pressure bachelors into marriage. The other option is to make marriage attractive again and a worthwhile investment. Which path do you think will be chosen?

Bachelor taxes? Sure, pussy motivates a man...but money is the next biggest motivator. And if a man knows he has to fork up more money just cause he is not shacking up with pussy, there will be a revolt. Even alphas will revolt against it, not just betas.

Common law marriage? Just don't live with a woman or have kids with her.

Bachelor shaming? Just another societal shit-test from disgruntled negative women and white knights for men to over come.

Revolt against what? The most advanced military the world has ever seen?

The revolt will probably come in the form of masses of men getting paper gay marriages to avoid the bachelor tax and to avoid women being able to claim co-habitation. They'll be open marriages of course.

The narrative won't allow them to criticize gay marriage or legislate against it in ways unequal to real marriage.

Then they'll just come to your house and see if you're doing gay shit or not. You'll have to re-decorate your place, hold hands with your 'spouse' in public and occasionally fuck him in the ass.

Wait wasn't there an Adam Sandler movie about this?

Post: #69

(03-12-2015 01:37 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  I went to Colombia, I saw poor families with 4, 5 kids and they seemed relatively happy.

When there's nothing else to do, all there is to do is fuck.

Post: #70

In fairness in the 20-25 demographic marriage is pretty uncommon for the most part. It would be more telling if they did the 30-40 demographic as that is more typical marriage age these days.

I won't ever get married, I have a few friends who are getting married. I watch what they go through and think to myself about how stupid it is. A lot of them are spending $30,000 or so on a wedding despite it being 75% of their net pay for a year. By the time you factor in honey moon, engagement ring, wedding ring and incidentals I bet they're spending a year's net pay. That alone sounds like a pretty raw deal to me.

Then there is the down payment on a house, mortgage payments, 2 vehicles, the children and so on. I can see why most Americans and Canadians effectively can never retire and have nothing to show for all their work after 15+ years working.

Money doesn't bring happiness by any means. The people you are surrounded by make you happy.

Post: #71

(03-12-2015 09:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:36 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  Virtually the only way to avoid some version of this fate is to be rich already, or to own assets that continue to appreciate along with the inflation driven by this continued credit expansion. Therein lies the inequality we're seeing now, because with most people drowning in debt of some sort, it is only a few who have the means to own income producing assets, in addition to those who are already rich.

In addition to that, the way out is to avoid the 'American Dream' track as I wrote it. Constant self improvement, side hustles, being reliant on yourself and not a corporation necessarily. Understanding women, and children/family life by extension. All things that are discussed regularly on this forum. But outside of this forum, how many are attuned to these sort of issues?

Most will hop on that American Dream track because it's what they were told to do by their parents, guidance counselors at school, etc. This article suggests that they're beginning to see the flaws and starting to back out before its too late. For me, that track will never be viable again until the economics change.

Great response. To follow up on this, is there any other country out there with the right type of economics in your opinion to give the type of lifestyle and assurances that we had in America a generation ago? Or have all nations followed this same path?

Unfortunately most developed nations have followed this path, at least to some degree. The global monetary system as we know it is still basically the same one which was established post WWII, which means the dollar is still the sun everything else orbits around. Furthermore, the most popular economic ideology in mainstream academia, policy making and finance the world over is some form of Keynesianism. Until that changes, what I've described will persist until some sort of mega crisis causes people to reevaluate their thinking. Given that entire careers were built on that ideology, they'll cling on to failed ideas and it will be a new generation of thinkers, financiers and policy makers that finally build things from the ground up 'the right way.'

China and Russia have the most potential to move in that direction the fastest, due to their seeming eagerness to break out of the dollar's orbit, but there's no guarantee they'll go in the right direction. They both have huge issues to sort out, and even if they do, from the perspective of an American man, picking up and moving to one of those places is still a daunting task, especially with the fact you're still haunted by US taxes.

Having said all of that, I don't want my sentiments to come off like the US is a wasteland with no hope. We can still lead comfortable lives and get ahead by being extraordinary men. That hasn't changed. What I'm lamenting really is that being extraordinary only gets you what the average man had access to a generation ago. For example the median income is something like $50,000. If you make six figures, you're making at least twice the median figure, but the reality is that you've only bought yourself a bit less of a debt burden once you take your family, house, car, etc into account. Whereas generation ago if you made twice what the average guy made you bought yourself a new level of comfort, in other words you were the Jones' that set the pace for your neighborhood.

It's not unlike the observation that attractive, fit men, who dress like a random GQ ad are in the club fighting tooth and nail to land overweight 6s and 7s with high notch counts.

Post: #72

(03-12-2015 10:04 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Money doesn't bring happiness by any means. The people you are surrounded by make you happy.

And if you're depending on women to make you happy, you're fucked.

Post: #73

(03-12-2015 10:04 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Money doesn't bring happiness by any means. The people you are surrounded by make you happy.

(03-12-2015 10:13 PM)jariel Wrote:  And if you're depending on women to make you happy, you're fucked.

Friends/Family/Wife have to compliment your happiness. You can't count on a woman to make you happy - but a giant house/car/toys won't make you happy either.

Here's a hypothetical that got me thinking today (I have a few of these and they re-evaluated my entire life this month)

What would you rather have?

1. Be a millionaire, have an amazing house, several cars, pool etc, but an average wife to share it with.

2. Live in a modest home, share a car, and a beautiful wife/amazing sex, and she's constantly caring/cooking for you.

Post: #74

(03-12-2015 01:37 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  I disagree, I think it's a sign of moral decay.

People with deep inner peace and happiness can be happy without a high income, or even a middle income.

I went to Colombia, I saw poor families with 4, 5 kids and they seemed relatively happy. It's just the American desire to have fucking EVERYTHING....its all external validation and comforts, their inner selves are weak....that's why they need to buy more shit.
You can have kids, a low income, live paycheck to paycheck and still be happy. It's about how much inner stability and clarity you have with yourself.

I would even compare this to being 'outcome independent' with game.......if your happiness is based on girls fucking you, its no different to having your identity attached to your $$$ lifestyle. With no inner peace, your game is dependent on girls approving of you, just like your happiness would be dependent on having a higher income.

My grandparents were poor and lived in a shitty beat up house and reused most everything until it broke beyond repair. I noticed they always seemed happier than their baby boomer children who all divorced etc... Youre just looking at life through the lens of needing nice shit.

It's because the soul of America is dead. People used to share common values and a common culture, but now upholding certain values as good is seen as oppressive to those that don't share your values.

The only conclusion can be that nothing matters besides material wealth and physical pleasure.

The traditional ways people derived satisfaction from their lives, (Faith, Family, Community, and Work) are all dead now, with the possible exception of work.

Post: #75

(03-12-2015 09:40 PM)Bear Hands Wrote:  The revolt will probably come in the form of masses of men getting paper gay marriages to avoid the bachelor tax and to avoid women being able to claim co-habitation. They'll be open marriages of course.

The narrative won't allow them to criticize gay marriage or legislate against it in ways unequal to real marriage.

Any RVF'ers in West central Florida willing to gay marry me to avoid the bachelor's tax? Preferably with a six figure income, a house, and a boat so I can gayvorce you and get your house, your boat, and alimony? "<sob> It hurt so bad when I found out he was sleeping with all these 18-25 year old girls. <sob>"

I would suspect they would increase taxes for everyone without children rather than a straight bachelor tax.