A Man Betrayed

The old saying: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scored."

Cliche, with truth behind it, one which many men have taken deep wounds from.

I have a new saying for the modern age: "Purgatory has no indifference like a Man betrayed."

Modern women live in a lonely purgatory of their own making.

A purgatory of the indifference of Men. A purgatory of no trust from Men. A purgatory that gets emptier with every single betrayal perpetrated by a woman upon a Man.

Women need the validation of others: both women and men.

Women provide the "validation" of relationships, herdism, groupthink, and the joys of social networking - aka gossip, social maneuvering, and backstabbing. Men provide the "validation" of both sexual meaning and protectorship for a woman, plus providing resources for the building up and growth and protection of families.

Soon there will only be female validation of women - men's validation of women is rapidly going out the door.

No marriages. No protection. No chivalry. No support whatsoever. Only the random hands, mouths, and penises of a succession of one-night-stands. Grasping, taking, entering, leaving on the slightest stir of emotion and whim. A vibrator as she gets older and the penises become less-common.

It's a cold world for a woman when she must do it all on her own. No mountain of strength, no sheltering tree, to keep at bay the vicissitudes of a harsh world. No steady and strong arms to hold her close on a regular basis. No deep, mumbling, sleepy voice to say: "There, there...it'll be better in the morning..." as a caress reassures her.

Instead it's another lonely night for her, to pop an antidepressant, to down a bottle of wine, to cry herself to sleep in a newly-emptied bed.

Another night for me, to sip Grand Marnier in front of the fire, to enjoy a good meal, to read a good book, to try and think deeply about the world.

I wonder if she will hear us Men as we whisper to the air: "You showed us freedom, woman. Didn't you think we would reach out to make it our own?"
--------
Commentor Anonymous brings out the prefect turn of phrase to describe this situation - "betrayal fatigue":

Anonymous 

There is a thing called betrayal fatigue, and it's epidemic in men. 

Patient Zero is women.

It fits well. Thank you.

Back To Basics: What's In It For Me?

Feminists and women, start running. This will not make you feeeeel good. Let's dive into the cesspool of modern society once more and see what we can find at the bottom.

On my prior post Back To Basics: What Is Marriage For? I wrote a single little throwaway line which has made me think about another basic item of life and civilization:

To give someone skin in the game, then there must be in their opinion something worthwhile in return.

Which brings up many things that have been said, repeatedly, through the manosphere. When you think carefully about it, you can see that it drives the PUA mindset of pump'n'dump. It underlies the concepts of the Christian Red Pill blogs. It underscores the why of MGTOW and Going Ghost.

We can see it when we ask what a woman brings to the table.

It's there when we ask a woman what she thinks a good woman brings to a relationship.

We can hear it whenever a Man gets frustrated and swears about not finding a good woman.

It's potentially there when a Red Pill Woman attempts to put herself up as what we men want.

It's potentially there when we hear about born-again Churchians and women who say that they've changed, they're not like that any more.

But we're all too nicey-nicey politically-correct to overtly state it. Even amongst ourselves. Even to admit it to ourselves. Because it's not "socially acceptable" for a Man to seem to be so selfish. Hell, I was too nicey-nicey myself when I said "skin in the game". So now I'm going to put it out there, for myself and for every other Man in the world:

What's in it for me?

Not angry. Not accusing. A simple, cold, selfish question that ultimately determines: in my opinion, is there something worthwhile in return for doing X?

Ironically and amusingly, women and femiwhores have been coldly and selfishly asking this question of men for decades (if not from the dawn of time) while at the same time exhorting us to be unselfish (it's that infamous female doublethink at work once more):

When she asks what you do for a living. (Subquestion how much do you make? Subsubquestion are you worth getting to know? Subsubsubentitlement I'm entitled to know so I can decide if I want to put my hand into your wallet.)

When she decides that you're no longer man enough for her.

When she impulsively fucks some guy she just met that night because he turns her on.

When she drags you around emotionally like a pet on a leash for her amusement.

When she dumps you because the sex/relationship has gotten stale.

When she causes a fight because she wants a drama fix.

When she asks you to buy her a drink.

When she browbeats you into doing something that you really don't want to do.

When she parts her legs for a PUA who has entertained her sufficiently.

Sometimes it's defensive:

Every time a PUA drops a fuck into her and then dumps her because that's all she has of any worth to offer.

Every time a MGTOW shakes his head and passes because he knows that she's going to be too much trouble.

Every time a Ghost slides through life with minimal interaction because it's just not worth the hassle.

Sometimes it's because it's personally beneficial:

Every time you go to the gym and feel satisfaction at breaking a personal record.

Every time you walk down the beach, out in the sun, filling your lungs with clean air.

Every time you do something just because you enjoy doing it.

Sometimes it's warm and fulfilling, as Keoni Galt states:

Every time you give to charity.

Every time you hug your child.

Every time you kiss your loved ones.

What's in it for me?

I look at civilization. I choose to continue with my reasonably high-income business/work because it is worth it for me. It pays for a 4 bedroom home which gives me personal space. It allows me to travel occasionally from New Zealand to other places in the world. That people hire my consultant ass is a bonus. Even so, I am thinking of changing and cutting back - there is a lot of stress involved, I have about 10 weeks of holiday-time accumulated, I'm beginning to wonder if it's actually worth that much hassle to me.

Others look at civilization. What's in it for them? So they minimize their interactions, earn less money than they're capable of, relax and enjoy their life. Perhaps it's a voluntary reduction, perhaps it's a forced reduction. Perhaps they decide to sponge off the system. Relax, enjoy the decline, enjoy the scenery, enjoy their family, enjoy other people. Develop your hobbies because you want to.

So these bring out another question along the same lines:

Is it really worth that much hassle?

This is what ultimately caused me to dump the entire dancing scene. I realized that there wasn't really enough in it for me, for it to be worth the hassle of hanging around these crazy entitled slut-whores. (Yes, slut-whores. Some used it as a dating/fucking pool. Others dated/fucked multiple guys at once. One was an actual whore. One had six guys in a single night. No other words fit. Plus, the drama and horseshit and politics and backstabbing!)

Is it really worth that much hassle?

Well? Is it?

What You Can Destroy

Uncle Bob has an interesting article up about how a century of feminism has failed women, written by Belinda Brown of The Conservative Woman. I'm going to cherrypick a few bits from the article, though I think the entire post he's put up is worth reading and thinking upon - this is simply my take on it:

Firstly, feminists may be a minority, but they are powerful. Women have real power in the family, rooted in their reproductive capability. This may, entirely through women’s individual decisions, lead to a secondary role in the public realm. Feminists have used this lower public status as a bargaining chip to pursue their own self-interest in every possible avenue of public life. Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.
...
Secondly feminists are not amenable to rational argument. There are none so blind as those whose view has been eclipsed by ideology; ideology built on distortion, piled on top of stupidity and upon lie after lie until the truth lies buried deep beneath. Feminists are not going to turn traitor to an ideology which has not only nurtured their careers but determined crucial, life changing, and possibly life destroying, decisions in their private lives. The courage required to recognize their error would not be outweighed by the gain.
...
Feminism works well for women who want visible power and influence. But it has no strategy for social reproduction. Boys on Ritalin, internet addiction, obesity, oversexualised children, men in prison, fractured families – feminism has no long term survival strategy. These are just some examples of its scorched earth spawn.
...
You are right, Neil, that ultimately it is women, women who destroyed so much through their pursuit of self-interest, but who, because of their reproductive potential hold the key. This time round it is going to be very much harder. Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.
...
This is what the feminist century has done. By almost destroying the family it has shown us that it is the cornerstone of society. If we want self-fulfilled, happy, creative individuals, a functional, well networked society and a civilization worthy of emulation, we need strong healthy, resourceful families built on the commitment and selflessness of adults, persistence and a lot of hard work.

As I have quoted before: "If you can destroy something, you control it." - Muad'Dib, Dune

However that doesn't mean that you should destroy it. Especially for your own selfish gain. Which the author admits that feminism has done. (Note: While a lot of Men would like to destroy the feminist-centric grip on society, I am beginning to doubt that there will ever be a strong or lasting effect. There are too many white-knight manginas and assholes willing to throw all men under the bus for an opportunity to empty their nuts into a woman.)

It's interesting that the author also refers to feminism and MGTOW as Scylla and Charybdis. Two poles, steering between them safely. Unfortunately she makes one very large mistake in her thinking (given that this is a female writing the article, I cannot say that I'm surprised):

Only the steadfast women who are happy to prioritise the interests of their husbands and their children can set this process in motion. The feminists can’t, nor can the MGTOW. Women can do it, but only with the help of men. Together we can undo the damage which feminism created and rebuild a world of which can feel a little more proud.

"...only with the help of men..." - indeed.

Picture a couple together, standing shoulder-to-shoulder against the world, marching boldly and proudly into the future. A pretty and noble image.

Rah fucking rah.

The author's female entitlement mindset is such that she seems to automatically and unthinkingly expect Men as a whole to step up to the plate and help the process along. The final sentence reeks of a sub-rosa "man up" message. Fail!

A woman can shout to the world that she is happy to prioritize the interests of her husband and children. Yet we Men no longer have reason to cooperate and do our part in the process - let alone believe anything that women say.

Belief? Trust? In a woman?

Our harsh experiences have proven otherwise.

Feminism hasn't "almost" destroyed the family. Feminism has destroyed the trust between the sexes - at least, for the current generations.

With no trust, with no enforceable worthwhile marriage, there is no family.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

All The Wells Have Been Thoroughly Poisoned

Occasionally I go over and read Donal Graeme - he's a Christian Red Pill blogger who decries Churchianity and brings up some interesting stuff. I should read him more than I do, though I'm both atheist and getting busier these days. Commentor Mindstorm recently pointed me over there to a post:

A Truce ... or Victory?

Some of the comments in there are starkly illustrative of the mindset of people still trying to get men into the game-aka-war going on between the two sexes. Commentor The Shadowed Knight resists this and states:

I am not interested in a truce. I am not interested in a war, either. Women can fight; they want that drama. Every man for himself, and this man is leaving the field. For many of us, any truce will come too late to do much good. This fight left too few decent women standing, and the effort involved in finding them is too much for me. 

The Shadowed Knight

Yes indeed, he strikes right to the core. Too few of worth, too hard to find, forget it. I'm outta here, left the other slaves on the plantation, looking for a nice pleasant fishing-hole to enjoy. Want to join me? Drop your hook over there, maybe you'll get Old Mossy who hides under the tree roots.

Of course, there's the obligatory women-centric types seeming to try and shame the men back into getting involved with them. Some are obviously women, some are a bit harder to tell if it's a feminist-oriented male or someone with other skin in the game. I will quote one female commentor:

This fight left too few decent women standing, and the effort involved in finding them is too much for me. 

Even if you found one that you were convinced is one of the few decent women left, I doubt you’d fight to snap her up. Not just you though; that applies to most men these days, including those that hang around here, despite the fact that it’s hard to find one.

(Donal Graeme did give her a mild earful for coming across as a shaming-attempt. I would not have been so mild.)

People can state what they wish. People lie.

Women, as chameleon, are nothing but lies. ("I'm not like that!" When it's evident in every push-up bra, every drop of scent, every layer of makeup, every piece of slutty revealing clothing, that she is like that. Stop lying, woman.)

This is what these fucking retards never seem to grasp. Women. Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they think that opening their mouth and saying something means that Men will take it as truth. Whether it's true or not.

Bull.

Shit.

The type of mentality which comes across - as if they're entitled to lie and sincerely expect to get away with it and that men will give them the pussy-pass if they're caught out - is both amazing and disturbing. Female entitlement to the max.

Cory Doctrow once wrote a piece on MetaCrap:

Meta-utopia is a world of reliable metadata. When poisoning the well confers benefits to the poisoners, the meta-waters get awfully toxic in short order.

To paraphrase and apply this maxim to the so-called sexual marketplace:

The sexual marketplace is a world of reliable relationships. When poisoning the sexual marketplace confers benefits to the poisoners, the sexual marketplace gets awfully toxic in short order.

Women have very thoroughly poisoned the sexual marketplace. It has been for their personal short-term gain and not for their family's nor civilization's long-term gain.

----------

Imagine a caravan of camels going through the desert. The sun burns down, the plodding pace, the feet dragging through the shifting sands. They stop at various oases and wells, trading, getting water, fresh food.

One particular village realizes that caravans are very profitable and poisons a well, luring in caravans. Those who go there die, their carcasses stripped, the bodies hidden away before the next caravan arrives. Several other villages note the prosperity of this village of robbers and decide to emulate them. The mentality spreads to yet other villages. Soon, all of the villages are doing it.

The caravan trade slacks off. Alarmed at the loss of their prosperity, the villagers get together and send out word: "We do not do these things. Come trade with us without risk."

The caravan trade picks up again. Prosperity returns to the villages in the form of more dead caravans, their corpses stripped, their bones hidden away in the endless sands.

Again, the caravan trade slacks off. Some of the villagers, deciding that they're sick of the others actions - even though they personally profited from those actions, perhaps even participated in them - split away and settle new villages.

No caravans arrive.

Surprised, they get together and have a big conflab then send out word: "We are new villages. We have absolutely nothing to do with those filthy robbers of the old villages. You can come trade with us and you will be welcome."

Still no caravans.

All the wells have been thoroughly poisoned - in the minds of the caravan-masters.
----------
Women seem to be so irrational (or entitled) that they apparently cannot grasp that men are actually rational when it comes to danger. That we see overwhelmingly common behavior. That we realize this behavior is going to be so common that we are most likely going to be subjected to it. (Is this a function of men as hunters, becoming good at recognizing danger in our surrounds and patterns of behavior in things around us?)

Plus, the whole idea of "new villages" reminds me of "born-again virgins".

Plus, the whole idea of so-called Red Pill Women stinks of the poison of personal opportunism.

A woman may not intend at all to follow this behavior.

Feelings change.

Good intentions go out the window.

Emotions take over.

You actually have the nerve to tell me you're not like that? You actually have the chutzpah to tell me you've changed? Cry me a fucking river. Woman, you lie.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

So You Still Want A Relationship

As a MGTOW I can't recommend this.

We'll assume that you've read all the warnings through the manosphere against doing it. We'll assume that you've decided that yes, you're going to give it a go. You're an adult.

So. You need to look really hard at these girls and filter through them.

Fortunately, one of the commenters over on Reddit has come up with what looks to me to be a gem of a filter. From /r/MGTOW, the post is mostly about goldiggers:

Asari_Lover 8 points 9 hours ago 

Pfft, I've got one. The answer I repetitively heard was drum roll A) Sex, B) I make you look good. 

Edit: I found a great way to sort out female "friends" worth having around and ones who are not is asking them what they think a good woman contributes to a relationship. [Emphasis mine. - BPS] Most look as though they were asked to give a lecture on quantum physics.

So. Ask her what she thinks a good woman contributes to a relationship.

I suppose that if nothing else, you'll get a few laughs from the looks on their faces. Hell, it might be worth asking your male friends as well.

Back To Basics: What Is Marriage For?

Eyes, balls, brains - all here. Hang on tight, it's time to go all the way back to basics and follow the question-chain through all all the way to the final conclusion.

Leftists, feminists, marxists, and women - walk away now. This will not make you feeeeeel good.

What is marriage for?

Possible answer: Because we love each other. No. We can love someone without marrying them. Without getting involved with them. Without anything formal being involved at all.

Possible answer: Because we're exclusive. No. We can be exclusive with someone without marrying them. That's just a "lets fuck exclusively" arrangement.

Accepted answer: To protect the family. Yes. Now let's expand that chain of thought.

What is a family?

Possible answer: A couple. No. A couple can be a couple (ie fuck exclusively) without being a family. Marriage is not required to be a couple.

Accepted answer: A Man, Woman, and Child(ren). Yes. Without children it is not a family. It is simply a pair of people hanging around together and fucking exclusively. Lets expand these two thoughts.

Why was marriage developed?

To formalize the expectations of all members of the family. Formal expectations of the Man, of the Woman, and of the Child(ren). What is considered to be the duties of all members of the family. What is required to keep that family together and strong. Most importantly, what is required to provide the best growing environment for children (the next generation).

Again: Why was marriage developed?

Because without formal expectations what was happening was not working very well. Without some form of enforcement, there was nothing to hold the family unit together (beyond nebulous feeeeelings). Feelings are notoriously changeable - for both Men and Women.

Yet again: Why was marriage developed?

It was developed to harness the power of Men and to yoke it to the development of civilization for the overall benefit of Men, Women, and Child(ren). When you give somebody skin in the game, then they will work hard at it. To give someone skin in the game, then there must be in their opinion something worthwhile in return.

The something worthwhile can include:

1. Goods of use (clothing, food, housing, etc)
2. Social respect
3. Ease in older age (accumulated goods)

When there's nothing worthwhile in return, when there's no real skin in the game - "meh, what the hell" becomes the attitude.

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." - Camille Paglia

With civilization and it's accumulated knowledge and development we have a longer lifespan and helluva lot better living conditions for all. Without it we live in effective squalor, with higher chances of disease or starvation or childbirth killing us off.

To summarize:

• Marriage was designed to protect the family unit (Men, Women, Child(ren) all), to enforce certain rules upon the family unit, to effectively make that family unit a part of a growth towards better conditions for all Men, Women, and Children in a larger group.

• Call that larger group "civilization" (and to a lesser extent, "society").

• Without enforcing formal rules upon the family unit, the family unit will most likely break up.

• The breaking up of the family unit generally ends up with a less-pleasant situation for the bringing up of children.

• Civilization requires the best possible bringing up of children, the next generation, to overall improve the living conditions for all within that civilization.

Note: When an individual or group attacks, debases, or destroys the family unit, then civilization is similarly being attacked, debased, and destroyed.

Note: Throughout history there have been examples where civilizations have destroyed the family unit (Sparta, Rome). These civilizations have declined and been destroyed.

Note: LGBTQ-whatever is not a family unit. They cannot naturally have children (sans adoption). It has also been documented that child-abuse is higher in the homosexual community - not good for the children, the next generation, and therefore civilization as a whole.

Note: For 15,000+ years humanity has had civilizations of various forms. For over a million years there were no real known civilizations. It wasn't until something became worthwhile in the mind of the people involved that civilization developed.

Note: The deconstruction of the basic rule-of-thumb template of civilization that has held true for the past 15,000+ years, by the arbitrary ideas of leftist/feminist/marxist theorists of less than 150 years who think that they know better than a time-tested method, is hubris/pride to an incredible degree.

Which is overall why Marriage 2.0 (and civilization) is breaking down. There's basically nothing worthwhile in it for the one who works the hardest and produces the most to support the family unit: the Man.

Now lets go to the next logical set of conclusions, as regards MGTOW and older men in general and social expectations:

• Men are expected to be in a relationship or married (a social expectation)

• Without any intent to have children, there is no need for marriage

• Without marriage, without family, relationships are simply casual or exclusive fucking arrangements

Which is basically society these days. Especially with no-strings-attached sex, pick-up, one-night-stands, etc. Without any stable family unit (all the above) then it's no wonder that civilization is declining in the West.

Which is why we are getting LGBTQ marriages, women marrying themselves, weird shit like that. (What's next? Marrying your cat? Your dog? Your horse? How about your dildo or vibrator?)

The rules of Marriage, the rules designed to strengthen and enforce the duties of the family unit, have been kicked out of shape and fucked with to the point of being unrecognizable and unworkable and not worth dealing with from the Man's point of view.

Which is also why laws have been passed regarding "Common Law Marriage" or "de facto relationships". Just the same as Marriage, automatically slapped on a couple after a few years of being together, forcing people into an arrangement which has no real worth from the point of view of the Man.

Forced child-support for one-night-stands and single mommies who no-way want the Man in their lives, yet are quite happy to stick their hand into his wallet on an ongoing basis to support her parasitic lifestyle.

Garbage rammed down everyone's throat about how Marriage is special - women having lavish weddings - all that crap. All for the woman's validation. Nothing of worth for the Man.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price. Tonight I will have a sip of Grand Marnier while I reflect, in front of my winter fire, sitting on my chair, in my warm house, about the decline that is so obvious - and muse about why so many people are living in denial as it happens around them.

A Commentor Attacks - Man Up! Edition

This happened over on Keoni's blog. Interesting. I shall quote the attacker's comment here (the first part in italics is what I said, the commentor is replying to a small part of my overall comment):

tz said...

Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme.

What a whiny, selfish bastard (I can call one who rejects fatherhood this without it being an insult, just an observation).

They would not be forced to support you. This is what Christendom did before Social Security. My grandparents lived with us or my aunts/uncles, and I took care of my parents. "Honor thy Father and Mother". Whether they are saints or sinners. Are you planning on being horrible to your children? Who else will support you? Taxpayers? Or will you drink the hemlock?

What you mean is it would be cruel to you to have to depend on someone who would do it as an honor instead of creating a generation that isn't materialistic or narcissistic. But first you must repent of these yourself.

You will suffer to gain muscle, endurance, thinness, wealth, but not children?

I'm acting and I may be worse off than you. The first part is finding an area of the country (or world) that is old fashioned, and where there is likely "a herd of unicorns" even if the number is small. I am moving to this target rich environment a week from today. (It doesn't have a football or baseball team, Opera, or big-box malls)

Red Pill? Zion and "the real world" aren't beautiful, easy, or pleasant. Cypher preferred the Matrix. You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents. Where men were fathers and women were mothers, and the many children would keep the traditional ways yet find new opportunities (an old Italian saying on sons was one for the business, one for the priesthood, one for the police or army...).

Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily. The Kingdom of Heaven can only give you profound an eternal joy at the cost of a bit of difficulty and suffering and losses will be returned 100 fold - with persecutions - Luke. It isn't a bacchanal or a debauch.

If the point isn't to restore western civilization to some small corner, the red-pill may as well be hemlock

Hmmm, some pseudo-intellectualism coming out here. Without much actual sense, at least in my opinion. So I will have to deconstruct and rebut it somewhat. After all, I've taken it as my duty to at least try and point out some of the poison in modern society. There's a bunch in here, which I'm not sure that the commentor realizes.

What a whiny, selfish bastard (I can call one who rejects fatherhood this without it being an insult, just an observation).

Whiny? Actually, I will admit to that. That was somewhat of the tone of how the comment I wrote came through. Tch tch bad me.

While the commentor can claim that it is not an insult and merely an observation - it is an insult. Deliberately so. The intent of using such language is to shame else such language would not be used. Stating that it's not an insult is disingenuous. Also hypocritical.

As an example, I often decry women using what might be referred to as "strong language". In fact I have been known to refer to certain segments of women as "cum buckets" and their single-mommy offspring as "womb turds". For me to say something along the lines of "this is not an insult, just an observation" would be both disingenuous and hypocrisy in the extreme - because I intend it as an insult and am using this shaming language to both expose and push said behavior out of common occurrence.

They would not be forced to support you. This is what Christendom did before Social Security. My grandparents lived with us or my aunts/uncles, and I took care of my parents. "Honor thy Father and Mother". Whether they are saints or sinners. Are you planning on being horrible to your children? Who else will support you? Taxpayers? Or will you drink the hemlock?

Who said I was a Christian? (Roman Catholic, Lapsed - and ineffably thankful, given the stuff which went on between the priest and his "flock" of young boys. I've always been glad that I'm basically ugly. Thank you LORD!)

Has this commentor blinded himself to the current tendency for children to move to other cities in search of work? Has this commentor blinded himself to the current tendency for children to barely scrape by and live with their parents? (There's a reason for the trope of boys playing video games in the basement. Where's the work for them? Held on to for dear life by the Baby Boomers and Gen-X - bastards like me.)

My grandmother lived by herself when my grandmother moved out. My mother moved out. My brother, half-sister, step-siblings, and I all moved out. There was nothing along the lines of communal living. That said, when my stepfather dies, I fully expect my mother to move in with me. At least I have a large-ish place in town, rather than semi-rural as they are now.

He asks if I will be horrible to my children, and if I expect taxpayers to support me. Or if I'll commit suicide. Again, this part of the comment is ladled with shaming language (in the form of sub-rosa contempt). Tch tch, he completely ignored the rest of the paragraph I put up (which he deliberately didn't quote - cherry-picking!). The full paragraph I shall quote here:

Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme. As it is, I expect now to work until I die - unless I decide to retire to a country where my money is worth vastly greater than it is in my home country. I would be effectively isolating myself to live halfway decently into my old age. [My emphasis. - BPS]

As can be seen I said, quite plainly, that I expect to work until I die. I take full responsibility for my own "retirement" in whatever form I happen to desire. When the ultimate decline of senescence comes, hopefully I will have the mental fortitude (ie not be senile) to not linger in a hospital with "heroic measures" being paid for by the taxpayer.

What you mean is it would be cruel to you to have to depend on someone who would do it as an honor instead of creating a generation that isn't materialistic or narcissistic. But first you must repent of these yourself.

Again, the commentor seems lacking in reading comprehension (prior). Though to be fair, he hasn't looked at my financial analysis of the costs of women - especially the cost of each child (estimated $100k per child these days). Let's reiterate with a little figurative math here (these are not my numbers):

* income after tax of $100k per year
* mortgage of $70k per year
* food, insurance, car, travel, etc of $20k per year
* remaining $10k per year

We'll say that I'm 50yo, will retire at 65yo (the "usual" age). My mortgage will be paid off at that point. That leaves me: $10k * 15 years = $150k cash/retirement. Some 30+yo slut/single-mommy type will reduce that amount even further, as well as costing $100k per child. It would be extremely difficult to give any children a good start education-wise in life (plus fuck that noise of MA's and BA's in Liberal Arts degrees, etc).

Now, if I somehow had a successful marriage when younger and the house was paid off and the children out the door, with the mythical "happy wife", then this is what the situation might look like:

* income after tax of $100k per year
* mortgage - none
* food, insurance, car, travel, etc of $45k per year
* remaining $55k per year

When I retire in this situation: $55k * 15 = $825k cash/retirement. Remember, the children are already gone! Paid for, education done, out the door, all that good stuff. There is a *vast* difference and that $850k can be placed into various things which give interest - $40k a year at a roughly 7% rate (after taxes, etc). Without touching the principal. No social security required. While leaving the children two things when my wife and I finally kicked the bucket:

1/ a house and land (fully paid-off)

2/ $850k cash

This is what a prudent generation would do: accumulation of wealth over time. This is the middle-class dream. This is what the Baby Boomers pissed away from their parent's generation. This is what Marriage 2.0 and the accompanying divorce/frivorce industry specifically targets and destroys.

You will suffer to gain muscle, endurance, thinness, wealth, but not children?

There is a difference in degree, as described above. Read. Comprehend. Understand. Gaining the positives of muscle/endurance/thinness/wealth are accumulative at little cost, women and children are a drain at great cost. One that at this stage in life sucks the entire future to a dry husk of nothingness. I would then, indeed, be forced to either:

a/ suck off the taxpayer's teat
b/ drain my children's future dry
c/ some combination of both

Let's continue.

I'm acting and I may be worse off than you. The first part is finding an area of the country (or world) that is old fashioned, and where there is likely "a herd of unicorns" even if the number is small. I am moving to this target rich environment a week from today. (It doesn't have a football or baseball team, Opera, or big-box malls)

You have found this? Despite possibly being worse off than me? Excellent! More power to you. I sincerely hope one thing: that they're not the fucked-up churchian girls out there. May it work out well for you.

Red Pill? Zion and "the real world" aren't beautiful, easy, or pleasant. Cypher preferred the Matrix. You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents. Where men were fathers and women were mothers, and the many children would keep the traditional ways yet find new opportunities (an old Italian saying on sons was one for the business, one for the priesthood, one for the police or army...).

Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily. The Kingdom of Heaven can only give you profound an eternal joy at the cost of a bit of difficulty and suffering and losses will be returned 100 fold - with persecutions - Luke. It isn't a bacchanal or a debauch.

Exactly, we know they're not pleasant. Accusatory/shaming language again: "You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents." Obviously he has not read my blog to any deep degree. I will excuse him on this one, for he hasn't gotten the full facts.

I will not, however, excuse him on: "Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily." The author of the Bible (which by the way is a conglomeration by committee) did not state: "You will man up and marry those sluts." Nor did it say anything about deliberately allowing someone else to be a parasite upon you (at least, so far as I know). Many things in the Bible are very red-pill.

I've also had little good to say about the general idea of chasing and entertaining and catering to brain-damaged and broken women just so you can get an opportunity to dump a fuck in them. Especially given that most of the available ones are high n-count sluts (no I don't want to be her #50 man, just as she doesn't want to know that she's been my #50 woman). Plus it's damn expensive, for basically zero real worth in return.

If the point isn't to restore western civilization to some small corner, the red-pill may as well be hemlock

This I will applaud the man for. He has his head screwed on right in that instance. However he also misses the overall point: the red-pill is to make sure that you don't get your dick stuck in the mincer. It's a "take off the blinders, don't ignore the signs, take it all with a ton of skepticism" message for all men. It's also a "here's how to deal with this shit" template for younger men to follow if they should decide to marry.

At this point I am sighing inside. While the commentor has a (very) few good points, overall he comes across as someone with yet another leftist/feminist "man up" message. Sacrifice yourself unthinkingly. Throw yourself under the bus willingly. Man up and save that civilization.

Wait, that sounds familiar. Where did I hear that message before?

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Looks Like Trash

This is brought to mind by seeing a couple of girls in the past day. There was one thing in common between the girls that got my attention immediately:

Torn pants.

One was young-ish (around 20) and wearing torn jeans. You know what I mean - the type which looks like they've been worn so long that they've split horizontally in a couple of places. These days it's actually deliberate cutting-and-fraying, either straight from the manufacturer or done personally.

The other was middle-aged (I'd estimate 28-30) and wearing slashed leggings (or whatever the fuck they call those things these days - yoga pants?). When I say slashed, you know what I mean: they've been deliberately cut across in various places across the leg to expose the skin.

Fashion, how cute.

Reality is, women's standards have fallen so low that what they would have no-way worn 30 years ago - would have thrown out or used for something else - is suddenly an "in" thing to be seen wearing in public. (This must also be a symptom of the sheeplike mind of these types of twats - that there is suddenly an "in" thing at all. Fashion, brainwashing, herdism, bleh.)

Now it's time to look at men - specifically a few of the PUAs around here. Many of them go around looking sloppy, shirt hanging out, etc. The idea is that it makes them look relaxed (stupid as fuck if it's a dress-shirt, however that's my opinion only). Stuff that would never have been tolerated in my day: they'd have been told to tuck it in by all and sundry. Even people who didn't know them.

I look at guys with their pants sagging down around their knees. (Prison-code for "I'm looking for some rear-end action".) Guys who wander around in shorts and jandals in winter. (Yes Peter Jackson, I'm talking about you too. At least you upped your image once Lord of the Rings came out.)

Kids wandering around barefoot in wintertime in the rain while the parents are fat as fuck and bundled up. (Training starts early. Some of them kids don't get fed that well either.) Whole families wandering into a supermarket dressed in slippers and onesies. (Sleep-wear.)

Strangely enough, while it's okay for women to wander into a restaurant or bar wearing a singlet and jandals - it's not okay for a guy to do the same. Howzat for some double-standards. The woman can look fairly slovenly in public without a murmur, the man (still) cannot.

Looks like trash.

Sounds like trash.

Acts like trash.

Fuck me, must be trash! (Of both sexes.)

(This partially inspired by a smoko talk about flax - how it can't be put into the compost heap because it doesn't decompose - how it used to be used in linen - how clothing used to be hard-wearing. Plus noticing these two female slobs. Followed by thinking about guys the same. Funny the mind-chains that evolve.)

Slipping Camouflage

So, over the long weekend (ANZAC day, special here in New Zealand and in Australia) a guy I know asked me if I had plans or was available to go do something. (Long story that I'm not going to go into. Suffice to say it involved driving for about 6-8 hours, depending on the weather.)

Now, I had no intent for such a long trip. A guy needs to have some time to recharge, you know. Plus I wasn't spending my hard-earned cash on petrol for somebody else's benefit. I asked him: "Why don't you and X do it?" (X being his girlfriend.)

"X would kill me."

Now I thought that this was weird. This guy and his girlfriend enjoy doing the same things - the guy wanted it done really really badly - I figured his girlfriend would be happy to go along with him. If only just this once. Yet even so: "X would kill me."

After thinking about it for a while, I realized: his girlfriend is a well-disguised chameleon/predator. However, her camouflage has obviously slipped a few times in the past. Thus his comment, that she'll kill him if he does something like what he was wanting me to do. Even if he takes her along.

Me being single and all, I can do what I damned-well please. He cannot. Plus - which fuckin' annoys the shit out of me - he presumed that he could ask and I would chirpily say "sure!" and happily perform. Fuck that.

A little more reflection on him and his girlfriend and I realize: she must use emotional manipulation, mind-games, and that kind of thing on him quite a bit. Screaming shit-fits and the cold shoulder might ensue. You name it. Else there would not have been the fear to go and do something that he pretty overwhelmingly wanted to do.

Now, I've met his girl. While generically pretty, there's not much there. Obviously less than I thought, if she's that selfish that she'd fuck him around if she doesn't get what she wants. Which, from what I see today, included a fairly lavish brunch in a fairly upmarket restaurant. Must have cost $30-40 each, from what I saw. The girlfriend was across the table, looking generically cute, smiling at the cameraman: "It's all about meeeee!"

Guess who paid for it.

Guess who would *not* have been repaid for petrol and time or given a lavish brunch in a fairly upmarket restaurant.

At any rate, this leaves him catering to her all the time without being able to do what he wants at the drop of a hat.

Poor bastard. I wonder if he'll ever wake up.

Extra message: Protect your personal time. Lots of people will try to make use of it - if you let them.

Autumn and Winter are Coming

Keoni Galt has a message for the millennials. He has a point. I commented on it:

This. We Gen-X'ers are done for, toast, our day is over. Certainly I could still have children - have had offers from women who want to date me - which dates I now decline. I don't want to have a child going through the "Hi Dad!" thing with me when they're twenty and I look like a grandfather. Of course, those making the offers are last-gasp party-girls in their 30's, infected with the Marriage 2.0 disease. I'm supposed to filter through these for 5+ years, to find a worthwhile one to have children with. Not going to happen. Too old, too old. 

Consider me selfish if you wish. Yet: I am almost 50 and my life has basically been hollowed out by one woman who took most of everything. Sure, I can and am rebuilding - yet at my age things should be mellowing. My life has basically been reset to the struggles of early-30's mid-summer, instead of where it should be. Children should be long-done, now the building up of a store of wealth and future happiness. 

Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme. As it is, I expect now to work until I die - unless I decide to retire to a country where my money is worth vastly greater than it is in my home country. I would be effectively isolating myself to live halfway decently into my old age. 

My spring is long past, my summertime nearly over. Autumn and winter are coming. Despite my self-improvement, despite my strength training, my years and body are waning. Recapture my youth? By having sex with younger women? Why? I can have sex with women young enough that they can be my own daughters. Even girls young enough to almost be granddaughters have made moves on me. Why should I do that? It would be an ersatz recapture, a synthetic euphoria, an artificial high - one that ultimately means nothing. All the while, the available women of Gen-X expect everything of their Man, just like the younger generations. 

@Anonymous - one of my commentors stated that the hardest part of his divorce was trying to bring up his children with a modicum of discipline. A Herculean task, the way Marriage 2.0 and divorce/frivorce is set up. 

@Brian - I must agree. My feeling is that the next generation being born is going to be mostly to single mommies. There's nothing to prevent it. They are going to be so screwed up, it will be painful to see. 

@Beefy Levinson - I wish you good luck. Eventually we will muddle through this. Hell, people survived the fall of Rome and suchlike. We'll survive this. Perhaps our example will help future generations and civilizations from falling into the same old trap that we and the Spartans and Romans did. 

Good luck, all.

Yes, good luck all.

I have now identified, to my own satisfaction, what has bothered me with Rollo Thomassi's Sexual Market Value chart.

It's too accurate.

Do you really want to be that older man with a younger, beautiful wife?

Really?

When all you get out of it is the social status of "older man with younger, beautiful wife"?

When she gets access to all your resources? Resources that you built up, through your travails and hardships, which she never shared. That she gets now to use and have the enjoyment of. That she never sweated to earn. While she can stray from you at will.

Again: The chart is too accurate.

Plus: It's not accurate enough.

Not for these days, in the dying west.

As older men, we still have that mentality to build and grow. Improve yourself! Accumulate! Plus an "I'm not gonna lay down and die" attitude, along with the ability (and skills) to keep going. We climb out of the hole that some woman has dragged us down into and get back into life and building. Incidentally keeping us in the workforce longer and denying the younger generations worthwhile entry.

Women only have looks, which peter out quickly. Men have accumulated capital, social and monetary and physical stuff. For the overwhelmingly common predatory woman, with unfortunately broke younger men around her, that accumulated capital is very enticing. Add some charisma/game to the mix and you have an older man with a younger, beautiful wife.

Need I say "parasite" ever again?

Need I say "brainwashing" towards older guys, that they can and should be getting with younger women? Parasites of the manosphere hauling the $$$ out of painfully hurt men? Attempting to shame certain segments of us with cobbled-together makeshift bullshit feminist tactics, so that they can get more $$$ out of us?

Society as a whole still telling us that we can expat, get with some appreciative foreign slut in another country, settle down, and have children? Still fulfilling the female imperative? Still supporting some woman through her life?

A simpler time should be ahead of me. One with quiet happiness. One filled with contentment and warmth and ease with the woman of my youth.

Instead, I still struggle as if 30 years old. I must continue to protect my self - my earnings - my accumulated sweat - from the grasping hands of others. There is no room for me to "ease out" for the next generation of 30 yo's to take my place, with a little guidance and help. I'm told that I should "man up" and marry those sluts. I'm told that I should fuck around with younger women.

The Baby Boomers may have pissed away their lives and the wealth of the prior generation. Gen-X (and Gen-Y) have had ours stolen away from us. We built it, despite having to start completely from scratch, only to have it stolen and pissed away by our generation of women. Now we must rebuild again, infinitely warier than before. Warier of the next two generations of women.

This is how Mayor Len Brown can have a young 30yo mistress at age 57 (he's 58-59 now).

Further, Mz Bevan Chuang was also revealed the year prior to be looking for willing sperm donors to get her pregnant. That would be while she was in the middle of being Len Brown's fucktoy for 2 years. Her explanation for searching for a willing sperm-donor:

"There is a lot of pressure for older, single women to get a partner," she said. 

"A lot of the men, the dodgy ones, that approach me, wanted me as the mistress type thing. Obviously they like me, but can't be with me because they have a wife or a girlfriend or something."

The two-faced hypocrisy of decrying dodgy men wanting her only as a mistress - during a period in which she was actually a mistress. She and her type of woman are overwhelmingly common and an accident waiting to happen.

This is women.

We must protect ourselves. Our lives have already been ruined once. Not again. For us, there is no Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. There is no safety-net for us Men. There is only a handful of ashes and dust. In our inadvertent wake, we spread further ashes and dust to the next generations.

If it were me setting the rules, I would roll things back and set them like these:

1/ There is no way out of marriage. NONE.
2/ He can do whatever he wants with her. She has no say. Period. Fuck your social crap.
3/ If she decides to leave, then he automatically keeps everything. Including children (if his).
4/ She must come with a hefty dowry to entice the Man into marriage at all. It's a terrifying sacrifice.
5/ She will NEVER get the pussy-pass for fucking around. That's instant trash, end of story.

Harsh? Yes. Many, many women and children would die in terrible situations. It would bring home a very solid and painful lesson to all for generations to come. It would be a (partial) solution to the Mutilated Beggar problem that has caused what currently faces Western society (thank you Keoni for reminding me of that, from The Garbage Generation).

The Lesson Will Be: Choose Wisely Who You Marry.