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 hemlockHmmm, 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 hemlockThis 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.
