The price of authenticity

Metapolitics & General
1

Witch hunts are good at making witches hide. For some things, we would prefer to negotiate for witch honesty.

I remember this MGTOW take on women: if it floats, fucks or flies, rent- don’t buy. Essentially, the point is to save money by never committing too many resources to women because they can deceive you, because they can divorce you and take half.

What are you even spending money on, that buying the validated honesty of love is on your budgeting shortlist?

The only way to know that your wife loves you is to allow her the option to leave you. A feasible option.

Possible versions of her have the capacity to lie. You have to purchase honesty from the possible liar, to know she speaks the truth- whether you like it or not.

But in a way, this sort of testing your woman by giving her the option, by not giving her a harsh prenup, it wastes the tension of doubt, the slow game of learning to trust. For this purpose, it may be best to set up a prenup that slowly dissolves. Even this may be insulting when you think of it, because what woman wants her lover to doubt her love?

I suppose that’s one reason you could argue why a default where a woman is guaranteed resources is good. A guy can always opt-out with a prenup, but the person who wants to have it without discussion can only have it so if it is the default.

If you aren’t interested in playing that game, the only issue is making the option lucrative enough at the right time.

The rich are the only ones who can afford the high price of an definitively authentic, true life- and do they pay it?

It is still a matter of lifestyle and culture. It really scales with the level of wealth you have, and the level of wealth the person is accustomed to.

If someone is used to a lifestyle, has roots in an expensive locale, feels peer pressure to maintain a standard of wealth… well, they aren’t going to tell their parents they’re gay, suddenly Muslim or a natural born whore or whatever. Trust fund architecture, demonstrably does not lend itself to honesty- they prioritize stable legacy over genuine life.

You can look at Bezos getting divorced as a very impressive flex- not only does he cast away the money, he has good taste in paying for honesty. Less fortunate taste in butchered 'spanics, but that’s neither here not there.

I don’t think we can know if others like Zuckerberg are paying for romantic honesty, or if they have a prenup.

The same thing with sexuality. If you desperately want to know for certain that all your bros are regular guys and not secretly ____, you have to allow them a feasible out.

In an sexually strict society that means leaving them a place to live in, even if society is vehemently against the pertinent degeneracy.

I suppose you could say that the genuine thing is that some women and queers like to feel trapped, like to simulate it. That they’ll always invent a reason the option isn’t good enough. “No, not enough money to last. Oh no, I have such a sweet niece and I would miss her if I were thrust from the family.” “Oh, what if I love my family but I don’t want to be split from them or outed to them?” People like putting themselves in double-binds.

There are also the authentic deceivers, those who crave the opportunity to wear a guise. You can’t reliably pay them off. They love being subversive or taboo, get off on the private/public contrast.

There is a type of normie guy who baits leftist women by pretending not to be a Republican. He comes out and they break up. I don’t know what his plan is. It’s a waste of time and it’s cruel. Those women should be reserved for men with either far less pride or far more honesty.

In present society, Chuds are a type of hunted witch. Maybe, we can ask ourselves what sort of deal we would accept in exchange for exile. Luxury would be tempting, life sucks.

I don’t think I would accept any such offer, because I’m prideful. I want access to the world for my plans. If the prospects for my ambitions were unaffected, I would accept money (400k to 600k USD) to speak the truke and suffer the genuine reactions. It wouldn’t have to be that great, just enough to let me live.

It would be kind of cool to pay a random normie to be completely honest on the internet, with a catch…

They have to leave the internet after like 3-6 months of activity, and they can never come back. No streaming, no vlogging, nada. They can never accept another dollar from patreon, etc. If they ever do, their allowance gets cut off with very slim chance for reversal.

Maybe you astroturf them a little as a streamer or e-celebrity, they go through a little perspective evolution. The interesting part is that the deadline for leaving the internet is coming up on them. Unless they get really successful, it progressively removes all the pressure to adapt to their audience.

2

You’re asking if he really loves her if he asks for a prenup but not asking if she loves him by refusing one. Some men whether they are rich or not fear being objectified as a wallet. It’s not about the money but whether or not they’re being or could be used. It’s reasonable to pay 10 bucks for medicine; it’s unreasonable to pay 10 bucks for a placebo. It’s reasonable to want what we expect and we usually expect authenticity and fairness.

Bezos doesn’t seem to fear objectification but it seems like Elon Musk does.

But honestly I think prenups are good thing. I also think transactional relationships are good and the most romantic thing is honesty. It’s way better to admit you’re a transactional person than pretend you’re not.

The guy who baits leftist women by pretending not to be a Republican just wants sex lol. That’s why he lies. Liars get what they want by objectifying others. A liar who wants love is just sad because no one can have it both ways. It’s delusional to think everyone’s end goal is love when the end goal is usually much more tangible than that.

3

I kind of flubbed my post, let me try to draw some comparison.

The default rules are akin to an expensive test for a woman’s loyalty. If she doesn’t really love you, she can leave and take your money. If you get a strong prenup, that can be taken as an insult, as a sign of distrust.

If the default rules did not give the woman half, a man who wants to test his wife has to explicitly give the option to his wife. That’s also an insult, can also be interpreted as distrust- even though it reflects a greater priority at knowing the wife truly, rather than protecting wealth.

I would say it is a more personal insult, but almost in a charming way. “I have to know that you are not just a facade for a trickster. I have to know that you really exist here with me.” It’s more a body-anchored insult than an ego-anchored insult, if that makes sense?

The prenup that I mentioned as insulting was one that protects less and less of your wealth from divorce as time goes on. I meant to say was still insulting because it increasingly approximates the default doctrine where she is tested for genuine love. I guess the real perspective is that it is insulting in both ways at different points.

Some men whether they are rich or not fear being objectified as a wallet. It’s not about the money but whether or not they’re being or could be used. It’s reasonable to pay 10 bucks for medicine; it’s unreasonable to pay 10 bucks for a placebo. It’s reasonable to want what we expect and we usually expect authenticity and fairness.

What I try to evoke in part of the post is that matters of the honest heart are a distinct frontier for negotiation, like how treaties for wars are different from contracts for business.

If there are women who would pretend not to be the divorcing type and then divorce for a profit, the reasonable expectation of authenticity and fairness is out the window. The only thing left is to choose: be slightly screwed and have a false wife, or be very screwed and get another chance to choose right.

But honestly I think prenups are good thing.

I intend to get a decent prenup, this is not incompatible with my stance because she won’t get much more out of me by being my wife. She can be entitled to a lot of money, enough to make it worth it to divorce me, but not half.

I also think transactional relationships are good and the most romantic thing is honesty. It’s way better to admit you’re a transactional person than pretend you’re not.

I don’t know how I stand on the term transactional relationships. It makes sense for relationships to be kept balanced, but deep relationships don’t keep well to the term. When what you care about is part of them or vice versa, you can still phrase that in contract-y terms like a mutual objective, collaboration, but merely “transactional” doesn’t fit anymore. It isn’t fungible.

The guy who baits leftist women by pretending not to be a Republican just wants sex lol. That’s why he lies. Liars get what they want by objectifying others. A liar who wants love is just sad because no one can have it both ways. It’s delusional to think everyone’s end goal is love when the end goal is usually much more tangible than that.

The interesting part is that he stops lying.

I agree that people do just want sex or tangibles. It reminds me of the thing liberals say about elite sex criminals “everything in the world is about sex, except sex- which is about power.” Cool, but that doesn’t explain why sex is about power. I can have people killed, why don’t I just do that to get my power fix? It’s far more powerful to end a life than molest a starlet for 15 minutes. Does sex have some synergy with exercise of power that power alone doesn’t? At that point, does it really sound like sex is about power, or something else?

4

Very good read. This part cracked me up, because it’s sort of coming to fruition already. We have some form of chud gladiators, people who will throw their (possibly normal) lives away in the public arena by saying slurs or sour takes, in exchange they don’t have to work anymore. They get a million dollar go-fund-me.

This forum, to me, is the opposite.

Like seeing a coworker at a homo bar, I won’t tell if you won’t.

5

I forgot the last part the point that brings it back to “people do enjoy tangibles” was that a lot of people would like to rape Emma Watson

6

It’s an insult and does signal mistrust but no one has to trust one another, it’s more of a social convention that one should. If people really wanted to opt out of that performance they could. I also meant to say that expectations aren’t reality. When you’re a rational actor you would think realistically but most people aren’t rational actors so they aren’t doing that. I.e if you’re a skeptical person you’ll probably end up with a naive person and vice versa.

The interesting part is that he stops lying.

He stops lying after he got what he wanted. Like maybe exposing himself hurts his future chances but if he is a republican he might feel proud he tricked the leftist so he has an impulse to share his “victory”.

“everything in the world is about sex, except sex- which is about power.”

I understood this to be more about acquiring lots of power for sex but then once you have sex you still turn it into a power struggle. Power in this case is like a kind of currency. You do every for sex but also do everything for power to keep having sex in the long term. Like a bit of a paradox, you gain currency for something that can drain it. It depends how you define power though I guess. If it’s more power = security then kill count matters but if power = currency/status/credentials/resources/etc then it more of a middle man. Comparatively, if it was rewritten as “everything is about food (biological impulse) except food- which is about money” it would be about biology hijacked by greed. Likewise the biological impulse of sex is hijacked by social status/performances. So basically I think it’s really saying “Every situation is a shit test; even when it’s a situation I want to be in.”