I’ve been enjoying the ongoing debate about marriage between Derek and Ballista. It’s important for men to discuss these things openly, and it’s difficult to open up dialogue on this subject in a society as thoroughly saturated with feminism as ours is today.

In the first place, I commend Ballista for being tactically proficient in his rebuttals to Derek. Rather than squawk out ten thousand words in the comment section here, he crafted some detailed responses and posted them on his own blog (linked in the sidebar). I’d encourage everyone to go read his latest article, as I’m going to be using it as an example of shoddy thinking and poor rhetoric immediately. In the process, I’ll be providing counterexamples to his stated thesis: that marriage is a conspiracy by feminists. It ought to be easy to demonstrate that not only is Ballista wrong, but that the opposite is, in fact, the case.

Ballista writes:
In response to my previous post responding to this one, blogger Derek Ramsey continued and tripled-down on his feminist man-shaming and has made himself completely clear in doing so. The only thing I can say it’s absolutely astounding to find myself arguing Red Pill 101 on a manosphere site, especially stuff Dalrock and others have covered ad-infinitum.

That’s certainly a bombastic introduction. I’ve read all of Derek’s articles that have been posted to this blog carefully. Derek has not promoted feminism, and he hasn’t shamed men. Lately, he hasn’t even criticized me, even as I post lurid details of my latest immoral Tinder flings.

While it’s become obvious that blue-pill won’t ever turn into red-pill in Ramsey’s ridiculous assertions regarding my positions, I thought it might be enlightening to others to attempt to explain the role that marriage plays within feminism.

I have always argued, marriage and family are concepts created by God as a building block of society.

Both Derek and Ballista have promoted the ahistorical notion that marriage was created by their god. The obvious problem with this is the fact that marriage existed many thousands of years before the god of Protestant Christianity did.

Marriage predates Christianity.
Marriage predates Judaism.
Marriage predates western civilization.

Not only is Ballista and Derek’s god not the creator of marriage, it could easily be argued that Ballista and Derek’s god is the destroyer of it. Marriage was a much healthier institution in ancient Sumeria than it is in our society.

As a fun side-trip, let’s see what Ballista’s god has done to the concept of marriage…

Not only did Ballista’s god have nothing to do with marriage, it’s plausible to assume that no other god did, either. There is lots of evidence to suggest that men and women were biologically designed to pair bond and raise children together. Human beings were probably doing this before we ever dreamt up religion. This makes sense, in the context of human childbirth, which is abnormally tedious and traumatic, compared with other species. It also stands to reason, given the fact that human beings are born almost totally helpless, and aren’t even able to run before three or four years old. If you’re down for some peer-reviewed articles, this volume is a good place to start.

Ballista spends a bit of time being overly eristic, so I am skipping ahead a few paragraphs to the point where he pretends to rebut one of Derek’s contentions.

Now if we take Ramsey’s suggestion that men just need to man up and marry those thots to fight feminism, it becomes ludicrous on the face of it.

Ballista is striking down a straw-man of his own creation, which doesn’t help him make any salient point. If anything, it makes his entire argument much weaker.

To review, Derek has never told any man to marry. What Derek has done is to accept the reality extant in human beings: We are hard-wired to couple up and raise families together.

My readers will note that even I don’t try to tell men not to marry. Doing so would be futile, and it’d likely make my audience less likely to take my advice. I know that most men are going to marry, because that’s what human males are born to do. I just try to encourage the young brothers to take a bit of time between falling in love, fucking, and signing on the line that says ‘chump.’

I or any other man can’t make marriage into what they want or what God wants, even if one finds the rare unicorn that is both actually fit for marriage and doesn’t believe the world revolves around her.

Ballista’s god wants marriage to look like this:

In contrast, Derek seems to want marriage to look like this:

Since men are going to marry anyway, I tend to take Derek’s side in this squabble. I’d much rather live in a society full of families like this one.

The legal system has set itself up to unilaterally define the parameters of marriage and put the full force of itself against those who would violate those parameters. Anything reflecting God’s word is automatically considered “abusive” in the eyes of society and of the divorce courts. There is no amount of game or “keeping frame” or otherwise that will change or stop this. Notably, this leads to the issues of no-fault divorce, the Duluth Model, child support, alimony, and the like when the woman finds her man unfit or she gets bored or “unhaaaaappy” in the marriage. Ramsey or anyone else has no answers for the men they bid to walk into the meat grinder when these men get served with their divorce papers. They will be long gone when that happens, just like others will for those that think they can avoid feminist control and yet be married.

I’m not an expert on Derek’s blog. When I go over there I get an eyeful of technical articles that don’t seem to interest me. Maybe Derek is “walking men into the meat grinder” elsewhere, but I’ve never seen it. I know that he hasn’t written anything like that here. Moreover, Derek’s articles on my blog are inherently informed by all my articles on divorce, alimony, child support, and female misbehavior. If Ballista is implying that such articles don’t exist at V5K 2C2 (he seems to be) then he hasn’t read the archive.

As I just illustrated, there’s no such thing as a “good marriage”.

While Ballista accuses Derek of being a feminist, this blanket condemnation perfectly coheres with traditional feminist ideology. Don’t believe me? Just ask the sisterhood…

• Andrea Dworkin wrote that marriage was an institutionalized form of rape.
• Marlene Dixon wrote that marriage was inherently “oppressive.”
• Simone de Beauvoir wrote that marriage ought to be outlawed.

So many feminists wrote logical equivalents to Ballista’s proposition, that it’s hard to believe he’s not trolling me.

In sum, this is what a feminist society looks like:

No fathers. No husbands. No marriage. Just skanks who fuck everyone, and who will breed with anyone, doing what skanks do, all in front of their bastard kids.

As for men that have red-pilled themselves, the words and the actions are going together. In addition to speaking out, they are avoiding entanglements with women that will lead them onto the plantation. They see feminism for what it is and how it affects society, and especially marriage. Sadly so few men do, and still function to uphold and perpetuate feminism.

Earlier in his article, Ballista talked about something he called the ‘solipsistic fallacy,’ and as though to prove his point, he immediately put his own solipsism on display.

The men who have “red-pilled themselves,” in Ballista’s analysis, will never be the majority. As we have already seen, men are hard wired to pair-bond and settle down with women. The fact that Ballista is bright and self-aware enough to see and appreciate the risks of marriage implies, to him, that every swinging dick will be able to gain the same clarity. That’s a huge mistake on his part.

It’s also a fact that most people enjoy being miserable. Freud explained this already, and in detail. Even if Ballista were able to convince the average Joe that marriage was a bad bargain, the same dummox would turn around and marry anyway, and he’d spend the rest of his life patting himself on the back for his meaningless sacrifice — while hating Ballista for telling him the truth.

That said, barring anything fantastic, this is the last thing I’m going to write on this particular issue.

I think this is a good place to end things, and I’m grateful to everyone involved for raising so many interesting points.

One final note: Ballista began his article praising Dalrock, and he subsequently wrote an article that looked like Dalrock could have written it. I enjoy Dalrock’s cheap theatrics; but, such things are only effective against the simple minded (works great on Tumblr feminists). Dalrock is a very shallow thinker, and his articles regularly fail to convince his critics of anything. Ballista clearly has the capacity for a much higher level of proficiency, and I expect to see rapid improvement at his blog, which I already enjoy reading.

Surprise, surprise! A wimminz is having second thoughts after frivolously divorcing her man! That never happens, does it?

In August of 2014, Brad Pitt stupidly married a Hollywood skank named Angelina Jolie. That was a serious mistake on his part.

In the summer of 2016, after only two years of marriage, Angelina Jolie announced that she was dumping the sexiest man alive. She immediately started libelling her husband, Brad Pitt, in the press, even as she was getting on Tinder in order to ride playa dick.

Of course, Brad needed to keep funneling money to skank-ho princess. Just last year, Jolie went to the press and complained that Pitt was a deadbeat dad.

Pitt ponied up proof that he had paid something along the order of ten million dollars to his skank-ho slut, over the course of eighteen months.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be a uterus-American, and get paid eight figures for doing nothing?

At some point, skank-ho Angelina realized that yes, he was the best that she could pull. What was her reaction to this epiphany? Was it to humbly approach her husband, and beg forgiveness for a year of frivolous court proceedings? Did she apologize for all the trouble she caused?

Of course she didn’t. She’s using the power of the feminist state to continue torturing him, in a vain attempt to convince Pitt that “it’s cheaper to keep her…”

Marrying a wimminz has the potential to derail your life. The minute your beautiful wife finds it advantageous, she will summon all the power of the feminist state to bankrupt you and destroy your reputation. It’s imperative that every serious brother go into such a bargain knowing all the facts.

If the sexiest man alive can’t keep a wimminz happy for two short years, what chance do you have?

Groucho is here to teach you about Marxism

Capital has not invented surplus-labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the laborer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production…
(Marx: Capital Vol. 1)

It occurs to me that I’m using a technical term without defining it. That’s a mark of laziness that I’ll correct immediately.

Earlier I wrote about how playaz, hoez, and single dudes are thriving at the expense of married men, and I specifically called the extra produce of such married men surplus value. In order to understand what I mean by this term, I have to delve into some boring shit, like Karl Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, and his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. This is tedious but necessary work, and I’ll try and be as brief as I can.

Aristotle defined a human being as a “rational animal,” and Descartes defined a human being as a “thinking thing.” This became a big argument, with philosophical heavy-hitters taking either side. Marx transcended this dispute entirely, and defined human beings as homo faber. That’s a fancy latin word that means ‘man the maker.’ We are, in Marxist terms, builders of equipment. We are born with an instinctive drive to take natural products, add value to them, and derive use value from the produce.

Some of the things that human beings have developed have really cool uses.

homo faber sent this machine to Venus, simply because he could

Of course, we might make things which don’t seem to be valuable. You know the old man who carves wooden rifles for the kids in your ‘hood? Remember how your mother did those cheeseball paint-by-number things? Your homosexual uncle, who writes bad poetry… when you think about it, it becomes obvious that it’s all the same process. We’re hard wired to do shit like this. Take a look around, and you’ll find surplus value is all around you.

Whether any of us wants to admit as much, the reality is that workers who are married men produce more than workers who are playaz, monks and wimminz. Married men are far more productive than married women, in fact.

It’s well known that married men make significantly more money than wimminz, either single or married. Feminists call this the “wage gap,” and they endlessly wail about it. Married men make far more money than single men do, also. Is making money correlated with productivity? In our society, I’d argue that it is.

(Vandenbroucke)

That entire paper is both interesting and accessible, and I’d encourage everyone here to skim through it. From its thesis, it’s easy to conclude a few things. Married men work harder than other classes of worker, for example. Married men tend to work longer hours. Married men tend to be better educated. Married men might be motivated to work a side-gig along with a regular job.

Married men tend to do these things because a skillful wife will motivate her husband to hustle for the extras. A skillful wife also keeps an efficient household, so her husband can concentrate on work, and he never has to worry about dishes or vacuuming. This is all obvious, but it doesn’t get to the root of what’s really going on, and in order to address the reasons why I don’t condemn marriage, we need a deeper look.

Nevertheless the grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as the individual labourer can do more surplus-labour in proportion as his necessary labour-time is less, so with regard to the working population. The smaller the part of it which is required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is the part that can be set to do other work.
(Marx: Capital Vol. 1)

When a man enters the factory and begins his workday, he creates, through his own genius, more value than his wage reflects. Some of that value is kept by his bosses (who don’t do any work themselves), and some of it is used by capital to reproduce the material conditions for the capitalist system to project itself temporally. The rest of it bleeds out into the social macrosphere.

Married men get paid more because they add more surplus value, not only to their bosses’ ledgers, but to society as a whole. Those of us who aren’t married are easy riders, who enjoy things like roads, bridges, antibiotics and cheap vegetables, without fully paying into the system which produced them. Who produced them? In large part it was married men.

Karl Marx: Husband to Jenny

If you like living in an advanced, industrial society, with good things on offer, then you ought to respect the men who get up early to go to their factory jobs every morning. They are providing all of these benefits, and they’re doing it because some semblance of social sanity still exists. A world without marriage is a global ghetto, where everyone is a bastard, no one knows who his father is, and where life is brutal, miserable, and short.

In my previous post, Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?, I argued that it is essential to marry and have children to stem off a global financial downturn. The concept is simple: without a large tax base, the population gets top heavy and expenses exceed resources available. Costs go up leading to fewer and fewer marriages and pregnancies, creating a self-feeding, self-fulfilling downward spiral.

In the comment section, I explored a few unsatisfactory ways to address the problem. Sigma Frame discusses a few others. I ended with the only sensible alternative:

“The only way out of this, without significant side effects, is to support marriage and increase family sizes. This requires abolishing abortion and defeating feminism. I’ve stated this before and I’ll say it again and again. The refusal to marry and have children (e.g. MGTOW) is actively harmful and contributes to the self-feeding destructive downward cycle. I don’t care what the excuses are for not marrying and having children. Make it work. Otherwise wave the white flag and embrace feminism.”

Brother Ballista took issue with this:

Ramsey wants men to embrace feminism by getting married and having children. Therein lies the problem as Ramsey sees it – the weak men just aren’t playing along to make feminism work.

With all due respect, Brother Ballista is wrong. Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.

Defeating feminism is required to fully support marriage and increase family sizes. It’s an absurd strawman to say that this means men should marry feminists and have their babies. Of course they shouldn’t.* It’s also absurd to say that my statement only applies to men. Those men and women who refuse to marry and have children might as well throw in the towel.

Brother Earl is a perfect example of what I’m suggesting. He is a front line soldier with skin in the game. He is doing all he can to make it work. He is not making excuses. He is not compromising. He is constantly railing against what matters most: abortion, divorce, sexual immorality, and contraception. He is always seeking a wife and if he finds one, he will be making babies in no time.

He also can’t do it on his own. He needs others to support him. He needs unmarried men to join him in these areas.† He needs women to take marriage seriously and permanently. He needs happily married people to have more children, not stop at the magical two or three. He needs priests and pastors to explicitly push this and a church that will fight for it.

But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win. None of the excuses, soapboxing, moaning and complaining will mean a thing if we don’t do this.

Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡

When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless.† Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.

* It is entirely possible for a man to wife up a (hopefully repentant) feminist or single mother. Many do, as is their right as a man. Doing so is, of course, quite risky, but a man who chooses to do so needs our support, not our criticism.

† Not all men are marriage material, due to whatever personal flaws they might have. Such men should obviously not get married without making themselves marriage-worthy, but they can still do their part in the meantime by supporting those who are marriage-worthy.

‡ It is entirely possible that the entire system will have to burn to the ground before it can be resurrected. This is not ideal. We should avoid this outcome if at all possible by trying to fix the system as soon as possible, rather than waiting for some undetermined future, and possibly imaginary, inflection point.

The aging skank-ho in the problem specs is Lori Loughlin. She’s an actress who has made her living starring in saccharine made-for-tee-vee dramas. She was found in a 1990s after-school serial called Full House. Trailing along behind her is the green-tied fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli. Even if you don’t know his clothes and accessories, you’ve probably seen them. They’re the downscale house brand of the Target department store. This doesn’t seem like an enviable position for a fashion designer, but hype isn’t everything. Target sells a lot of clothes, and Giannulli is worth around 100M dollars.

You wouldn’t know it by their names, or by their demeanor, but Loughlin and Giannulli are married. I guess the photo illustrates the way typical skank-ho feminists treat their husbands: they keep them following two steps behind, like a dog or an animal. These two were married in 1997, immediately following Loughlin’s divorce from her previous husband. I doubt any of us needs to speculate about what happened there…

Loughlin and Giannulli were indicted a few weeks ago in connection with a scandal at the University of Southern California. The couple’s two daughters, Olivia and Isabella, were apparently too stupid/lazy to get admitted to the school they felt they were entitled to attend. Loughlin and Giannulli paid 500,000 dollars to a character named Rick Singer, who bribed coaches to admit the idiot thots on an athletics waiver. In return for some dough, the girls were accepted as essential to U.S.C. Crew team, even though neither had ever rowed before.

Loughlin’s behavior during her arraignment was described as “upbeat” and “bizarre.” She laughed loudly in the courtroom, and lingered around the courthouse, offering to sign autographs for strangers.

Loughlin arrogantly refused any attempt to plea-bargain out of a trial, and such idiocy is almost understandable. Hollywood feminist morons live in a strange ideological bubble, surrounded by grovelling asslickers. Anyone who dares mock a Hollywood f-lister on social media is rapidly banned by the censors. Nearly every atom of sense-data and cultural programming feeds Lori Loughlin the idea that she is a goddess.

The reality is that she is somewhere between beggar and prostitute, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. Loughlin has just been charged with some new shit. Take a look…

Lori LOUGHLIN19-mj-06087-MPK

Conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud; conspiracy to commit money laundering

4/09/19 – Defendant charged by Indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. An arraignment date has not yet been scheduled.

(source)

The charge of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. The charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

(source)

In a healthy society, young Isabella and Olivia would not be allowed to spend five years whoring and boozing at U.S.C.. They would have been expected to have married, someplace around age 19. College would be for men, and perhaps also for ugly girls with no prospects, and the point of college would be job training, rather than rowing crew.

In a healthy society, parents like Lori and Mossimmo would share a surname, and they wouldn’t be filling their children’s heads up with ideas about living in Hollywood, at the expense of better people, while they get rich making puerile and trashy programs.

In a healthy society, 500,000 USD would have gone toward a business for Mossimmo and Lori’s sons-in-law to run, or it would have been spent on two modest houses for their daughters and sons-in-law to raise families in.

Of course, we don’t live in a healthy society. We live in feminist clownworld, where everything is upside down. Lori Loughlin has spent her entire life peddling toxic feminist propaganda. Unfortunately, she thought that she could do anything she liked on her off hours, and she probably assumed that her latest husband’s great wealth would insulate her from any consequences of her shit behavior. She probably began conflating her real life with one of the stupid characters she plays on television. The bitch got high on her own supply.

Don’t feel sorry for Lori, but take a lesson from her pathetic life, and use her bad behavior as a fair judge of all the rest of the parasites who appear in mass media.

Under there Boxer made the following statement worthy of explication.

“My interest in the topic is entirely pragmatic. Without marriage, the surplus labor in a society disappears, industry declines, and the standards-of-living crash. Those of us who live without a wife owe a great debt to the men who are keeping society afloat, and it is in everyone’s interest that the institution of marriage reproduce itself across time.”

To understand why this is true, let’s examine the population pyramid. In a healthy society there are always greater number of younger persons than older persons. Combined with low mortality rates, the population will steadily climb as the large base marries and produces children. Each generation produces more total children than the previous generation so the pattern holds.

Economically, the pyramid shape leads to ever increasing productivity and growth. Consider the population pyramid for 1950 Japan shown above. Those 0 to 9 year old children became the prime economic producers in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s leading to an economic boom:

Unfortunately, the sexual revolution taught the world to separate reproduction from sex and people stopped having children. Reproduction rates in many countries (including the United States) have since fallen below replacement. The result is the decline of society, industry, and high standards-of-living.

This graph overlays the 2017 population pyramid on top of the 1950 pyramid. Japan’s population pyramid has now inverted. The base is much smaller than the top. The bulk of Japan’s working population is about to hit retirement and there are not enough children to pay for their retirement expenses. China, after having experienced a similar economic boom, is now facing a similar population problem. Both countries are about to experience a major economic squeeze due to underpopulation.

Compared to Japan’s and China’s inverted pyramid, the United States is relatively much better off. Its pyramid reflects reduced reproduction rates, but from 1950 to 2017, the changes have not been quite so dramatic. However, the failure to reproduce since the 60’s is going to be increasingly felt in tightening standards of living.

 

As a result of the sexual revolution and feminism, pregnancy, birth, and marriage rates have fallen to historic lows while abortion continues to be the hidden leading cause of death in America. So why has the U.S. not declined as fast as other countries? Immigration. The United States imports millions of working-age adults and children.

Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are initially a large economic drain. It takes until the second generation before the investment starts paying off. First- and second-generation immigrants are projected to make up 93% of the workforce growth by 2050. To maintain economic prosperity we are replacing native births with immigrants, for better or worse. (Citation: Pew Research Center)

It’s still not enough to stem the tide. Despite a flood of immigrants, the birth rate continues to decline. The only alternative to societal decay and economic collapse is for married families to have more children. We do owe a debt to those 24 million families with children that are holding us up, be they immigrant or native, but we need more.

Related: The Consequences of Feminism

My Fave Anton Szandor LaVey Wannabe

I get regular criticism (and not just from skank-ho wimminz) for not deconstructing male immorality. The lack of such criticism is justified, in part by the social milieu in which we all find ourselves. Male immorality is criticized and deconstructed on the regular, while female misbehavior is generally glossed over, excused and explained with reams of apologia from the highest authorities in our society. Moreover, this is a men’s blog.

Even so, there are some examples of men who behave so abominably, whose antics are so cartoonishly ridiculous, that I just can’t help but discuss them.

Omega Virgin Revolt, the blog of a dude known as Black Pill, but more formally The Man in The Orbital Castle, appears to be dormant. It’s possible that the author has been too busy to post anything for the past year, or perhaps he started a new blog about motorcycles or model rockets, and wanted to shed his old persona. Like Wimminz and Pro-Male Anti-Feminist Tech, all my teachers appear to be wandering quietly into the fog. This is, I suppose, the natural course of things. I am grateful that the content is still up, and encourage you all to go read. Whether or not I agreed with the guy, I did learn a lot from him.

Even though OVR is inactive, the usual incel malcontents and violent pornographers are still leaving comments on the old articles. I came across something new. Davis Aurini, who recently got his YouTube account deleted (fuck you, Google) has apparently assumed the occupation of marriage and relationship counselor. Gargoyle Virgin left this comment, which is worth reading…

Gargoyle Virgin writes:

According to him, Davis slept with his neighbor’s wife and collapsed their marriage, which had a few kids.

I can immediately confirm Aurini’s immoral antics, based on his own testimony, which I witnessed in early 2013. Unfortunately, his cringeworthy confession has been censored by our deadly enemies at Google, so I can’t share it here. That’s truly a shame, because no matter how unfavorably Davis has impressed my regular readers, the video would have remained a shocking display of just how unmanly this pathetic loser actually is.

Then Gargoyle Virgin writes:

I’m not surprised, since I recall… Davis Aurini defending Aaron Clarey’s book on how to sleep with students…

I never had the pleasure to read Aaron Clarey’s book on how to sleep with students. I have wasted an hour reading his stupid work on how a man ought to drop out of society, get on welfare, and kill himself. I also wasted an hour reading his idiotic book on how men should only study hard science. News for that dipshit: I have advanced degrees in exactly the fields he suggests, and I would have made exponentially more money had I got a liberal arts degree and a J.D.. Realtalk.

The fact that these two dorks hang out together is not at all surprising.

Attached to the comment was this video.

Aurini, who styles himself as some sort of cross between a member of the Church of Satan and Saturday Night Live’s Church Lady, has made a good living on the backs of the most gullible by pretending to have a moralizing streak.

Not only has Aurini supported himself by begging for cutter on his blog and via YouTube, he apparently crowdsourced a documentary film at some point. Rather than delivering, he allegedly took the money and disappeared. One of the people who called him out for this is a man (full disclosure) I’ve met in the real world.

For the record, I don’t know Thunderf00t well, and I’m not taking his side in this internet squabble because I’ve shaken his hand. I can say that the man behind the Thunderf00t persona is (unlike Aurini) an accomplished guy with a real career. While Thunderf00t is acting sorta silly, I tend to believe everything he’s reporting about Aurini.

A lot of young brothers find the manosphere and are immediately stunned, as I was, by the fact that people are discussing arcane and occult knowledge like how to pick up wimminz. They dive in and often simply accept the authority of hucksters like this at face value. That’s clearly a problem.

Aurini is a goon who pretends to be a patriarch while not having any children (that he knows about.) Apparently a degree at McGill McMaster didn’t give him a clue about the definition of that word. He pretends to smoke in every photo and video, and he always palms what he claims is scotch (my guess: iced tea). Everything he does evokes a cartoonish simulacrum of masculinity. Don’t take his advice without deliberation, and don’t give him any of your money.

Edit: Apologies to McGill University for inaccurately reporting that Aurini was an alumnus. He’s not.

 

Over there Boxer notes:

“Children are expensive. When you date a wimminz who has little kids, you will not only be paying more money, but you’ll also be expected to part with more of your time. You can work smarter to make up for the first, but the amount of moments in your life is finite, and there’s no way to turn back the hour-hand in your life.”

Children can be expensive, but if a man chooses to marry a single mother, the State helps mitigate this by favoring married families. Your time is finite. Ultimately it is for you to decide if being a father to a single mom’s kids is valuable. Ideally in this evaluation, you will worry less about the money and more about vetting those relationship choices. Depending on how much he makes and how many kids he is responsible for, he might even save money by marrying.

The 2018 tax year incorporates changes to the standard deduction and the way children are deducted. This means lower taxes for most people with children and relatively higher taxes for those without children and those who pay a lot in state and local income and property taxes. In short, if you are a typical family man living in state with low taxes you will benefit most.

For a married couple, a single child is worth a credit of $2000. The federal income tax is a progressive tax, so the tax bracket increases from 10% to 12% to 22% with greater income. The credit, for each child, corresponds to the tax income of $20000, $16667, and $9090 (respectively). The following chart shows the tax benefits of children for a married couple:

For example, a married 2-child family making $60000 will pay nothing in federal income taxes. If the couple has 3 children, that number increases to $77000. They’ll still pay FICA taxes (6.2% Social Security; 1.45% Medicare), but they avoid those 10%, 12%, and 22% tax rates until they make a comfortable combined wage:

Regardless of the number of children, the typical married man will not be taxed above a 12% rate until family income is in the six-figures.

Over at Finances for Marriage-minded Men, I described the plan for married men. Men should aim for a sensible career with an expected income in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. They should live in areas with low taxes. If they choose to have 2 or 3 children, typical of many American families, they can live comfortably (even with a stay-at-home-mom) and benefit from the current tax code.

I think that this series is valuable for many reasons. Of course, if you married a single mother who turned out to be decent, and you’re happy, it’s all good… but if that’s the case, you are the exception that proves the rule. 

Down below, our brother Anonymous from the Big Apple shares his story dating — and almost marrying — a single mom of another sort. It definitely merits a place on the front page. Let’s hear him tell it…

When I was wrapping up undergrad, I got entangled with 28 year old gold digger I met through the singles group at church… she initially got me with alot of one-on-one attention (i used to flirt alot back then, but never had a girlfriend) and things just escalated on their own.

She got to me with blowjobs, titty fucks, hand jobs… pretty much everything except full penis in vagina sex. In our hypocrisy, that was a line we did not want to cross given that we met at church and were going to enormous lengths to rationalize all the lines that we were crossing.

Anyway, the BJs had me hooked, and there were all sorts of red flags such as gas lighting and shit tests. I didn’t even know what to call them, but I knew that it was all shitty.

When I was on the verge of letting her go, about 6 months in (the BJs were good, but didnt justify the shit tests), she dumped on me that she had an abortion, and felt worthless, and couldnt lose a prize catch like me, and she would stop the shit tests etc etc etc. I should’ve cut ties right then and there… but i was a naive early 20 something, and she was clearly an experienced capital H, HO. Fast forward 2 years later, and the shit tests havent stopped, she’s made me become estranged from my family… she is a full out flirt with any cute, cut up masculine man that stops by church, and i am committed to be married to her (i was very beta, and was shit-tested into putting a ring on it).

Dont fear, my friends, there is a happy ending to this tale. I finally grew a pair and cut her off the morning of the wedding. YES – i am that guy who hit the lottery by walking away and avoiding a lifetime of ruin.

NEXTING a Ho can be expensive the longer you wait. So the lesson for the young guys is to cut bait quick. Since i waited until the BIG WEDDING DAY, i ended up having to write checks for all the vendors that had already been booked… it was a super cheap wedding, by NYC standards, but i still ended up writing checks for close to $9k…. in retrospect, cutting it at the 6 month mark like i wanted to would have been way cheaper. but 9k is a small price to pay to avoid getting divorce raped a few years later anyway…

Had to wait a while, but eventually found a normal (not claiming she’s a nawalt) woman and she is a faithful stay at home / home-schooling mom to the children she bore me.

What a story! Respect to this brother and the cool female he ended up marrying. 

Do you have a story about falling into a single mom’s fishtrap? Tell all in the comments, or submit an effortpoast by email.

Brother Charlie says ‘no’ to the ho’

Down below, I asked for personal submissions related to dating single mothers. A couple of you were good enough to comply.

The first man to volunteer was Earl, who breaks it down immediately, after I asked him about some crazy bitch he met. 

I met her through work. She was certainly still attractive looking (red heads are the death of me) and we had similar sense of humor so that was probably the attraction.

This sounds like she was older than you? Is that right? 

No.

I knew she had three kids…but then eventually I started to find out they were from two different fathers and even one of the fathers I found out I was distantly related to.

How far into the courtship was it revealed that the two kids had different fathers?

A few months, though I wouldn’t call it a courtship.

For Mormons, the whole distant relatives thing isn’t that big a deal. We’re all descended from the same group of people, though we generally don’t marry immediate first or second cousins.

We would often go to similar parties where alcohol was available. She would often go full party mode when the father had the kids for the weekend. She also had flings with a few guys (at least the ones I was aware of).

Back then I was in a crazy time in my life, so I didn’t see the red flags as clearly as now…but I hung out with her. Basically, the end of it came during a drunken make out session. She told me she was ‘raped’ at 15. In that alcoholic stupor, I finally got clarity. It was then that I regreted ever getting involved. I think she sensed that, and we mutually broke whatever was going on with us. I remember to this day I said out loud… “I never felt so relieved.”

Did she get revenge on you for nexting her? Was there any drama? Did she become tearful and beg to get back into your inner circle? Did she immediately start banging your best friends, or otherwise attempt to stay within your field of vision?

No revenge, not any drama that I can think of, no back stabbery. If it helps we never engaged in sex either…which I think is a good fire extinguisher to potential drama.

What I didn’t do was ever spend a lot of money on her…meet her kids…or become her full time simp. So I did save face there.

Of course during this time too I met another red head at a party (this one single, no kids) and agreed to what I thought was a date with her. This date consisted of going to a party where I met a group of her ‘friends’ and it turned out one of the guys was her ‘make out session’ guy or something. So I made the mistake of riding to the party in her vehicle because she knew where it was at…her and this other guy disappear for like 4 hours and I’m just here at this party not knowing anybody hoping that I’m not spending the night there. Fortunately she did eventually return (after doing God knows what) and took me back to my vehicle. I don’t think I spoke one word to her because I just wanted to get back to my car. I think that was the last red head I’ve been involved with.

It’s funny. I’ve meant to talk about this phenomenon. I’ve had a couple of experiences where some slut invites me out to a public or semi-private event, and the minute we get there, I realize she’s brought me simply as a cover, or to make her intended target jealous, or for some other underhanded reason. 

Tom Leykis used to warn men not to go to concerts if their date mentioned being “on the guest list,” or having “a backstage pass,” because that implies she’ll be fucking the band, while you’re finding your own way home. It’s basically the same scenario.

And since then if I do a date…I make all the plans and I drive myself to it. I don’t give ladies that quick of trust anymore.

So yeah when ladies want to whine about real things that happen to guys and trying to warn their fellow brothers…understand a lot of this doesn’t just come out of a vacuum.

Long story short…even if she’s attractive to you, single mothers are corrosive.

Thanks to Earl for kicking off this discussion. If you have a story, please send a message here [Editor: Previously here]. I think these stories can be beneficial for the young brothers coming up, and I won’t include any personal details about anyone.

https://youtu.be/MdzLfiLCkrc