“The great danger for family life, in the midst of any society whose idols are pleasure, comfort and independence, lies in the fact that people close their hearts and become selfish.” – Pope John Paul II
1.) The Male Perspective – A Quandary
1a.) The Patriarch’s Problem
1b.) The Bachelor’s Problem
2.) The Female Perspective – A Prize
3.) The Differences Between Men & Women In Summary
4.) The Civilizational Perspective – A Crisis
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading
1.) The Male Perspective – A Quandary:
To enjoy the decline, or to start a family, that is the question. And of course this is a problem unique to man, particularly those conscious and critical of the paradigm we occupy, for it is not a consideration that even crosses the threshold of consciousness in the archetypal drone. And yet unlike the drone who knows no quandary, who idly autopilots his way into an unremarkable five to fifteen year marriage that yields two point one children, the more enlightened man finds himself in the pivotal yet privileged position of making an informed choice about his future’s course.
Such a man is free to direct his fate absent the demands of religious indoctrination or self-serving women. After all, should one of the most important decisions of a man’s life be made by anyone other than the man himself? Does a man pressured and cajoled into starting a family do so on his own terms, or on the terms of those with a plan for him? With both reason of mind and heart of soul, the man free of spells and delusions can exercise his mental sovereignty by weighing up the risks and rewards of the lifestyle choices available to him, be that the life of a patriarch, or the life of a bachelor.
A self-respecting, free thinking and proud man should not be bullied into marrying, by his religion, his family, nor the woman manoeuvring to get a ring on her finger. A man should make this decision free of external devices and with full mental clarity, for a man should establish a serious relationship in much the way he would seek to maintain it. Therefore it stands to reason that should a man be cajoled or duped into marriage and babies, that although it may initially fill the dissimulating woman with nought but estrogenic rejoice and maternal glee, such shadowy foundations do not bode well for their relationship’s longevity.
A strong man does not respond to shame, he acknowledges it for the manipulative transgression that it is, disregards it as folly, and continues to forge his path absent the mechanisations of such duplicity.
The free man wonders which lifestyle choice would be in his best interest, and is he, no matter what he does, condemned to an unforgivable degree of heartache either way? If marriage leads to divorce, and bachelorhood leads to childless loneliness, what is a man to do? After all, a choice between misery or loneliness hardly seems like much of a choice at all.
1a.) The Patriarch’s Problem:
If a man is to marry, there is reasonable fear the fresh legal supremacy his woman enjoys will disrupt the balance of power that previously maintained their relationship. The informed man is all too aware the legal privilege of the modern wife can be used to force him into domestic servitude, and that legally speaking, the marriage hangs on a thread tied to a hovering sword that follows him wherever he goes.
From the moment he has said “I do”, a dangling sword of Damocles stalks him, scrutinising his every action, primed to strike. Too many mistakes, and the sword falls, divorce initiated, financial and emotional chaos wrought.
Now of course there is an imbecilic, ignorant argument to be made that “not all women are like that“, and indeed this is true, not all women will whimsically detonate a divorce bomb. And yet a wise man in his prudence must ask himself “is my woman like that?” and then follow up this question with “if my woman is not like that, what is the likelihood she could become like that?” to which the answer in all earnestness is a most pertinent “easily”.
If too much comfort is indulged, if too much is neglected or too much left to chance – the ruination of marital union is all but a certainty. A marriage is like a car hanging off a cliff, it requires the man driving to accelerate now and again to ensure the car does not tilt and fall into the ocean below. Just as it was in courting, in marriage the burden of performance is man’s to bear.
If man fails in his capacity as husband, or is at least perceived to have failed, he loses everything, by contrast if his woman is an abysmal failure of a wife, she gets a pay day and a fresh chance. In today’s society a woman’s marriage risk is minimal, and of course, this comes at the expense of man’s being astronomical. Women do not fear marriage because they have no reason to, men do because they have every reason to.
A marriage’s odds of success are merely improved, but still mightily unfavourable for man even when the potential wife is of considerable quality. And so although it is not impossible to become a patriarch, it is a dangerous affair regardless of who is involved. This danger is neither explicitly the man nor the woman involved’s fault, but rather, the fault of a judicial system that makes marriage so costly to men.
The success of a marriage is of course dependent solely on the parties involved, but what was once merely a monumental investment on the part of man has been perverted by the misandry of feminism into a monumental gamble. A sensible man is not a gambling man, he does not wager half his assets and his emotional stability on the odds of a woman’s whim remaining pretty. No matter who is involved, this aspect remains the same: a man has no assurances nor protection from the state, in a worst case scenario, the woman is protected and the man is left to rot. Idiots will marry blindly and gamblers will marry brazenly, whilst sensible men will abstain and the intelligent romantically delay.
As such, it is a lazy and ill-cultured wife’s prerogative to “cash in” the marriage whenever she deems fit, for if she and her husband are at odds, and it is too difficult, too cumbersome and too taxing for her to compromise, she can force the man to leave, keep the home he laboured for, and make off with much his present and future wealth.
1b.) The Bachelor’s Problem:
The opposing side of the quandary is of course the lust for family and lineage, for one to not die childless and alone. The informed man wishes not to be ravaged by the effects of feminist marriage, and yet neither does he wish to be wrecked by the absence of companionship or children in his elder years.
Where the patriarch fears divorce, the bachelor fears childlessness and loneliness. Although men are not as dependent on family as women for sanity, success and happiness, they still value family. The reluctance to marry is as such a synthesis of a distrust in women married to a contempt for a misandric legal system.
The bachelor is a man who values his freedom more than most, and thus the constraints, demands and expectations inappreciatively thrust upon him by a wife hold no appeal. This does not mean such a man would not enjoy being a father, but rather that, becoming one would mean giving up an inordinate degree of freedom to the mother.
For the bachelor, a rat pack is his family replacement. Through the formation of a rat pack, a bachelor can assuage his loneliness and need for tribe. A rat pack is a small tribe of cohabiting, single and childless men. Such an arrangement allows the group to fully indulge in the wealth and freedom of childless singledom without any of its accompanying loneliness. Nonetheless, the desire to reproduce is not so easily assuaged.
Men sensitive to, and aware of the nature of evolutionary biology feel they have a genetic imperative to reproduce, and thus the quandary presents itself: is a man to enter an institution hostile to him so that he may build a family, or is he to enjoy the full succulence of his fruits and yet leave no worldly legacy behind? The artistic man may leave his creations, the academic man his research, but what of the layman, and are achievements acceptable substitutes for legacy in the absence of reproduction?
This is a choice all informed men must make, and there is no right or wrong answer. It is my presupposition that most informed men will take full advantage of their extended fertility window and opt to settle down with a younger woman in middle-age. I believe most informed men are willing to risk divorce in their elder years if it means they got to lead a good life before becoming a father.
2.) The Female Perspective – A Prize:
Women do not face the quandary that idiotic men shirk and informed men face. Women’s marriage risk is minimal, and her fertility window is short. The nature of a woman’s limited fertility is precisely why once women have decided they want to settle down, they’re frenetic to do so. This is in stark opposition to men, who are happy to take their time and vet their mate more rigorously, particularly when dating older women, who are circumspect by merit of their availability. The quaint poetry here of course is that the older the woman, the greater her sense of urgency, and the older the man, the more reluctant his urge to commit.
Of course, fertility is only part of the equation, men hold the keys to commitment, women to sex. If commitment, attention and provision is what women value most, then men are the gatekeepers to womanly wants, and marriage is a jackpot in which she is bestowed an endless supply of these things.
If a 50-year-old woman had the charm, sex appeal and mental stability of her 20-year-old self, she’d be as leisurely and lackadaisical about the speed the relationship progresses at as the men her age are. Yet whether a woman can admit it to herself or not, she is intuitively aware that as she ages, her capacity to attract a top-tier mate decreases. A woman’s power erodes with each passing year, and thus like anybody all too aware of their depreciation, the cleverest attempt to leverage their power at its peak.
The question of marriage is always a no-brainer for a woman, as I previously stated, this quandary lies solely in the jurisdiction of man. If a woman asked me, “IM, should I get married?” I’d say “Yes, as soon as you can, and ideally no later than 26” because marriage is a really good deal for women. For women, marriage represents something it scarcely does for men – financial security and psychological sanity.
And although I do not write much in a manner conducive to a woman’s viewpoint or need, it does not mean I don’t understand the importance of marriage and babies to women. It is the life goal of all intelligent and sensible women to become wives and mothers, for scarcely can a woman achieve the happiness in business her man can, as to be a mother buzzing in the embrace of family is her highest calling. Family is where women derive emotional nourishment, for it gives them a sense of internal completion, and to honour her husband whilst suckling her young, is in and of itself, a most noble of goals.
3.) The Differences Between Men & Women In Summary:
Men get purpose from art and business, whereas women get purpose from the family, not all men and not all women, but generally speaking. This doesn’t mean men don’t want family, merely that they need it less, and a longer fertility window permits them to sensibly delay patriarchhood.
Testosterone needs challenge, estrogen needs comfort. This is why women are more relationship orientated than men, for it provides the apex of their happiness, their very reason for being; to be desired, and feel integrally vital in a family rich in love and abundance.
Family is important to men, but so are aspects irrespective of it. A man’s priorities are more evenly weighted than a woman’s. If his family does not have an immediate need, rather than manufacture a need to fill (as a woman wanting to feel relevant will do) he will busy himself with commerce (resource acquisition) or art (an outlet for his masculine creativity that the wonderful yet splendid mundanity of family life does not provide).
A woman on the other hand is lost without family, no matter how much she attempts to fill the void with art, business, or pets, she cannot help but feel a most profound sense of absence strike the core of her being. Whether she knows it or not, her very fiber yearns to be a wife and mother, and no matter her opinion of that, she is powerless to escape this most visceral of compulsion.
4.) The Civilizational Perspective – A Crisis:
53 thoughts on “The Choice”
I’ve been pondering this crisis for a few months now. Delivered this content right on time. Thank you
Two Alex’ agree. Timely indeed!
If you get a plate pregnant, try to hold the family together, but be sure not to marry her. The child will be better off fatherless and you better off vilified than the alternative of raising a child in a toxic family unit while being a domestic servant from an altumatum of marriage she will never respect you for accepting.
“Without judicial reconciliation between what is in a man’s best interests and what is in a woman’s, men will continue to shun marriage and society will, family by family, shrink and deteriorate ever more. Give men incentive and legal assurances, and many more will be willing to take up the torch in what is already a thanklessly rewarding, yet toilsome endeavour.”
A dog it the only other outlet.
Refreshing post from the common “look what this womyn did” on TRP.
It’s post’s like this, that look at “the bigger picture” that keep me reading.
Times are changing; we’re going to the extreme levels of an individualistic society, as it is the domineering self interested people that get ahead. Where anything worth having or fighting for, requires for you to look after your own self interests whilst minimizing risk, its dangerous for society.
The people you want to be procreating and marrying don’t. They’re the Men and Women that have worked hard their entire life to get to where they are now and in this competitive workforce, they don’t have the time to dedicate to rearing a child. Of course if Women seen Family as the prize/incentivized and it wasn’t negatively associated with poor choices and chav like behavior, it would be a different story.
Those that do have children, are not from our best people. Often exogenous migrants from third world country’s or Chavy women with poor life choices and a chance to use their offspring as an object of status. On the one hand we have a group of people who will dilute their new country’s norms to their children, and on the other we have mediocrity breeding more mediocrity. So with more (often) low skilled children being brought up into this world of a dying middle class. What will the job market for them look like ?
There won’t be one
50% of jobs we have now will be replaced by the likes of Software, quantum computing (look up what IBM Watson can do), additive manufacturing, self – service machinery, driver less cars. There won’t be a job market for the lower classes (automation) and there will be a shrinking middle class to take the jobs in demand (creativity). It’s a dangerous path we’re going down, but progression ain’t linear, so I guess this is a low peak. – sorry i went off on tangent.
TL;DR : Wrong people having babies/families, we’re not adapting as quickly to the technology we’re making
It’s ancient Egypt all over again. Retards keep breeding while the intelligent slowly get outbred. Then the retard inbred children inherit a world created by the intelligent and incoherently exclaim “look what we built! We smart”
I don’t believe that reform of the judicial system will make things better for family men. The problem with that system is that problem men face in society in general: a presumed superiority of women, and the willingness to destroy the lives of men to maintain it. This bias is present in all of society. And perhaps for good evolutionary reason: women ultimately birth babies, and therefore are deemed more valuable than men.
In my experience, men get ruined in divorce because all of society presumes the woman must be cared for at any cost, and sees the man as the best source to cover that cost. I have known many divorced men who have paid money to their ex, far beyond what was required of them by court order. When I ask why they put themselves into near poverty in this way, they become offended, often giving an answer like “it’s the right thing” or “it’s what you are supposed to do.”
Remember, women are presumed to be superior to men. Often, men being raped in divorce court need only look at themselves, and their blue pill indoctrination, to see that it is they who enforce this assumption against their better interest. This is why no statute can make a divorce a 50/50 split: the law cannot change what is a long standing, underlying assumption, enforced through the very men it makes slaves of.
“Is there a way to reverse rather than merely slow the decline? Yes, a reversion of family law to a pre-feminist state. If Christians can take back marriage from feminists, the corrupt family courts and the parasitic divorce industry, the family will be saved. But unless such judicial change takes place and gives men the peace of mind they need to functionally marry, I believe that for better or worse, the decline of civilization and thus the bedrock it is built upon will continue.”
There is one way which presents for this denoumement of familial and cultural rot to transform from the morass of maladjusted social and legal power, and its concomitant death of cultural will, into the natural order.
Men must not seek a restoration of culture, for it will not take place.
It is in the resetting of culture that return to the natural order will occur.
And that is found in the path of war.
War knocks over fallacious and blathering idiocies of grand social constructs and replaces them with the butt of a spear, hammering on the doors of reality. And as the times change and the acceleration of crisis and danger increases those spears gather.
Islam marches. It brings death, destruction and murderous rule of the conqueror.
The West awakes, in the depths of homes and hearths. It awakens too, still tremulously, in the halls of Parliaments and the corridors of power. For men may be deluded, but are not stupid.
The veils ultimately fall.
Men who wish to see the natural order of patriarch and wife, of family under the guidance of the man of worth and wisdom and value, will do well to attend to their vision and perspective.
Do not seek restoration of the old days.
They are gone.
Seek, rather, to survive the coming tumult and roar. Seek to secure resources and sanctuary for your family. Seek men with minds akin to your own, and plan together in the dark hours of the evening. Speak openly with your community and give others the courage to bond over the truths they hear, and return to their own homes and dust off the spears of their own determination.
The dark world rolls in, and the tide brims with blood and fire.
Your choice is to abandon your manhood, your culture, and your future families…
…or to be willing to survive the maelstrom and beat back the death of the West.
And in that struggle, find the return of the natural order you seek.
For the heart returns to the center, and the balance of male and female returns under trial.
As to the system of war you mentioned and the return to sanity and nature from the depths of insanity and unwieldy, feminist construct, I wholly agree with you.
But regards this statement, I believe you have been highly biased, emotional or irrational:
‘Islam marches. It brings death, destruction and murderous rule of the conqueror’
You couldn’t have been more inaccurate if you flung the spear in the direction opposite to the bullseye. To clarify, Islam is a religion of peace and condones not only mutual respect but also assistance of others in need. In fact, it emphasizes this mindset of perpetuating kindness and human dignity in all its tenets. For example, killing an innocent human is likened to killing the whole of humanity.
It is for this reason that I suggest that instead of using criticism against a religion, and you may have your personal reasons which may or may not be rational, to validate your point, impress upon the topic under consideration more. It would be highly undignified for a person to denounce another’s religion or race.
IM, thank you for a beautiful and well timed essay.
I am one of those that intentionally choose to marry and have children well into my thirties, with a 10 year younger woman. I have engineered a life that would result in significant hardship for her should she decide to go her own way, while feeding that desire all women have for a family. That includes 4+ children, moving both sets of grandparents onto the same property (an interesting challenge in itself), and the use of legal mechanisms to hold property and distribute control. I also maintain my game and use it regularly on my wife.
In making the choice to marry a man should consider the future, and should be willing to take risks. Risks can be mitigated through appropriate hedging activity, be it legal, financial, game, or life fulfillment. The civilizational necessity for me to increase the population of white, educated, Christian citizens is a big driver, because my goal is to die in bed. It’s hard to do that when you don’t have a civilization anymore.
The TL;DR version is that being a man is hard mode. Don’t let that stop you from achieving.
“maintain my game and use it regularly on my wife” . What do you mean by this ? Please elucidate
You are a fool. Not because you were banging a married woman — they can offer the best, purest emotional connection you’ll ever have with an adult woman because they have already secured someone’s resources and are usually not after yours. You are a fool because you want her to leave that beta man who gives her resources and seek deeper relationship with you, using you for resources, ruining all the fun of what you had together, and then of course she will cheat with someone else. Don’t be a fool. Pleasantly but nonchalantly tell her that you understand her need for some time off, and go get yourself another married woman. If the first one ever comes back, then you can plate them both. Let the other men provide the resources and deal with their bullshit while you get all the fun.
Step back and look at yourself objectively. You have developed oneitis for a married woman. I know you really like her, but the truth is that you really like the circumstances, the carefree magic that happens when two people can just be themselves without worrying about who’s going to pay for the house and kids. Step back again and realize that you can develop that magic again with someone else. With lots of women. You had a lot of fun with this woman, and you may even feel that you love her on some level. But she is married, she is cheating on her husband, and she is not worthy of your oneitis. Your best chance of happiness — and of getting her back, if that really matters — is to not give a fuck and to focus on being awesome yourself and racking up some more plates.
You are clearly unaware how pathetic and stupid you sound. She has kids…HELLO. She has no problem being a cheat….HELLO.
Do you really have no options? This is it?
Damn man, that is brutal.
How about Surrogacy and Single Fatherhood? There was the story in the news about this Japanese millionaire who used surrogates to father more than a dozen children in Thailand.
Granted, its probably only workable if you have some other means of replacing the functions a stay-at-home wife would normally provide, either outsourcing to paid helpers, or relying on grandparents for childcare. But it would let you have children without the risk of losing most of your assets and the right to see your children in a divorce. It is a path I would certainly consider if I had that kind of money.
The ultimate beta move.
How about we realize that we are in the late stages of overpopulation? Research the Calhoun mouse experiments. In a utopian habitat, mice began to focus of social association and position; then some members became social outcasts and resorted to violence, while other members saw the futility of playing the game and isolated themselves to self-grooming with a complete lack of interest in anything worthwhile. All because society had met all its basic needs and had reached a crowded apex that offered no chance of advancement or purpose. That is the world we humans are approaching now. And you guys want to have more kids? Snap out of your programming. There’s lots of ways to leave a legacy, many of them more widespread, lasting, and impactful than having kids.
You’re an idiot to think you have a chance at a reasonable future with her.
But since you’re fucking with another man’s wife, I don’t mind you ruining yourself.
Tell her you’re in love with her. Buy her flowers. Marry her. What could go wrong?
Way too many words wasted here, friend. If you were truly coming from a place of strength, you would have ignored that attack instead of writing that tirade. Focus on you and get stronger, and you’ll find peace with the world and those who criticize. The other guy is merely coming from his own place of insecurity that someone may someday hook up with his own wife, and that fear is both one of the reason marriage exists and why it so often ends. Realize that he’s coming from his own precarious place in this world and don’t take his insults too personally.
Ok, I just got it….you’re trolling the site.
A beautifully accurate summation of the dilemma facing contemporary men. Great Job.
On the subject of whether we can reasonably expect a rebalancing of the delicate equilibrium of marital risks vs rewards, between the sexes, I’m afraid to say, I am extremely doubtful.
I’ve been looking into these matters for sometime and have discovered that the dynamic you so eloquently describe, is far from unique to the modern era. Despite what contemporary feminists would have us believe, giving power to women has been tried many times throughout human history. In fact, it usually heralds the decline of a culture.
The oxford academic J.D. Urwin, happened upon this phenomenon in his exhaustively researched book “Sex and Culture” in which he analyses 80 primitive cultures and a number of past empires.
He found that, without exception, the level of decline of these cultures was directly paralleled by the degree of political influence given to women. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s – 900s), and English (1500s – 1900s).
In every case, he found that all of these cultures were established and thrived while controlled entirely by Men and thus embracing masculine priorities, and began to rapidly decline when the cultures priorities shifted towards the feminine after women were given increasingly greater political influence.
Unfortunately, towards the end of his book, Urwin observes that once this process has taken root, it seems to be irreversible.
Interesting research. I’ll add that book to my read list. Thank you.
If the fall is inevitable, the question maybe how we raise the next civilization.
Loved the post….knew I would! I feel genuine sorrow for the aware men out there facing this quandary. Its almost an impossible situation.
Though I don’t care to have kids and am not suitable for marriage, I’ve long been aware that at best marriage is a low-grade power struggle. Such a turn off….and totally not worth it. I’d rather be a creepy hermit!
Society is racing to its reset button as one of the other commenters alluded to. This will not sustain and we can be thankful for that.
Great article, man, but you really gotta leave the Christian thing out of it…you totally turned me (and many others) off there. I’m Australian, and we’re just not into Christianity and religion per see, which really, is the root of all evil and ignorance in Western society…
I find it somewhat humorous you are sensitive to my logical and historically accurate mention of marriage being a religious institution when I say explicitly at the beginning of the article that men should be free to make these choices “absent the demands of religious indoctrination or self-serving women.”
Actually try to see what I’m saying and why I’m saying it rather than having a negative trigger reaction to the mere mention of religion. I’m not religious myself, but it’s anti-intellectual to have a negative emotional response that clouds your reason so much you cannot comprehend why I mention the significance of religion and its role in marriage.
So let’s conduct a thought exercise:
Let’s say you are an atheist and you want to get married one day, is it in your interest to have Christians running the show or feminists? “Nobody” is not an option (your predictable response) as marriage is a political institution born of ideology and will thus always be coopted by one ideology or another in the battle of ideas. I don’t think there’s any period in any part of history where marriage has been free of any ideological influence, which makes sense, as it was born out of the elite’s need to pass down wealth and was eventually replicated by peasants under the pretence of a duty to God.
So say you hate them all but you have to choose one ideology to dominate the realm of marriage in your society, let’s say for arguments sake your options are Christianity, Islam or feminism, as a western man which ideology dominating this institution do you believe is in your best interest?
Most would pick Christian even if they aren’t Christians themselves and don’t have much love for the bible. That’s the point. Your woman isn’t going to be loyal or worth a fuck under a feminist-atheist marriage system and I doubt you want to covert to Islam. Christian marriage is the best of a bad bunch for most western men. Realise systems like Christianity and Islam use religion to keep women’s feral instincts in line whilst ideologies like feminism exacerbate them.
Look past your blanket disdain for religion and think pragmatically about the situation at hand – then you will understand why my mention of Christianity is necessary and why your comment is silly.
I don’t get the lineage argument in favor of having kids, or leaving anything “behind”. What is there left if I die and never have any contact (no flow of information) to this world? How would I know if this world still exists after I am gone? It seems pure faith, so using any resource to leave something “behind” is equivalent to paying for your faith.
I feel like leaving anything behind is a waste, but would love arguments to the contrary, maybe I am missing something.
Also I may have spotted a logical error in this paragraph:
“When men conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the potential for marriage, and rightfully deduce the chance of success is not in their favour and that a painless exit is all but unavoidable, we cannot blame their aversion.”
a painless exit is all but unavoidable = an exit without pain is almost unavoidable = there is a very thigh chance what you will not be able to avoid an exit free of pain. Which is no punishment, because of ‘no pain’. It should be “a painful exit is all but unavoidable” if my reasoning is correct.
“If marriage leads to divorce and bachelorhood lead to childless loneliness, what is a man to do? A choice between misery or loneliness is hardly palatable.”
IM what do you think of this post from Rollo Tomassi where he debunks the myth of the lonely old man?
It sounded good to me but I am biased so can’t trust my judgement.
I think you covered the only major viewpoint I included FOR the idea in the essay, that is one’s preoccupation with evolution and a concern for leaving a remnant of themselves in the world even once they’re gone. Other than this, I don’t really see any valid reason for it. Perhaps wanting to experience what it’s like to be a father whilst one still remains, a feeling that is compelling, although perhaps not so compelling as a woman’s need to be a mother.
You are quite right, the reasoning in my language was incoherent within that context.
I changed “a painless exit is all but unavoidable” to “a painless exit is all but unattainable”
Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it!
“I think you covered the only major viewpoint I included FOR the idea in the essay, that is one’s preoccupation with evolution and a concern for leaving a remnant of themselves in the world even once they’re gone.”
That’s an awfully an expensive idea..
“Other than this, I don’t really see any valid reason for it. Perhaps wanting to experience what it’s like to be a father whilst one still remains, a feeling that is compelling, although perhaps not so compelling as a woman’s need to be a mother.”
Strange that you compare the power of this desire to a woman’s biological need to procreate, it seems to me like man can choose whereas a woman cannot, whatever she says.
It’s probably due to my crappy childhood (no freedom thanks to a way too dominant/abusive dad and a completely mediocre mother) but I have no desire at all to raise any children. The choice is so obvious to me that I have a hard time understanding why so many other men choose differently. I imagine it’s a combination of social programming and manipulative females (accidents, trying to keep her happy, swallowing the ‘ours will be perfect’ rhetoric etc).
“Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it!”
You’re very welcome, I appreciate the attention to detail you put into your writing and will help this way whenever I can. This is one thing that bothers me about Rollo Tomassi’s writing, too often he gets lost in the quagmire that is his language.
I love how you don’t conclude by saying “well, here is the solution!”. Giving away informations and letting people make their own conclusions was what my philosophy teacher did and I love it.
However, I don’t think that a man who choose to have a family despite the current situation helps slow down the decline. Children are very likely to become blue pill feminists and thus make it happen faster. Of course, the odds of it occuring are less when the father is a red pill man but those men are a minority.
Finally, I don’t believe one can reverse to the old ways of marriage. As Tsunetomo said in The Hagakure, society’s evolution can not be stopped and one will never go back. I can’t prove it though. Great post anyway. Too bad it’s that short!
Can’t we, gentlemen, be our own legacy, instead of using children and achievements for the same purpose?
Maybe you don’t know it, but, in the foreseeable future, the anti-aging scientific research could defeat aging, and since it is the primary cause of death in the modern world, we could avoid death for a very looooong time.
This is not madness. Instead, it is based on solid scientific research, and organizations like Google Calico and the SENS Research Foundation are working on it.
By “defeat aging”, I mean that biotechnologies could rejuvenate us, and make us keep on leaving with the same look and health of a 30 years old person.
Naturally, we wouldn’t become invulnerable, so bullets, tornados, car accidents, etc. may still kill us.
However, so far, there’s no logical reason to claim that we’ll never achieve eternal youth, because if we kept leaving for centuries, millennia or more, we could develop technologies to make us practically invulnerable to death & aging.
I forgot the closing:
if the odds of getting immortal became high enough, wouldn’t aspiring to leave a legacy become pointless?
I’ll entertain the notion: you assume immortality wouldn’t get boring. I suspect perhaps after 500 years or so (random figure) people would start to tire of their immortality. They’d recognise so many patterns that nothing would seem new, and things would lose their vibrancy. On the flip side, intellectuals could amass hordes of knowledge beyond the capacity of an intellectual confined to a natural human lifespan. If immortality were possible, what would this do for planetary sustainability? We’re going to hit 9,000,000,000 people in 2050. If none of these people died AND had kids.. I’m not sure this planet could cope.
Thanks for replying, IM.
The boredom problem is a problem I haven’t found a solution to, but we can’t assume that for sure someone won’t find one, and they won’t make it accessible to the masses.
As you did, we can just acknowledge that it will be a problem that whoever will achieve radical life extension will have to face.
“what would this do for planetary sustainability? We’re going to hit 9,000,000,000 people in 2050. If none of these people died AND had kids. I’m not sure this planet could cope.”
When we think about immortality, or even just a radical extension of our life, we tend to imagine that reality will be almost the same in the future, except that most humans will live radically longer lives; or we tend to imagine that it will be worse.
I’ll give you just 3 examples, to show you that in the future, maybe in one you and I are still alive, something that could drastically improve some aspects of our reality could happen:
1) Have you heard of Elon Musk?
He’s trying to colonize Mars, and he wants to do it by 2045 (if I’m not mistaken). If that happened, we would have another planet to live in, and governments all over the world could use incentives to persuade people to abandon Earth, to lower the demographic pressure on this planet
2) Ways to mine asteroids for resources could be found out, and this could give us so much abundance that the problem wouldn’t be “we are running out of resources”, but “we have too many of them, how are we going to use them?”
3) The fact that humanity will keep on increasing forever because people will never stop to have kids is not a certainty: data shows that as soon as a population reaches high levels of prosperity, progress, and education, especially female education, and as soon as females start to choose to pursue happiness not having kids, but doing something else, the birth rate of that population decreases:
This has been happening in countries like Japan, Spain, Italy, Germany, Singapore, South Korea, and others.
And, if this trend continued, the global population would increase quite slowly.
So, we’ll probably reach 9,000,000,000 of people, but when we do it, we could have already achieved point 1) and 2), for example, or developed other technologies that would make the exploitation of the environment more sustainable, like vertical farming, to name but one.
And if we achieved these improvements, and, at the same time, the global birth rate lowered in a significant way, overpopulation wouldn’t occur.
However, let’s assume a worse case scenario, ok IM?
Say that people kept on having kids at a rate so high that we stopped to have physical space to allocate them, and maybe, even mining asteroids and using nanotechnologies to maximize the exploitation of resources wouldn’t help as a lot.
In this dystopian scenario, I cannot imagine that the rulers of the world wouldn’t plan to decrease drastically the population, taking into account conventional wars, biological warfare, induced famine, etc.
I have no clue how they could apply this plan, but I can’t even imagine that they’d choose to not do anything and think:
“You know what? We are running out of resources because the consumption of them per capita is too high, but we don’t care, so let’s do nothing about it, and let’s see what will happen, fellows, shall we?”
If this drastic reduction of the population happened, those of us that survived could lead humanity to reach a sustainable number of people and control it, and those lucky one wouldn’t need a legacy if they had the know-how & the resources to be immortal.
The boredom problem can be solved by a memory eraze after x years. Hey but isnt that death ? Then perhaps consciousness in different beings is a rebirth of a different kind ?
Any comment on the role that pre-nubs can play in changing the gambling equation? Any good resources?
Many states are bad at enforcing them, but some do. They aren’t allow to cover child custody or child-care payments but should cover the 50% of assets territory.
Jon’s perspective on any relationship investment is this: if there is not mutually assured destruction, the relationship has no foundation. Whether friends, family or partners, if you do not have equivalent ability and will to wreck each other’s lives, then you cannot rely on the other person to be constantly, reliably present as humans are inherently selfish and self-preserving. Thus, never give someone leverage in your life without also gaining leverage in theirs.
The modern judicial system is set up against men, denying them socially-approved leverage. But if you are willing to be an outlaw or an outcast, there are ways of building your own tide against a woman before marriage. It’s sort of an extension of something we haven’t managed to name yet, where humans seek a balance in all their relationships. (“Paideagamy” is as close as I have got, “the desire for a marriage to fill in the gaps in your own time, knowledge and skills”, but still not quite right.] Masculine men seek feminine women, feminine women seek masculine men, doctors seek nurses, scientists seek artists, we always look for something in someone that complements us, whatever their role in our life will be. We are always building a tribe so that our labour can be pooled and divided and experts can develop.
And, just as the positives must complement each other, so must the negatives, to keep each other in line. Kindness does not rule fear, only fear rules fear. If a man has a temper, a woman must be quietly manipulative enough to limit her exposure to it. If a woman is obliviously solipsistic, a man must be obnoxious and careless enough to repeatedly and insensitively call her out and make her reflect. If a woman has the sole sanctioned ability to wreck a relationship, then the man needs an ace on the table, to let her know he is also able and willing to burn the whole home down and happy to go to prison for it should she begin to move towards wrecking. Not being afraid of the law, of leaving the country or of social shame are required, though, because when women’s authority is completely sanctioned, then you must go by unsanctioned means to enforce your own authority. Mutually assured destruction.
I generally agree with him on that, as it does appeal to my ridiculously strong Machiavellian streak, but on the flip side the actual matter of marriage to me is literally a bit of paper that makes sure that if I’m hit by a car our kids won’t go to my mother or siblings because the legal system here hates single dads, and that if Jon gets hit by a car our kids get a widow’s pension to help me keep food on the table because he isn’t getting replaced. If there were another way of doing it that was as cheap and easy as showing up at the registry office twice and paying £80, then I would have preferred it, but lawyers are expensive buggers and many non-standard papers are overruled in court nowadays anyway. What we really need is higher approval of currently non-standard family arrangement papers, such as multi-directional split custody and child support, prenuptual agreements and parental rights assignment. Unlikely, but would be pretty cool.
“If a woman has the sole sanctioned ability to wreck a relationship, then the man needs an ace on the table, to let her know he is also able and willing to burn the whole home down and happy to go to prison for it should she begin to move towards wrecking. Not being afraid of the law, of leaving the country or of social shame are required, though, because when women’s authority is completely sanctioned, then you must go by unsanctioned means to enforce your own authority. Mutually assured destruction.”
A few examples please … of “unsanctioned means”.
-willingness and ability to leave the country at the drop of a hat
-willingness and ability to sever financial ties at all times
-willingness and ability to “vanish”
-willingness and ability to pursue female affections elsewhere
Some men go as far as far more violent or illegal means as well, such as LITERALLY burning down shared property before vanishing, but the basic point is that you need to have SOMETHING that rebalances the power dynamic.
-willingness and ability to sever financial ties at all times
Not possible. The “law” courts make that impossible.
-willingness and ability to leave the country at the drop of a hat
But how do you take your kids with you, if you are a father? You’ll lose your kids. Become a “kidnapper” … and if she calls you a pedophile in court … you are fucked.
-willingness and ability to “vanish”
Not easy … if you have kids. I’d say almost impossible.
-willingness and ability to pursue female affections elsewhere
Easy! This is the only realistic option.
Bottom line: If you are a man, and you marry … you are fucked.
If you are a father … the former option must (at least in comparison) seem like HEAVEN.
That’s the problem.
There is no way out.
-Separate bank accounts, hidden bank accounts, hidden and undeclared assets. I could name an amount of wealth Jon has that would be impossible to find or track if he chose to hide it. And that’s what I know.
-Your kids are lost to you if she is awful anyway. If she would give you fair time with them, then chances are you don’t need to flee the country, if you need to flee the country, chances are you’re looking at child support, alimony and little to no visitation rights anyway.
-People vanish all the time. Name changes and shifting jobs is fairly simple. I don’t think there is one non-relative from before 2011 who can still contact me, and around seven to ten people from then to today who are not in my life and can still find me. Everyone else is gone. Even the benefit office from my teens took three years to find me and get money back after I was overpaid. With kids it would be harder, but see the above point.
-Playing devil’s advocate: it only works with certain types of women, otherwise it could start a situation that leads to the above issues. Drama-lovers, borderlines or sociopaths will use it as leverage in divorce or to drive your kids from you.
It’s not as free as being single, but at the end of the day, if you know the law and you are fairly unchained from your location, marriage needn’t be absolute leverage for women. If Jon wanted out and I was adamant in refusing him, he could leave the country and go somewhere English-speaking in 24h, find sexual replacements easily, and he has zero financial ties to me unless I decide to raid his physical assets stores, which would be theft because he bought them traceably under his sole-owner credit card. If I decided he isn’t seeing the baby, he would not see it whether he protected himself or not. If I decided he was seeing the baby and he was interested, I would move heaven and earth to get them together whether he was easy to reach or not. And that’s without mentioning illegal leverage which a Sigma is far happier to use. I know the sort of people he knows and can call out in a pinch and I’m glad to be on his side in the “us vs the world” fight.
Fortunately neither of us got into this relationship with particularly romantic goals, even if we’re enjoying the ride, and we both understand that we need the other one if we’re going to get there. But even if he had entered a marriage for conventional reasons with a more rosey-eyed and emotionally flighty woman, his situation is rock solid. An English-speaking security worker with a UK degree, money in the bank, various personal assets and a passport can do pretty much as he pleases, divorce court or no divorce court.
Why does society have to return to a Christian state to enforce family values? Can’t that be achieved without a religion?
Thanks for your reply. But it still leaves one question unanswered. KIDS. What happens to fathers and their children?
I’m unmarried. Never going to marry. Reached that conclusion myself. Only later learnt about MGTOW and other such things. I’m 25 years old now.
I pity married men.
Btw, I live in India. Things here for men are not too different from the West. The Indian Supreme Court recently called the mother the “natural guardian” of the child. Meaning: you are lucky if you spend 2 hours a month with your kid. And even that can’t be enforced.
I don’t understand it … Do males no longer have balls? How can anyone with any self-respect allow themselves to be treated this way? Were I married and a father, no one would ever take my home and my kids from me … Not while I lived … Over my dead body … perhaps.
I will fight and die … and kill if need be … to call my kids my own.
So, what is wrong with today’s “men”? Are they “castratos”?
“I don’t understand it … Do males no longer have balls? How can anyone with any self-respect allow themselves to be treated this way? Were I married and a father, no one would ever take my home and my kids from me … Not while I lived … Over my dead body … perhaps.
I will fight and die … and kill if need be … to call my kids my own.
So, what is wrong with today’s “men”? Are they “castratos”?”
In their defense the state is powerful, but it coudn’t withstand massive resistance. It is because most men are sheeple that the state can commit such crimes. See my solution below.
Do you know what will crash the system? The crash will happen when men realize that only violence will solve the problem. The Red Pill has not reached this level yet. I want you to deliberate on this IM and I can provide my analysis if needed.
What about a third option: marrying a woman from a more conservative society, like Russia, Philippines or a Latin American country? Those societies are poorer in general, so you’d immediately have an advantage over other male competitors. Population pyramids are also more favourable for men than in developed countries.
It would probably be convenient to move there, as if you bring her to your country she would easily end up corrupted by feminism, and in case of divorce you’d suffer less favourable laws than in her country.
Costs are however quite considerable. You may have to learn a new language, get used to a different culture, and get far from family or friends.
Marriage has always been a religious institution instituted and defined by God Himself (take that you LGBTQ perverts). The solution is to ignore the arrogance and tyranny of the state. If you don’t want to lose the game, don’t sit down at the table to play. The choice is between being a liberal and giving up God-given rights to the state (a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot) and being a true Catholic (a.k.a. Christian) and being willing to be punished by the irreligious state (there are only so many jails) for stating with all one’s manly strength:
WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD AND NOT MEN.
In other words:
WHAT GOD HATH JOINED LET NO MAN TEAR ASUNDER.
Great post IM. stumbbled on this at the right time as i’ve been pondering whether to go into LTR or just continue to spin plates as i’ve been doing, although i’ve found it empty and unfulfiling but its just me being realistic and playing the game.
I have a girl who is a virgin, a strong HB7, who is virtuous and submissive, but is unwilling to have sex with me. I have applied dread game endlessly but she wouldnt budge. do i go into an LTR with her or continue to spin plates? you kind advice will be much appreciated..
Ignore her don’t be stupid
Lol fuck marriage.
I just learn that MARRIEAGE is the real prison for man.
why da hell man married nowadays?!!
You would have to be a fool to get married nowadays IMO.