https://rumble.com/v4ng5sr-njf-on-marriage.html
5 min clip
summary:
- you can't take risks
- you can't trade your comfort for resources toward a greater goal
- women have absolute legal power
- women have no obligations or duties in how they behave
- most of the masculinity exhibited by married men is performative and trivial
- every mechanism to control a wife's behavior is seen as "abuse"
Even knowing all of this, and generally agreeing with it, I still think the costs and sacrifices are worth it as long as you go in for the purposes of having children. Unless you are an incel genius like Isaac Newton or Nikolai Tesla then producing those children and doing your best to impart your values on to them, in spite of everything arrayed against you, is your "greater purpose".
Nick is a very talented guy, but being gay or at least bisexual, his perspective is a little biased. Yes, dude is gay. He had a date with a catboy and got caught with a tab of gay porn on one of his alts.
He is correct on the broad strokes, without a doubt, but I agree with you that kids are extremely valuable. Also, this concept is growing increasingly foreign and I get the feeling that many people here haven't even seen it in action, but there is such thing as a woman with her head screwed on straight, or at least as much as could ever be expected for a woman. The chance that Brittany Sellner is going to divorce rape Martin Sellner, for those of you familiar with alt-right personalities, is pretty low.
I sound a little pollyanna for these parts, but let me remind you we're talking about the survival of the human race. Artificial wombs aren't coming to save you.
Probably, but it still comes down to a basic risk analysis. When a woman has the legal power to upend your life, take your home and half or more of your income, take your kids, take your pets, take your friends, possibly accuse you of things that will land you in prison, and do so with utter impunity and no risk to herself, the question of whether she actually will do that is secondary.
The problem is not that we think every woman would, but that any woman could. And that makes the risk too great.
That goes beyond even risk aversion, into societal suicide. Any woman could poison you as well, or just outright murder you, both possibilities exist. You risk being murdered every time you sleep when you get right down to it, that's why humans domesticated dogs. Life is risk.
If you aren't having children, the only way you're contributing to society is if you're a Tesla level genius inventor. And let's be real, nobody here is.
But if you demand that any and all risk to you be eliminated or else you won't participate in society, then you're going to get written off. Not to mention that that kind of unreasonable attitude is pretty much an exclusively female mindframe.
No one is demanding an entirely risk-free environment before they start dating again. What any sane man wants is a fair contract that enables both parties to pursue redress if one of them breaks it, and we don't have that. Women broke the social contract. It is not the responsibility of men to fix it.
And you aren't going to get that.
Life has never been fair for men, that's the entire purpose of the Y chromosome and why its instinctually considered the disposable portion of humanity, its designed to be filled with rapid mutations that fail or succeed and we don't even bother to mourn the failures because they are in fact meant to die off to improve the gene pool.
You don't have to accept their treatment of you, but whining about basic human evolution is exactly what women do until they are fat, eggless and broken.
It doesn't matter how much you talk about the hypocrisy in society and how badly men are treated. At the heart of it no one cares. Men have to be taught to do so, women are literally disgusted at the notion.
Its an unwinnable battle because its trying to logic an emotion.
Yes, men have mostly always done what they've needed to in order to reproduce and provide for their families in spite of the fact that the contract has never been fair for them. But right now they're not.
The behavior that recent generations of men, or at least large numbers of them, are displaying in reaction to this evolutionary predisposition to disposability is unlike any we've seen before, except in societies on the brink of collapse. All of which did collapse, usually accompanied by extreme demographic decline or extinction.
The idea that young men are going to keep doing what they've always done because biology predisposes them to do it is not borne out by the reality we're seeing. What's happening instead is that, as female privilege grows more and more unassailable, men are simply choosing not to interact with women, or at least not to reproduce with them.
So is this occurring for purely biological reasons due to population pressures, resource availability or environmental factors? I see very little evidence of that. And if you ask that increasing number of young men what their reasons are, most of them will tell you that it's because they're afraid to interact with women, or they don't think it's worth the risk. I don't think it's illogical to at least examine the change in societal circumstances that has led to that change in behavior.
Its not. In fact, the reasons are pretty well obvious and documented. We should always be combating them as best we can. In fact, I've spent decades doing so as I was an Anti-Feminist before most people here were born and I'll speak your ears off about the sheer depths of how fucked society is in that regard.
The illogical part is thinking it will ever get "more fair," or even thinking anyone cares when the unfairness of it crushes you. The entire history of the MRA, and all its various iterations, has been infinite failure because it tried to convince people to care about men and the unfair system we have placed on them.
When the final truth is that your only options are to carve a hellish path through the world to pass on your genes to the future (and with it preserve your knowledge and gotten gains for your suffering) or let all that die with you waiting for the "perfect balanced chance" like a woman growing eggless and fat waiting for her Mr. Right.
Again, I agree. Some men will choose to take the risk, and an increasing number won't. The point I keep making is that lecturing those who choose not to about their responsibility to society is simply not going to suddenly convince them to change their minds, especially not when the lecture comes from the same generations of men whose own weakness and impotence played a significant role in creating this situation.
We've entered the death spiral. Unless we have an upheaval event that re-establishes a hard patriarchy then the feedback loop will only continue. Social shaming is not going to fix things anymore than whining about human nature will. What we need at this point is a warlord who is willing to butcher every single whore and simp who doesn't fall in line with a new status quo of oppressing women. That's the ugly reality of where we are. Anything short of that is just going to be a whole lot of wishy washy feelings nonsense that allows the chasm between men and women to widen until our society disappears completely.
That's just the thing. No one is "shaming", by telling people the truth.
Pouting and refusing to participate in society is self defeating. Worse even, since it guarantees that you won't ever get what they say they want.
Pointing this out is not "shaming", though I constantly see that word being thrown about to deflect. If they feel ashamed it's because in their hearts they know they're wrong.
You did demand that. You said it doesn't matter whether they would but that they could, and that so long as they could the risk is too great.
The risk is too great for as long as the legal and societal framework exists that enables a woman to divorce-rape and destroy a man with absolutely no repercussions for herself. If you want young men to start marrying and having children again, then that framework needs to be dismantled first.
You can lecture young men all you want about their responsibility to have children and prevent societal suicide, but if you could motivate them by haranguing them, they'd be the most motivated demographic in the West by now. Instead, they're the least motivated, and whether it's bitching at them, bribing them or punishing them with a bachelor tax, you are never going to convince the huge number of young men who've checked out of society that it's their job to fix a mess they didn't make. You are only going to do it by showing them that their efforts will yield a positive return, and that means it's on the rest of us to start fixing what's broken first.
Nope, not how this works.
You aren't the one with the power here. You aren't in a position to make demands.
While we're on the way, the situation likely won't be resolved in our lifetimes. You have two choices. Try, or give up.
You have given up and want to encourage others to do so. Problem is, that's the only way to actually lose the game. If you aren't going to have children, then you don't matter, you're giving up your vote on what the future looks like. Because once you're dead, you're meat. You'll have no legacy.
If I take your premise on it's face, that you want women's rights abolished, then your actions are self defeating towards that goal.
It seems you think you can only win this argument by putting words in my mouth.
Nowhere have I said that I want women's rights abolished (except their supposed right to vote).
As for giving up, that is not my situation. However, I fully understand why so many men have done so, and taking out your impotent anger on me is not going to encourage them to do what you want.
You are the one making demands. You and every other so-called conservative who believes it is the responsibility of the next generation of men to clean up a mess that our generations have made by failing to prevent the feminist takeover of our institutions. Whatever you may think of me, I can tell you what many of them will think of you when you put this argument to them:
They will perceive you and your list of demands, accompanied by lectures about how lazy and useless they are if they don't do what you want, as being no different from all of the same insults, lectures and demands they've received from every adult, authority figure and woman in their lives up until now.
And they'll understandably respond by telling you to fuck off.
Okay, it seems we broadly agree on a lot here but this is a bit ridiculous. I want kids very badly and I'm young enough that realistically I will probably have them down the line, but the notion that you have to be Newton level to contribute to society is retarded. Be a good influence in your community, for your nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. and that is absolutely a positive contribution to society.
Why is it retarded? Sustainment of the population is at least three children per couple. If you aren't managing at least one kid, then your existence equates to nothing more than the consumption of resources.
The only people who truly manage to make significant contributions to society that justify their lives, are people who can contribute enormously to technology or else save hundreds of lives. Perhaps Tesla is an exaggeration but frankly for most people it's all or nothing, especially in our society of filler jobs and consumption industries.
If you can't see how there are plenty of other ways to be a net positive for society, I'm not sure how to get it through to you. People who produce food, build things, maintain critical infrastructures of a whole host of industries, the list goes on.
Sure, there are plenty of useless paper pushing jobs that probably shouldn't exist and don't really contribute much. But the notion that you have to be a super genius to contribute positively is bizarre, and that's coming from someone who is very adamant that people should strive to have kids despite the societal deck being steeply stacked against men.
Tell me some then. Afterwards we can discuss the sheer amount of resources that a single human life costs over their lifetime, resources that one person likely doesn't live up to on their own over their lifetime.
This seems like a futile endeavor because the concept itself is self evident even when speaking generally, but I'll humor you.
Thinking of a friend of mine who is giga based and is a teacher. Given that he works amongst commie scum, if even a few of the thousands of students he teaches over his career is positively influenced, assuming the others aren't influenced negatively, then he's done his part.
Spoken like a commie. Resources that, for the intents and purposes of this discussion, are not finite and of which more can be produced.
Her kids. Ideally they'd be yours too, but there's no guarantee. The only thing certain is that the government will force you to pay her money because of them, regardless of who their father really is.
AWALT
I'm considering making a post on this, but because I've been going to church for basically my whole life, I know a lot of women in various life stages and many of them would fit the definition of a "good woman." If you've been lovingly supporting your husband and kids for 60 years, what more is there to say? AWALT, but Christianity and religion in general tempers the Pandora's chaos of womanhood. That's how civilization has been able to survive for thousands of years.
Civilization has been able to survive for thousands of years by men leading. And not just the good ones who "manned up". Most people agreed on the role of men and women and their nations supported them.
Yep, and without the greater religious force impressing the hierarchy and meaning of life on you, it all falls apart. Ever notice how the satanic is joined with the feminine? Baphomet is half-woman.
There's a lot of things you don't know about the innerworkings of a relationship that you'd never know from casual observation though. Does she put out? Is she actually attractive? It's one thing to stick around for the husband's stability and resources but it's another to actually give men what they want.
That's what I was getting at when I said a significant portion of marriages that don't end in divorce rape are still miserable. Divorce rape is a major risk, but not the only one. If she sticks around is she making the man's life better or is he a beta slave waiting for the sweet mercy of death?
It's also why "look around, all kinds of men are in relationships" isn't a valid counterargument to the 80/20, 95/5, or whatever rule. We know that women will leech off men for resources. They do it to non-Chads all the time. Men want a good relationship, not a grifting whore who works him into an early grave to pay for the lifestyle she feels entitled to while she fucks the guy she actually wants on the side.
Exactly. I'm single and I don't envy 90% of the relationships I observe. It's rare... exceptionally rare, I ever envy a man's relationship with a woman. Most women are women I'm happy to not be in a relationship with.
It goes without saying that nothing is perfect, but if husband and wife love each other and the children grow up healthy, no one can say it's not worth it. Also "is she attractive" is definitely observable from the outside lol.
I didn't just mean physical appearance. But I realized I worded that poorly. I mean like some women can make themselves entirely unbecoming in private such that guys want nothing to do with them. Also, how she dresses for church might be the only time she puts only makeup and clothes other than pajamas. I remember when I was younger so many guys I knew would constantly talk about "how to convince their SO to put effort into their look." Maybe church is the only time but since it's church she also doesn't like to have sex on church days and the guy is royalty screwed.
Point I was trying to make is most people really have no clue how good or bad a relationship is from observing. You need more information on the inside. One of my friends used to have the picture perfect relationship on the outside but he'd confuse in me his wife didn't like to have sex and he'd purchased a new pocket pussy because his wife won't sleep with him. That seems to be a huge problem in more relationships than people realize. He can't get laid meanwhile she's driving the new SUV and he's still driving the beater.
Oh OK yeah, I've seen that scenario before. I can rule out that out at least. Far be it from me to look into other people's sex lives if they don't talk about it, but I talk to these people outside of church as well and it's clear they enjoy being around each other, through good times and bad times. If you have that, all other problems are fixable.
Yeah but if I say all women are categorically bad then I get to excuse not even trying.
They don't have to be categorically bad for marriage to be a shitty investment. The probable downside just has to exceed the probable upside. With a 50% chance of divorce rape and a significant chunk of marriages that last being miserable the odds are not in a man's favor. That doesn't even account for the magnitude of the rewards of a good outcome being massively exceeded by the horrific punishments that a bad outcome entails.
You don't have a 50% chance of divorce rape. That stat always includes people who get married and divorced multiple times.
Make your own decision in regard to marriage. I agree that there are some huge potential pitfalls to avoid and for some it's better not to marry. But the answer isn't as black and white as the mgtow crowd makes it out to be.
It also just looks at stats as a single dot on a graph without considering a single other possible data point.
Such as, many of the same studies have shown that women with 0 prior partners to marriage jump it up to between 70-90% success rates of marriage depending on the income, area, and race. But even having 1 prior drops it by close to 20% with the numbers just getting more dire from there until around 5+ premarital fucks leaves it below 20% success rate.
You can never just look at a single statistic and then base your entire life on the simplicity of it. You must always be dissecting it until you can properly prove how worthless it is (this applies to all meme stats).
From what I saw the only thing that reduces the risk to anywhere near acceptable levels is marrying a virgin, and thanks to the cock carousel a unicorn is easier to find than an 18 year old virgin.
That stat includes boomers. That's the biggest reason why it's not valid. Turns out the generation that sold us all up the river and constantly cheated on each other at every opportunity, is skewing the divorce rate.
You know, someone ought to study whether weed impairs pair bonding, because I kinda think it might. That'd go a long way to explaining why their feckless generation is the way it is.
Boomers also bore the brunt of the wave of divorce rapes that followed the legalization of no fault divorce. So many evil whores only loved their husband's resources and not their husbands. When the law gave them an opportunity to destroy their husbands' lives and steal their resources the whores jumped on it.
I never even thought of that aspect before. Seems like everyone's boomer parents got divorced.
I think it's 30% for first time marriages. To use an autistic math analogy the breakeven point for a rational decision maker would if the bad outcome were 7/3 times (a little more than double) as bad as the good outcome is good. You can't quantify things exactly of course, but I don't think it's hard to argue that the losses from a divorce rape exceed 7/3 of the gains from a good marriage. That's of course assuming the 70% who stay in their marriages all have good marriages, and we know that's not true either, so the analysis leans even more against marriage than my numbers above.
Usually high risk gambles are high reward when they work out, but marriage is a notable exception to that rule. I stand to inherit a $600000 house. I can't risk that being stolen when marriage brings me zero benefit as a man. A man who insists on trying his hand at family life needs to become a passport bro and stay where he found her.
They already announced that they're seizing properties to give to illegals. I know you've talked about leaving the UK depending on the results of the November elections but if I were you I'd bite the bullet now and get the fuck out. I'm fortunate that the place I'm inheriting is in a deep red state. The parasites go elsewhere for better gibs.
My family has no notable property, other than their humble homes, so I stand to inherit through my wife, if at all.
Imagine taking marriage advice from a fag.
I don't know why this was downvoted. Faggots are weak, ineffectual men. I don't have anything to learn from that kind of person.
There are people here who still adopt the Liberal mindset. Reality and the truth of the Anglosphere's imploding infrastructure isn't enough to convince them otherwise.
I do keep forgetting that subversive elements, and general bad actors, have made their way here. It's not enough they've permeated just about every other site.
I would disagree with your assessment. Kids are not worth sacrificing yourself for. There's a reason our society is in a state of dysgenics. IQs are down irrespective of immigration and every metric that matters in outcomes is coming down. The men who are having kids and who are willing to sacrifice their liberty to submit to a woman in order to have kids are among the lowest quality men in society. The highest quality men are not engaged in relationships with women. You know who reproduces in significant numbers? Africans and Indians. Are those quality humans?
If the state of marriage and relationships isn't fixed, we're going to continue to degenerate as a species.
10 or more years ago when I saw the writings on the wall, I voluntarily gave up trying to associate with women despite I also was very thirsty as fuck. It has nothing to do with being gay or asexual, in my opinion, putting that label on you is like protecting yourself from some accusations. Even back then, all the girls around my age had some sort of red flags and nasty attitude problems and I'm in fucking Australia, girls there are generally very promiscuous. Even when I had enough money in savings to afford a prostitute, I still found it risky for one night flinging. At that time I couldn't really voice that opinion anywhere because you are going to be called incel everywhere and be dismissed or worse. And imagine my surprise things have become way way worse now normies and even normie women are affected, and like a stupid motherfucking cucks the western society is, now they are running around like headless chicken trying to fix that problem. And they are STILL afraid to address the elephant in the room. I came to see western women in bad light in general, even all these based right-wing women seem to have hidden shameful past and some agenda they want to push.
This. People keep saying "but there are good ones out there", but if they exist they aren't the ones that are unmarried after the age of 25.
There was one young woman who was in her 30s who fit the description you named to a tee. Grew up Christian, had loving parents, worked hard, went to school, but ended up falling in with the wrong crowd, got raped, and then went on a hoe phase throughout the rest of her 20s. By 30 she was finally over it and was then looking to settle down. She was still deeply ashamed of her past, though, and it completely changed a lot about her behaviour.
The ones who have not gone through the hoe phase and are still unmarried by the 30s/40s are usually just mentally/psychologically unstable.
The caveat for men is that you either marry the supposed wholesome woman before she turns 25 or go passport bro and stay in whatever country where you marry her. If you're in your 30s you might be able to still find someone decent in their late 20s if you fish around deeply religious towns -- preferably small towns away from the big cities.
If you're in your 40s and you're attempting to find someone close to your age, any woman who looks decent is already ran through, divorced (multiple times), or a single mother, full-stop. Any woman who is in her 30s and isn't ran-through is usually unsightly or obese, or suffering from some kind of crippling disorder.
If you're in your 50s... I hate to say it, but just hang it up. While you can still make babies, your options are nil when it comes to anyone around your age. Women in their 40s absolutely are ran-through one way or another, or are simply unattractive if they happen to be the unicorn that isn't the town wench. Any woman in her 40s also won't be providing you with any kids. You can attempt to date younger but seriously, you will either have an aneurysm or a heart-attack trying to deal with a young woman because there's just such a gulf in the age differences when it comes to existential mind-sets. If you're dating someone in her 20s/30s at 50+, it's just to knock her up and create a lineage, but not because there is anything to gain relationship wise out of it; you're just basically parenting her at that point.
You are basically parenting women at any age. They don't mature past teenagers until they hit menopause.
You're overlooking the actual solution here. There's no reason to endlessly go over the foibles and wrongdoings of Christmas Cakes. They're already dead. They fucked up, they're used up, nobody wants them, and for the vast majority of them they should hurry up and choke down a bottle of pills and a box of wine already.
Pursue younger women.
If all you want are kids, this is true... but for people who want actual substance in their lives, younger women are insufferable.
For the most part women of any age are insufferable.
No arguments here.
I would say that you're being conservative and optimistic in the ages for men. I would suggest that things become difficult when you hit your 30's (there is no "fine wine" moment for men unless you want to become a sugar daddy) and impossible by your 40's. Particularly for long term single men. We know that middle aged divorced men have better outcomes in dating compared to their long term single peers and we also know that if a man is unmarried at 40, he's likely to remain unmarried (as well as not father a child or even find a partner).
This is why the Manosphere is a godsent. For me the issue was the fucked up divorce laws, and I was naive enough to think feminists actually gave a shit about equality back then. Imagine my shock when they jumped down my throat for bringing up the topic. They would like nothing more than to gaslight men into thinking we're alone in holding these opinions, and the Manosphere threw a wrench into that operation.
Yeah I've become quite the woman hater recently, and contrary to the narrative that feminists want to push about guys like me I didn't start out that way. One thing I will note is that there are plenty of "right wing" men who are just as bad. There's a reason that "tradcuck" is one of the most common insults that the Manosphere uses.
That's why even back then I knew MRA movement was useless. There was no way western society can understand the point of MRA existing until the situation really got bad like we are now. I find all these tradcucks you mentioned I blame them as well for where we are now. They had a bit of influences to put their foot down and say no to LGBT movement taking things further by mile, instead they chose to pick on the low hanging fruits like gamers, MGTOW and make stern faces at them. In other words fuck their moral high ground and high horse they rode on.
Or you may simply embrace the madness of the nigger to reestablish order, bywhich I mean have a baby momma or two and be absolutely fucking worthless.
No life to upend? No problem.
It certainly works for the homeless parasites that are infesting my city.
No. For a Christian, the "greater purpose" is spreading the Good News of our Lord and King Jesus Christ to all people. This may involve having children, but everyone has their own calling. Your statement is steeped in materialism, where "scientific" advancement in a material sense, as exhibited by Newton or Tesla, or increasing the number of people in the world by having children, is the only "purpose" in life. This would have it that the saints throughout the ages who died or were martyred as virgins to spread Christianity to all the corners of the world were not achieving a "greater purpose", and were less important than Newton or Tesla.
In secular Western societies, for many individuals, their calling may be to re-evangelize to their brothers and sisters who are in apostasy or never truly exposed to the Word. This is a greater purpose, and all Christians are called to do so, even if they are single and do not feel the calling to have children.
I didn't expect this comment from from you. Yes, a lot of trads like to harangue men to do their part to propagate the White race. They act like there are only two choices in life: make babies to push Western culture forward, or live in abject hedonism. There are many ways a person can invoke the creative spirit and serve man and God.
That's a long-winded way of saying "Don't worry bruh, if this life doesn't work out, God's got your back in the next one as long as you BeLiEvE and spread the word"
To some or many, it's a great way of papering over the psychological issues stemming from lack of progeny, as children are the only observable markers of a long-lasting legacy that one can easily bring into the world, but doesn't help those of us who can't put faith in 2~4000 year old guesses that don't feel much different than any ancient pre-Abrahamic ones
That's because there is no help.
One of the things I used to ask often many years ago in atheist forums was "What's the point of living if you're poor and ugly and with no future? It would be better to just commit suicide"
They used to have a conniption at this suggestion, because in their mind that was absolutely unacceptable. But that's because they couldn't see beyond their own ego: in their mind, if people aren't completely living for the self and staying alive to please the self, it was abhorrent to think about taking your own life if things were rotten.
Well, the reality is that life is rotten for a vast majority of people and it never gets better... ever. I used to tell people "If you don't believe in God and your life is beyond repair, it's better to just commit suicide and spare yourself any agony. If you don't believe in an afterlife, you're not losing anything, you're just sparing yourself a lifetime of more agony."
And this is the irrefutable truth: if you don't believe in anything and you don't believe in an afterlife, and your life is pure bollocks, and it's not getting better, there is literally nothing lost via suicide. This is a hard and uncomfortable truth for a lot of people and they refuse to address the existential crisis of an irreparable or unrecoverable life for someone who is permanently disabled, permanently disfigured, permanently impoverished, etc.
That's why a lot of people put faith in religion, because for those who were born into conditions where they were dealt an unfavourable hand, it's the only thing they have to live for -- thinking that there is salvation in the afterlife for being obedient/saved. Otherwise, you don't lose anything by not being here if every aspect of your life is rotten.
He’s not wrong; but still a fag.
Not having White children is helping the enemy. You're a loser if you're White and don't have kids.