Oberrheiner said:The Catalyst said:Can someone explain what exactly is bad about usury? It's hard to wrap around. If it does create money out of nothing and allows you to access money that isn't yours/doesn't exist, that's really bad, yet I can't imagine a situation where people would actually want to loan without interest.
Ok, let's call x the total amount of money which exists in the whole world.
Hopefully I didn't lose everyone's attention with that line yet
Now say 3 guys take a loan for 10.000 each to buy a house for their families.
With the current usury rates, the total cost including interests will be 12.000 each.
Now for the simplicity of the demonstration let's say that x is 0.
So the bank creates 30k (so now x is 30.000), and those people need to pay back 36k (12 each).
See the problem coming already ?
Two of them will be able to pay back, the third will be left bankrupt and homeless - because the money he has to pay back simply does not exist.
Oh, and the other two will have to basically have stolen the extra 2k of interests from him.
So yeah, it's not exactly a moral system.
Now of course in the real life x is not 0, it's billions of billions, spread across 7 billion individuals, so you don't see the stealing and the getting broke and homeless that much, because it is spread very wide across all of us.
Oh and new money is being created all the time, so by the time you have to pay it back it will have been created by somebody else, recursively until the end of time (or a crash of the whole system) like a ponzi scheme.
But that doesn't make the problem less real.
And after that of course you have whole industries which came to exist because of that, for instance marketing and advertisement.
For instance you don't need to actually steal money from people, you can also spend billions trying to convince them that they need the latest iphone for a thousand bucks when it costs maybe a fifth of that to make, to take just one example
So yeah technically you're not stealing from people anymore, you're brainwashing them to give you their money themselves spontaneously.
Waqqle said:1. Women are adults every bit as much as men are. They make grown up decisions just as we do. In all but cases involving genuine criminality, women are solely responsible for any and all sex that happens in the modern secular world. Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality and they alone decide whether or not sex happens. If she refuses you, there is nothing you can legally do to make sex happen with her. Even hookers must consent.
2. In the same way that only an individual man can be truly held responsible for choosing to commit a murder or rob a bank, only an individual woman can be truly held responsible for the sex that she chooses to have. Perhaps she came from such and such a background or did not have a dad but, ultimately she has agency in the same way that a man coming from the same situation does and his sad story will certainly not prevent the judge from holding him solely responsible for the choices he has made.
3. There is no such thing as modern secular traditionalism. Modern secular girls are already going to do it so they might as well do it with you.
Ask an incel if girls who don't already have it in them will choose to bang him or if he can convince a girl who already rejected him. A girl who really wants to preserve her virginity until marriage and live a traditional lifestyle as a housewife and homemaker will do that and she will not give it up to any guy until she is married. Even the most skilled gamer cannot crack a girl who has committed herself to those principles because all the game in the world will not change a sincere "no" into a "yes" (LMR is not sincere but is only part of the game - if it were a sincere refusal, you'd know). Game is just that, playing the game that women like to enjoy before doing what they have already decided that they are going to do (bang a man they are not married to).
Women who are willing to have non-marital sex have already decided in the first 5-10 seconds of seeing you whether they would bang you or not (just like men do, though we judge different features) and the rest is just playing the game that gets you to where she has already decided she will allow you to go. For the girls who are truly committed to trad principles, game is largely irrelevant in terms of getting non-marital sex as they decided long before they ever saw you that you were not getting in without marrying them and that decision was almost invariably based on religious conviction, not fleeting emotion and arousal.
Also, is women were truly committed to trad principles, then why are up to 90% of divorces initiated by women (75% is only the women without the male and 15-20% is "mutual" which totally doesn't mean that the male was coerced in any way - that never happens)? Traditionalism went away in the West with the introduction of hormonal birth control and the entrance en masse of women into the workplace. When you say "we are making women worse," you are operating on logic that might have been relevant 300 years ago when women and men were both basically slaves to nature, had strong religious convictions, and married before they were 18 but that way of thinking only puts you at a disadvantage now because, whether you yourself are trad or not, a woman is most likely not going to be a traditional virgin by the time she crosses your path and, if she is, you won't be able to crack her.
To answer your question: We are making the most of a bad situation. In the modern West, where women have every right to refuse at any point, it is truly women who, in all cases except those involving genuine criminality, are the deciders of whether or not sex happens. They are already going to give it up, if not to you then to someone else, so you might as well get your piece. Just make sure not to get spermjacked, stay healthy, and stay safe.
debeguiled said:Speaking of topping from the bottom, I was listening to a livestream by a Christian woman and everything was fine until she slipped in a jarring little phrase that gave the game away.
They are so good at pretending to be with the program, but if you listen closely, you will hear the one slip that gives the game away.
A commenter asked her if her husband were Christian and she said, Yes, and then, under her breath, "I wish he were more on fire for the Lord."
Can you imagine that marriage?
"I am so glad to be a surrendered wife, but Honey, could you be more head of the household like this. . . ."
Aurini said:once you're married you have a duty, and that duty may demand that you put your dreams on hold to work at the box factory
Aurini said:There are only two choices in a usurious economy: be the guy fucking someone over, or the guy getting fucked.
Vladimir Poontang said:Choose your friends more carefully in future Davis. At this point you'd probably be better off being friends with Jim Toad. At least he's an honest reptile and you'd know where you stand at all times.
Leonard D Neubache said:
Me every time I click on a bit-chute link forgetting I'm only going to get a site-can't-be-reached screen because "Christchurch Shooting videos must be censored".