bzalinski

Exactly ! Your office story was really interesting. I believe that I've experienced the same thing. I would talk to people about subjects that I considered as important but no one seemed interested. I would blame other's for their ignorance, rather than take a look at myself. I was dealing with the same issues: weak and non-convincing voice, stuttering, hunched body, lack of eye-contact, nervous body language. Over the years, as I started working on my body, I tried to be more self-aware about these things: walking straight, more eye contact, better articulation, speaking with fervor and conviction. Of course, these things have to be genuine and not faked. But I truly believe that a healthy body leads to more admiration for oneself, as an appreciation for your own dedication and hard work. The effect of this is incredibly: were would run away from me in the past, they now have sparks in their eyes when I speak with confidence. It's also the philosophy of Stephan that helped me to clear my mind of allot of trash, and be more clear about the mission I have in life.

Hey thanks for your response. I found two therapists of interest and I hope that I'll be able to start my therapy pretty soon. I've done some self-therapy the last few months with a diary and with allot of introspection. However, I might do it the wrong way. But I think that the things I found out about myself during self-therapy might be useful at the start of my therapy. About the girls I've met in the past: I've never had a one-night stand and always went into a relationship with the women I slept with. Those lasted a year on average. I started those relationships for the wrong reasons ( physical attraction ) and disregarded any personal preferences I had ( low self-esteem ). I've never raised the bar very high and usually slept with any woman willing to do so with me. I've met most of them at parties and I've met one on Tinder. Since my last break-up, I avoid meeting women in places that lead towards shallow emotional contact. Actually, I'm more into conversation but I never used this to my advantage. I could have taken my time to get to know nice and virtuous women but I put too much emphasis on sexual attraction. I also knew that through conversation, many women would be revealed as poor girlfriend material. Instead of having the balls to reject those women based on what I knew deep inside, I'd go for them regardless of that knowledge, thinking that I could not get any better or that I had nothing else to offer. My reasoning might be flawed, I probably have allot of blind spots and there must be some other *unpleasant* truths about my dating patterns. That's why I want to go on therapy. I want a quality life for myself and others, and I strongly believe that it is now time to work on virtues that I didn't posses in the past. I don't know if it's that easy tough. Some things cannot be undone and define me as I am. But I also know that I don't *have* to stay like this. Ps: I grew up in a dysfunctional environment, raised by a single mom, and a lack of virtue has been the example around me all my life. Yes, shallow sex was only one of the things that kept me from thinking about myself. Some use alcohol and drugs. For me it was sex and gaming. Let's also add heavy smoking. I've quit all of these habits pretty recently ( Stopped intensive gaming years ago, stopped smoking 6 months ago and I try to be more aware when it comes to dating since 3 months ). However, it's really easy to fall back if one doesn't watch out. That's why I also think it's time to take therapy really seriously. Can you tell me more about your bad habits and the reasons why you had them ? Thanks for your reply. I think the answer was easy: virtuous women were not attracted because I had no virtue myself. And even if one of them would've been attracted by me, I might have missed out on that. I appreciated virtue but not to the extend I do today. I could recognize it but I was easily corrupted by superficial beauty. I understand your analogy with porn and masturbation. Nowadays I tend to believe that too much masturbation can be damaging as well. I started watching porn at a young age and it might have influenced the way I look at beauty. I try to canalize my sexual energy in other ways nowadays and I'm interested in any information source that handles this subject. It's all a matter of discipline I think. Too much lust kills the lust. In response to your last question I'll also say this: I'm now almost 30 and I've been a serial monogamist since the age of 23. I've had 5 relationships that lasted in average 1 year, with breaks of 6 months in between. Needless to say that I believed my issues would be fixed within a relationship rather then on my own.

Hello everyone, As some of you might know from the chat-sessions, I broke up with my girlfriend 2 months ago. It is mostly Stephan's work that made me realize that my relationship existed for the wrong reasons and that it was beyond salvageable. I have no love for myself, therefore I could not love someone else. I also decided that it was time to break the vicious circle of bad life choices before it would destroy me completely. I know that most of the poor decisions I made in life are directly related to abuse from the past. Because of this, I developed self-destructive behaviour that was most noticeable in my choice of partners. I've had many relationships that started for the wrong reasons. In those relationships, I had a lack of integrity ( mostly towards myself ), love and purpose. I would sleep with any women that wanted to open her legs for me and would then form a relationship with them. I connected with those women because having sex with them made me believe that I was being loved. I also convinced myself that I loved them. Most of them turned out to be abusers that reminded me of my mother. I turned out to be a spineless pretender that would angrily *rebel* against them towards the end, blaming them for my own mistakes. In the last two months, I decided that things have to change. I accepted that I need therapy and I found a potential therapist yesterday. I'm also keeping a diary, although I don't know if I use it for the right purpose. After reading most of Stephan's books and after listening to allot of his podcasts, I learned that virtue and self-knowledge are essential to happiness in life. I'm making progress when it comes to self-knowledge and analyzing the root-cause of many problems I have. I know what my missions should be and I know which virtues ought to be pursued. I know that I won't have any relationship before I'm actually ready. It is impossible to date a virtuous woman if I'm not being virtuous myself. The problem I encounter nowadays is that the path to recovery is long and filled with all kinds of temptations. The one temptation I'm having trouble with is sex. I constantly try to convince myself that I need it. I know that sex should be saved for virtuous women but I also know that it will take a long time before I am ready to date again. I'm having all the trouble of the world in resisting the urge to sleep with women that I find attractive or that give me enough attention. The idea of not having sex for a long period of time disturbs me. I try to convince myself that while working on myself, having meaningless sex on the side could be ok, as long as I'm honest about it. I know that this reveals even more problems and character flaws in me. This urge teaches me that I'm still needy, emotionally compulsive and that I have no integrity or self-love. Where to start ? Will the urge for sex naturally disappear if I truly start working on my virtues instead of just pretending ? Should meaningless sex be avoided at all cost ?

Hello everyone, Many of you have probably heard the old Latin phrase "Mens sana in corpore sano", which translates as "a sound mind in a sound body". I made this topic to point out the truthfulness of this phrase, because it will be very important in your journey to virtue and self knowledge. I have to point out that when I mention sports, I refer to it's most noble and purest form: a disciplined physical exertion whose single purpose is to respect, sharpen and maintain the beautiful machine that is the human body. This human body is what nurtures our mind. It is the vessel that carries out the great ideas imagined by our brains. Therefore, if you value your mind, you should also value your body. The words above might sound very obvious, but I felt like mentioning them because sports carries allot of negative bias. It is often associated with corruption ( Big sports as a state-funded institute ), entertainment ( passive sport-watching ) and a form of compensation ( big muscles, no brain ). I also find ( but I might be biased ) that intensive body-exertion tends to be shunned among more intellectually oriented people. You can also see that people with unhealthy minds tend to neglect their body. A lack of self-esteem, for example,causes people to either neglect the body or to over perform. Some people grow incredibly large muscles because that's a way to reassert themselves, to gain body-confidence where mental confidence was lacking. Others don't exercise at all because the lack of value they have for themselves. One might even hate himself to the point of destroying his own body through drugs and other forms of abuse. This neglect of the body can, in my opinion, be a serious hurdle on your philosophical journey. This is why I want to point out the importance of sports. There is obviously a certain balance that has to be achieved but, most of all, our reasons for physical exertion have to be virtuous. To me, sports is a way of having integrity toward ourselves. It is a display of self-love and self-value, which is very important in order to love others around us. Furthermore, there are allot of other advantages related to sports: 1) It clears the mind and enabled you to sharpen your mind. The hormones released during exercise ( like dopamine, endorphin's and testosterone ) will grant you willpower, resilience and motivation. It creates a state of mind that turns you into an achiever, which is key to being a human being who takes matter in own hands. 2) Group-sport is a good way to connect with other people, form strategies and teamwork. Relationships developed there might sometimes be limited, but it is a great way to be involved in social interactions and work on your social skills if required. 3) Exercise teaches you to push you limits further. It teaches you to accept defeat, learn from mistakes and adapt. Hard work will eventually pay off. Just like being an entrepreneur takes allot of failure, sports takes allot of frustration before you get any good at it. 4) It reasserts a positive image of yourself. Healthy bodies can breed more healthy minds. Both attributes are also considered as attractive to the other gender. All the positive effects of sports can be felt quiet quickly, without investing too much time in it. I'm not advocating that everyone should be a professional athlete, but consistent exercise is definitely something I would recommend to any philosopher around. Between half and hour and 1 hour a day should be enough. It can be as simple as walking, which can even be combined with a good audio book. Don't forget that a healthy body cannot be a substitute for virtue, but it is certainly complementary to the goals of a philosopher. Do you have any thoughts, addition or criticism to make ? Please, do share what is on your mind ! PS: I also recommend the channel of Eliot Hulse, who's been on Stephan's show months ago. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLrI-dOLyDbRnPyUeWadsOg

Hello everyone, For those of you that recently watched the news, you probably couldn't help but notice that there was a coup going on in Turkey yesterday night. I won't go into details about this subject, as you can look up the news for yourself. What is very interesting however, is the reaction of Turkish and other Muslim minorities across Europe. You have to know that most Turkish minorities in Europe tend to vote for their beloved dictator Erdogan. In Belgium, 65% of their community voted for him. In the Netherlands it was even higher. What does that mean ? Well it means that a majority of the Turkish community approves of Erdogan and his methods. For those who still don't know: Erdogan is the current president of Turkey. He is known for murdering or imprisoning political opponents, purging the top-tier levels of administration from any free-thinkers and owning about 80% of the media. This is who the Turkish communities will associate with. Lefties will often argue that this is because Turks are very ill informed. If Turks knew the truth about Erdogan they say, they would vote more democratically, just like us. Nothing is further from the truth. I work within the Turkish community of Brussels, so I'm very well informed when it comes to the general opinion of this community. They are well informed about Erdogan and they know what he is capable of. Despite being confronted to Erdogan's actions, they will keep support him. Because that's what strong leaders do according to them. This is their understanding of democracy. The elephant in the room is that most Turks have no understanding of democracy whatsoever. I know that as Ancaps, we tend to question democracy ourselves, but this is a whole different level of understanding. Our understanding is at least that violence is not a valid way of debating. Is it such a surprise that the rise of censorship in the West is also related to the rise of intolerant minorities ? As more and more people start to speek the truth about Muslim minorities, the media feels like it has to censor, lie and manipulate. They know the truth will lead to violence. Make no mistake, these minorities reject our way of living, they reject what we believe in. Yesterday, as the coup was going on, thousand of Turks swarmed the Belgian social media. There couldn't be more difference between us and them. As the Belgians were cheering for Erdogan's end, the Turks were weeping. This soon transformed into outrage: the Turks started to blame the West and it's values. They were angry at the fact that we were cheering for the end of their dictator. Thousands or Turks started to swarm the streets of Brussels and other European cities. They came out with Turkish flags, chanting for their leader. They started to protest in our streets. I'm saying this gain folks: thousands of Turks were out on the streets yesterday night, praising a dictator that wants to see our values gone. After the coup failed, we saw even more Turks cheering for the fact that their strong leader was victorious. What did I learn from this ? The truth is that Turks have a strong in-group preference for leaders like Erdogan. The truth is also that Europeans don't have a strong in-group preference for their rejection of Islam. They don't have a strong in-group preference for the rejection of dictators like Erdogan and their ideologies. We seem to watch passively as those minorities celebrate a dictator in our own streets. We seem passive at the idea of having thousands of those people inside our country. We seem passive at the idea that one day, if demographics aloud it, they will put their in-group preference to use in our own country. Tomorrow, I will go on the streets. For how much longer will Europeans tolerate this ?

That won't happen Quadrewple. Like Stephan said before: as Muslims, they have strong in-group preference. We feel bad when they import their values in Europe, right ? They feel the same about us when we try to import our own ways in the their countries. Until recently, Turkey was maybe the only example of a mild secular Muslim democracy. But they a dictator in order to achieve this. He also erased some port of old-Anatolian culture by forcibly Westernizing it. Sadly enough, the conservative Muslims took over the country again. Within the Muslim minorities of Europe, you can also observe this conservative change. They have a strong in-group preference and we stand divided. We also have an absurd amount of tolerance towards them, which will inevitably cause them to grow and gain more power. The best you can do to counter this rise in power is by being less tolerant towards them. Vote against the left, rally on the street, organize, speek the truth. Most of all, it's time to get off our lazy asses and start. Muslims by protest by the thousands in the street, why can't we. It's just because we afraid to be branded as racists, to be branded as intolerant. This show helped me allot in the sense that I am afraid no more !

Thanks for this information Aviet. I think that this comparison between left and right is very interesting, just because every country has a different understanding of it's meaning. Nowadays, I try to avoid hose words as much as possible because they cause allot of confusion, which I will explain further down. But when people talk about "the regressive left", I generally understand what is being implied. Let's have a closer look at the differences tough: In Belgium, you have the Flemish left and the Walloon left. The Walloon left ( PS ) leans closer to communism then the Flemish left. The Flemish left ( SPa ) has allot of similarities to the kind of socialism that Sanders advocates. From a Belgian perspective it is funny to see how Sanders is called a communist by some republican, because we know that it could be much worse. It shows how sensitive US republicans are to some socialist doctrines. It also shows how far left Belgium has become. From a Belgian point of view, European left-wing parties are being considered more central tough. They endorse some point of views that are considered "right-wing" in Belgium. An example would be syndicates. In Belgium, they are a political power that will often cause violent rallies against everything that represents employers. In Denmark, syndicates are a thousand times more peaceful and collaborate in a more healthy way with entrepreneurs. Belgian "right-wing" would be considered as leftists in the US. They are pro-healthcare, pro-welfare and don't have outspoken opinions on gun laws. They seem to endorse our very strict gun-ban. They are considered right-wing in Belgium because they criticize multiculturalism, support the free-market and support a certain form of nationalism. In Europe, it tends to be quiet simple: if you criticize migrants, if you are a nationalist or if you endorse the free-market you are considered as right-wing. The word "right-wing" itself has been dumbed down to the level of being an insult. That's why nowadays, people "come out of the closet" by saying out loud that they are right-wing conservatives. So when we talk about "the left" on this forum, I believe we're referring to people that are: - Pro-state ( More layers of bureaucracy and more laws will solve our problems ) - Pro-multicultural society ( all cultures are the same, all cultures can blend ) - Anti-nationalists ( which seems to be the default option with pro-multiculturalism. ) - Leans towards "progressive" values and shuns conservative values ( abortion is great, feminism is great, ... ) The problem is that you find such people on all political sides, even on political sides that call themselves "right-wing". You also find left-wingers that don't match the description here above. Hence the confusion sometimes. That's why, when referring to someone's political views, we should focus more on their specific beliefs. For example: I know more when someone says he is a statist then when he claims to be left or right wing. Any thoughts on this ?

Hey, thanks for your reply. Allot of friends in my circle are skeptic towards a brexit. Most of them are academically schooled economists. When I talk with them about brexit they listen carefully however. Some friends do share the same opinion as me, but with a grain of salt. That's probably because most of them tend to be center-right wing. That is of course to Belgian standards. What we call right-wing in Belgium could, to a certain degree, be considered democrat in the US. In Belgium, you see the same as everywhere: Left-wing socialists are against the Brexit, because being pro-European has been part of their indoctrination. Most right-wing people tend to be pro-brexit. Social media are all against Brexit because all media in Belgium are left-wing / subsidized by the state. There are almost no alternatives when it comes to the press. There are a few notable online platforms that offer a critical voice. There is also an interesting split in Belgium: as you may know, the country is a federation between 3 cultural ( language ) communities. The biggest one is the Flemish community ( people often mistake Belgium as a french-talking country ) who talks dutch, the Walloon community talking French and finally the small German community. A majority of Flemish citizens vote right-ring, while the majority of Walloon vote (extreme)left-wing. This means that on a federal level, we often struggle to find satisfying solutions for the whole country. It's generally at the expanse of one community. Belgium is basically a non-country where different cultures, with different political mindsets hold each other hostage for political and economical benefit. Even tough we call each other "federation" or "confederation", we have allot of central power that can block the efficient working of the different federal entities. Switzerland for example, is also a federation but they grant allot of freedom to every federal entity. Hence why it works better and cannot be compared to Belgium, despite being also called a federation. I tell you this because this split also reflects on different opinions, like the brexit. Allot of Flemish citizens applaud the brexit because of our dream of independence. Most people in Brussels and Wallonia might be pro-remain because of the anti-Flemish narrative. Almost all media are pro-remain because it's the narrative of people who want to keep Belgium alive. It's a logical stance when you know that most of their subsidies come from either the Belgian federation or the EU. I'd say the general consensus is that more people are pro-remain then pro-leave. However, I feel that there has been a recent shift in ideas. It's hard to back up my feelings without any tangible statistics.

Hello everyone, My name is Benoît. I'm a bilingual Flemish man, with a french name and Polish-Russian roots. Go figure, but this kind of blend happens quiet often in Belgium. At the present moment I live in the city of Brussels. I learned about Stephan Molyneux and this community in September, but it took me quiet some time to get involved on the website. The only right thing to do was to become a donator and become more invested into the community. It took me some time before I decided to start posting, because I was either struggling with the way I express myself in the English language, or because I was simply procrastinating too much. As for probably most people on this website, getting in touch with the philosophical content of Freedomainradio was a life changer for me. I don't think I will ever be the same after reading some of Stephan's books, especially when it comes to the eye-opening truths he speaks about relationships. I was in a relationship at the time where I started listening Stephan's podcasts. I noticed that as soon as I started to understand the content of the podcasts, it made me question so many things that seemed obvious before. My life, my family and my relationship. As I gained knowledge and insight, I felt that a part of my life was becoming more difficult. It became more difficult because I was being confronted with the truth about myself and this world. What used to be confusion started to become more clear. The confrontation could be, at times, very painful. Old wounds that never healed were now open again. Some of these confrontations led to a breakup with my (ex)girlfriend a few days ago. It hurts to not have her in my life anymore but I know that this has been caused by my lack of self-knowledge. As I missed her very much, I turned to some people in the community and so far I was glad to find very kind and helpful people in the chat room. Here I am now, sharing with you. I will start a long journey for self-knowledge and I hope that this community might bring me new insights.