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".
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.
Oh hardly. Spoken like an economist. Economics is subtractive, because resources are finite, if in some cases expandable. Prior to massive automation advances, farming for example, a much larger proportion of the population had to be positive contributors to society in order to even stay alive.
That is no longer the case. Now less than a percentage of the population produces food for example.
It's just a statistical fact. Most people are useless eaters. 90% of more of people on this continent do nothing but consume in their lifetimes.
This is the precise opposite of communism, which stipulates that you're entitled to sustenance, housing and a comfortable lifestyle solely by virtue of being alive.
Your friend, you say if he positively influenced a handful of children as a teacher that he's done his part. Morally speaking I'd agree, but we're talking about economics. Because by having three children he'd have done the same in any other profession to boot, while contributing more positively. Teachers are especially of negative economic value(almost as much as office workers), their positive contributions largely theoretical while their profession on the whole constantly claims themselves indespensible.
This kind of thing is important to understand, because the collapse of the Clown World empire currently propped up by the parasite infested United States is fast approaching. And that collapse will herald mass death on an unimaginable scale.
Who is or is not useful may, in our lifetimes, become a literal matter of life and death.
And, in the context of this discussion, the lion's share of the resources needed to sustain a life are indeed expandable unless you live in some shithole in Africa or somewhere that the local environment is not suitable to sustain the number of people living there.
Sure, way less people are needed to produce food and other things. I would agree that a huge portion of people are useless drains on society. The part that isn't fact is just how widely and broadly you are casting that net.
I would agree that having children of one's own, especially if one is fit to be a good parent, is a fast track to being a positive contributor. But we aren't talking about contributing "more positively" or "the most positively," you made a sweeping statement about how one couldn't contribute a net positive at all unless they were a genius. Perhaps pedantic, but that is what I was taking issue with.
I agree that public school systems and the vast majority of educational institutions are complete dogshit and net negatives overall. But that doesn't preclude there from being good individuals within those institutions that are net positives. Even looking back on my 17 years in that bullshit, there were some gems sprinkled among the shit that shined despite the shitty system they worked in.
Regarding the collapse of clown world, it depends how exactly it all goes down. If it is a true collapse of grand proportions, the death and suffering is going to be widespread among the useful and the useless alike during the initial shock. Over time there would be a re-orienting of society to be much more meritocratic, and surely the truly useful would be more likely to survive this as you say.
But "usefulness" in a hand to mouth society that is just trying to survive is a much more rigid thing than it is in a society with much excess like the current clown world.
For example, an electrical engineer that excels at his job but works at a company that produces gadgets that ultimately are not necessary might be a net negative in the holistic and transcendental sense in terms of survival. But in a situation where the societal fat is greatly trimmed down, one could imagine them potentially turning around to use their skills to support something much more close to fundamental necessities like power infrastructure or agricultural equipment. But just because they aren't doing that now, doesn't make them useless or a net negative provided whichever devices they have a hand in making are positive and not socially destructive.
The lion's share? Oh I very much disagree. Hot water, running or drinkable water for that matter, electricity, air conditioning, those things are very very finite. They're maintained by a fragile system of logistics, training and maintenance and the actual skills to do so are dwindling as the population becomes more and muddy.
The people who make and maintain those things? Those people absolutely positively contribute.
The point here is that, despite our incredibly skewed economic model, may John Maynard Keynes burn in hell forever by the way, in reality consumption is not a good thing in and of itself, and purposeless consumption is inherently a bad thing.
And if you disagree with my 90% comment, okay cool, semantics. Even if it's 85%, it doesn't matter because that's still two hundred and sixty million people who don't justify the air they breathe.
Is someone with useful skills. As I've said above, such things are laudable.
But this isn't about that. Is not such a man contributing far more, if he has children and raises them to be good citizens? Smart, productive, useful people should be having children.
The point isn't any particular number or detail. The point is that there are too many grasshoppers and not enough ants in our country right now.