M.2

I think you should read the conversation I have been having with the Kaiser. It is control. The aim of the game is control. I don't find sex particularly rewarding. I am not familiar with that site. True evil does not look like count dracula. True evil does not lie outright, rather buries a pinch of lie in a mountain of truth, and with time, the lie spoils the entire truth. I am a catholic, so I try to leave the decyphering of intent to God. But I don't really know. All I know is that it is evolutionarily advantageous for women. Yes, the respect for free will definitely requires humility. However, even the Devil respects human free will, but only up until they hand over their free will of their own free will. This is what I do. I like reading the Life of Saints, because they are the perfect example of the way to respect human dignity. I recognise your assessment as true of my father. He has been wronged so many times by stupid and evil people, women in particular. Sometimes my mother describes him as a woman-hater. I don't think that far is true, but he does indeed expose his scars quite often. As for me, I don't think it is true. 1. I must admit, sometimes my faith falters. Still, I have seen very good women in my life, so there is no doubt in my mind that they exist. One particular girl comes to mind who is so good that she scares me. I haven't taken a shot at her because she was a classmate of my brother's. Every girl I ever missed haunts me forever. 2. Yeah, as I said, the lady saints are really inspiring. To that account, I always feel an extraordinary amount of shame whenever I pray the Hail Mary.

Promiscuity is not part of the game. Not necessarily at least. But even if it were, the devil tempts everyone, even so the best of us. There is a reason we pray "do not lead us into temptation". Even the best falter sometimes in the face of temptation. Especially if that temptation looks like me. Anyway, we have already established that sex is not necessarily what I lead them to. And I mostly target those from whom I know I won't be able to get sex.

Hi, Fashus Maximus We have been discussing that angle for about the last ten posts. What you are talking about is the Player, who differs from the badboy in that he does not aim for quality, but for quantity, and his methods are rather different as well. I think we have established fairly well that there are genetics and evolution at play. Therefore, it has to affect all women. Concurrently, men are evolutionarily and genetically hardwired to look for good-looking women; no matter how virtuous of a man you are, you will consider the best-looking babe in the room. Women will consider the man who displays the traits that seem most evolutionarily preferable, particularly masculinity. What makes a badboy, is that he can fake these traits, sometimes even better than the real quality men, and sometimes so well that it does not set off the quality women's bullshit meter.

1. Pretty straightforward with women. Always goes back to the father. If I know her father personally, that is a huge advantage. If I don't, the paternal relationship is always glaringly visible on women. You can tell by the way they dress, talk, look, etc. Anyway, I always aim to match their idea of the perfect dad. The ones who have good fathers always aim for traditional christian qualities, such as stability, wisdom, courage, etc. My luck, so to speak, is that such qualities are extremely rare in today's west, especially among guys my age, so there is hardly any competition. This is where the mystery of evolution kicks in, and here is where the good girl differs no longer from the bad girl. The girl I have picked for myself will want to do anything in order to keep me around, just as a healthy man would do almost anything to keep around the most beautiful woman. 2. I think women have a much easier time manipulating men. All they have to do is put out. But yes, as I said, we stole their strategy, which is to morph into whatever the other individual desires, and then leashing them to the lie. For women though, it is an evolutionarily hardwired strategy. Definitely something similar. I remember being very small, looking out the apartment window onto the street, wanting to determine where people on the sidewalks should be allowed to walk. But this is as far as I can recall of anything that has to do with control. And again, I only want to control women. Frankly, I think it is genetic for me, since the tendency runs in the family. Sorry, I meant to say that the social status of our family is quality. We always only hang around other quality families. Not to say they are all perfect, but they definitely strive. I'm only guessing what your question is. You can reveal yourself bit by bit, or very suddenly. I prefer the gradual process. Showing signs of psychopathy, of lust for control, of emotional coldness. This is still part of the game though. I want them to feel confused. Also, there is some sick pleasure one finds in showing evil to the innocent. I don't think I am abstracting. I simply need an abstract frame in which I can arrange the real stuff. Those are the questions I have been asking. 1. You have a problem because you will have daughters. 2. Well put, nothing to add. I have read that sexual reward hormones, endorphines or whatever, clear from the body after two years. I can definitely feel that they have, and that helps a lot. But this only means that my desire is not corporal, but emotional. So maybe it is not genetic, idk. All I can say is that control, or power is no doubt very addictive, and I have already tried it, so I can sympathise with leftists a bit. Supposing such a woman exists... One has to have seen a badboy to know a badboy, I think. The difference between player and badboy is that the player is no threat to good women, but the badboy is. More often than not, a badboy wears a suit and a tie instead of a leather jacket. The good ones at least. But anyway, yes I agree, I should stop.

Fair inquiry. It is actually something that women like to employ when they ensnare men. The badboy is the one that has learned this technique and uses it as a countertactic against them. First, one finds out where the "subject" is from. This is extremely easy. Then one has to learn what they want. These two steps must be taken whilst laying low so that there won't be conflicts of facades later on. As you know, 80% of communication is nonverbal, therefore one relays extremely subtle signals that communicate what the subject wants to see. When you go to a store looking for a red shirt, you will notice the red shirt, all while everyone else may not take notice. What quality women want to see is much harder to portray compared to others, and that is exactly why I like it. Now, this does not mean I am constantly lying, because I actually do have some of the qualities they are looking for. The issue is not there. The sin is when I start pulling the string and making them do what I want, making them feel what I want, and making them think what I want. The worst part is that they think they are the ones who want all that. This is what makes me a badboy. The analogy of being drunk is actually pretty accurate. One may not have drunk for a year, but if they still crave it, there is a problem. And I crave it a lot. So much so that I have to completely avoid women my age to avoid trouble. My family is high quality, at least our nuclear family. We are of Roman Catholic, middle class, intellectual-entrepeneur stock. My parents never got divorced, nobody drinks, nobody does drugs, and we work on our moral standing. I was born into the quality ranks. You are arguing my point. Parents are not the only influence in a child's life. A good girl can (and does) decide to fall for a badboy very often despite being from a quality household. And that is our problem here, He does give himself away after a while. Not even accidentally. I, for instance, have given myself away either to put an end to the game, or to see their faces when they learn the truth. I'll send you the link if I can find it. 1. That is important as well. And I appreciate your effort. I think I have largely understood how the mechanism works, though there are some questions remaining. Saying "evolution" is a good answer, but not sufficient for me. In order to break my cycle completely, and not pass it on to my childen, I have to learn more. 2. There is nothing to DO. Or at least I cannot do anything right now, since I don't have enough information. I am already doing what you are suggesting anyway. 3. No, WE have a problem to solve as a species. My part is in figuring out why things are the way they are. It is an addiction. Of course it's hard. I would be lying if I claimed otherwise. And it is also a great hinderance and an energy drain in my life. 1. A lot happened. I grew up when I was 12. Nothing sexual, thank God, but a lot of neglect, emotional and physical abuse from both parents. It is still affecting me today, no doubt. Though they have been making up for it. We were homeschooled for a couple years, my father began spending more time with us, my mother got off birth control. The effort was pretty obvious. 2. Control. There is the problem. I love manipulating people, which means I don't fully respect human free will. And since I am also very good at it, it is a big problem. What makes it a gigantic problem is that there are many like me without a moral compass. And the women are the ones who turn in into a problem that will be the end of us, because they love us. Personally, I just want to be normal at last. I am tired of feeling guilty, I am tired of being torn in two.

Ah, since you make it a moral question, that is somewhat different from a practical matter. You have to apply UPB here. If everyone in Israel suddenly decided to be anarchist tomorrow, and therefore not enlist, Israel would cease to exist, and everyone in Israel would die within a week. (Not because you have no more recruits, but because your enemies will no longer fear you.) If you have a problem with the system, and you find it immoral how they are treating you, it is only masochistic of you to stay. At least in my opinion. My family, we are big tourists. If we don't like a government, we don't stay around to suffer for no reason. I hope you made the right decision.

Oh, well, I genuinely don't like the French. I get along with them as long as they are willing to, but the problem is that they don't very often. Thanks, I am German in my veins after all. I think I have a grasp on how the system works. I was hoping to learn more about what the people think of the system, and why they are not using it to enact change. I don't know how long you have been around reading the Forums, but I have chatted with people about various systems of government. Why did you link to the Obelisk of Montevideo when you wrote "go play civ"? 1. Yes, I believe that is how authority works. In one of those ways at least. You may consider him an authority, but I don't think that's how he wants you to think of him. He overtly dismisses any claim of authority in philosophy very frequently. 2. I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, because this part sounds very off to me. Bismarck was the ultimate authoritarian, according to the Webster definition, and so was the Kaiser, and hence the State of Prussia and of Germany. I woulld argue they did put very competent people in charge. They conquered central europe and beat all the major powers after all. You can't do that without competence, and I don't think authoritarianism rules out meritocracy. A good example is Napoleon's Empire. 3. First, I am highly sceptical of any rumors regarding enemies of the USA. Let's say it's true though. Being a military dictatorship, authority in Iraq was determined by someone's statusin the military, which one had to attain through hard work and charisma most of the time. A military authority can be establishe d by a bunch of things. I think the support of the officers and soldiers is a minimal requirement, but some may claim to have been appointed by a god, or maybe they may hold the Darwinian Naturalist view that the stringest must rule. 4. Everything in politics temporal, except San Marino and the Tenno- they seem to remain with us for a while. I'm not sure what a non-authoritarian military dictatorship is. Seems like an oxymoron. Enlighten me if I'm missing something. Yeah, that's a good point. I guess this may be what Richard was getting at. Actually (imagine me with glasses snorting at a screen), Germanic Peoples is the term you are talking about. However, as a matter of fact,I agree with you. German used to mean a person who speaks a Germanic language, and that by all means applies to Austrians. If you read some old stories of the Habsburg Era, you will see Austrians being referred to as Germans. In colloquial language in Hungary, we still call them Germans, and offend them too. I brought up that comparison because technically, Belgians speak French, just like Austrians speak German, but it is even more inaccurate because most Belgians are Flemish speakers. I'm certain that is part of it. Which is why we are having a conversation about authority and the German perception of it. I pretty confident when I say that Germans were freer when they were still christian, monarchist, and when Freistaat (free state) actually meant what it means. The issue is that, I suspect, most of those people have migrated to the Americas.

Ok, I think I have written about this before, but I will try again. I know people very well, especially girls. I know exactly what each of them want, and I know I can feign those qualities. And I am best at portraying such qualities that good girls are looking for. And most of the time, I play a better goodguy than the actual goodguys. Here is the problem though: I am still a badboy. I never claimed that I don't have moral agency in the matter. You have misunderstood something. It is not that they are attracted to me and that's it. I always go far enough, just far enough to break their heart. The only women who avoid me are those who already have good men. But I avoid them too, so there is no case there. BUT if you still insist that good women avoid me, then there is no problem here in your mind, and this topic is closed. No, I have mathematically zero low quality people around me. Sometimes I get a few badgirls approach me, but those interactions last about 2 minutes, and are always in work setting. Seems like you are removing moral responsibility from the children again. One can be a good parent, yet have a child who makes bad decisions. Just as one can be a bad parent and have their child making good decisions. Proof are you. What if I can look like a good guy? You seem to think everyone has a keen eye for people. Also, getting ripped off after signing a contract does not necessarily make you stupid. It may mean the other person is a very good conman and fled to Algeria. Just a possibility. I have spoken to him once, but the process of getting there was awfully tedious. And since there is a 6 hour time difference, I was absolutely exhausted by the time I got on the line and couldn't discuss much. It's simply not worth attempting with what I have at the moment. There is a lot to be said about my father, as it is his genes that give me such tendencies. But even if we suppose it's not genetic, he abused me a lot, so there is a lot there as well. Sure, don't buy into it. Of course I can help myself. I can do basically nothing, which was my strategy for the past year or so. You don't have to tell me not to make a hydrogen bomb, while all I am doing is asking you how the hydrogen bomb works. All I want is to know why thing are the way they are with me. I CAN live my life avoiding problems. Even if I play a few times here and there, it is absolutely not the end of the world, since hardly anyone gets hurt. The issue is my tendency. If I had homosexual tendencies, I would be just as curious as to why I do. 1. Stop calling me cracker. I don't know what it means, and that is not my name. I don't dick around, as I have already told you. I work, I study, and I only make friends with quality people and girls who are at least 5 years older than myself. 2. You are doing a good job at getting my wheels turning, but you keep assuming stuff. Which is something I find Mr.Molyeux doing quite often, and it's pretty annoying. Whatever you may have gotten right, I always confirm. It is in my interest to get to the bottom of this after all. 3. That is the plan. It is hard as fck, but so far I'm doing good. That said, I have to figure out what this thing is within those five years, and then solve it too. One can't be an emotionally abusive arse in a relationship. My parents are extremely powerful in their will. Their methods may vary, sometimes being peaceful or forceful, but they like to impose their will on others as well. Both my parents used to hit me, they stopped when I was around 9. Your guess however definitely does not apply to my mother, rather my father. I guess my mother had a few words to say about him once in a while, but I wouldn't call it complaining. She was good at taking moral responsibility for her decision of choosing him. He was not though. Both have been very good parents since their spiritual awakenings around 7 years ago, and they have acknowledged their parenting mistakes; just to be fair.

2. This is part of what I don't understand about Germans. I don't get how they can be so productive in some sense, yet completely destructive in others. 4. Good point. A military is authoritarian by design. There cannot be a non-authoritarian military. Same goes for a state that is run by the military. 1. Calling Belgians French is far worse than calling Austrians Germans. And I think you know how Austrians react. But yes, I agree the French are most unpleasant. 2. Fair inquiry. All this relates to the migrant crisis in essence, which is something that completely baffles everyone and not only me. But the outcome of the last Federal Elections has only confirmed that I know nothing about Germans. Americans are pretty straightforward. They recognise the problem, they identify the solution, and they run with it. Whereas all that I see of Germany is that they are sitting in the muck without much effort made to getting out. Hopefully this addresses your questions. ... Poland in 2001: Hey, let's go left! Hungary in 2006: Shall we try left? Germany in 2009: How about left? Germany today: How about left? Poland in 2005: Literally anything else... Hungary in 2010: Not a word of this again. Germany in 2013: How about left? (Disorder probably genetic by now) Poland today: What "left"? Hungary today: Soros?... why you asking me?

Hi, striped toothpaste ! I am probably the only other draft-dodger on the forums, so I felt obligated to put in my two eurocents. On one hand, I sympathise with you a lot. I have been avoiding conscription into the Mongolian Armed Forces for about 2 years. Quite symply because the military in Mongolia is fricking brutal. My grandfather was a colonel there, and he didn't let his children be drafted; so that says a lot already. Also, Mongolia is soooo cold. We don't get much action there, unlike your IDF. We just ride around along the Chinese border in the freezing winds, squashed between two stinky camel humps. So not much to do there either. On the other hand, I really envy you. I would have loved to serve in the IDF. I love Israel as a country, as a bastion of morality and order in the most dangerous place on the planet. I think what you have to ask yourself is, how much you love your country. Israel genuinely needs protection, unlike Mongolia. And asuming that Israel raised you, you have a moral obligation to defend it. In the end however, you have to ask yourself the same question that the Japanese soldiers asked themselves at the end of ww2: "How do we serve the Emperor better, dead or alive?". In your case, in the military, or outside of it. At any rate, I think this would make an interesting call with Mr.Molyneux.

Hi, River I really want to save you some time by recommending Catholic Answers on youtube or catholic.com for anything relating to christianity. You will find your answer there. They host a call-in show as well. You will find some christians here on FDR, but people here remain mostly unconvinced about religion. Tell us when you managed to call Mr.Molyneux!

1. I have a great-grandfather on my mother's side who was Danubian German. He died at the Battle of Stalingrad (1942) serving in the Second Hungarian Army. My other great-grandfather on that side is a christianised jew who died during the Siege of Budapest (1945). My paternal great-grandfathers were both essentially Inner Mongolian and partly Chinese. Both served and died during the war of independence against the Republic of China (1921). I don't really know the percentages, but it would be interesting to take one of those DNA tests. 2. Bavaria and Baden-Württenberg are statistically the most industrious regions in Europe if not the world. The Rhine region being not far behind. 3. As far as I know, Germans have integrated into every country they settled in. But I'm sure there are exceptions. 4. I don't remember saying that Germans were authoritarians, but the State of Prussia and Germany definitely are. I am well aware that Switzerland, probably the least authoritarian place on the planet, was also founded by Germans. 5. Stereotypes have a basis in reality. I used a lot of simplifications in my post above, but only because I respect the intelligence of the FDR community, and I expect them to mentally note exceptions. 1. I was expecting you to chime in. Germany has been the biggest producer of Americans. And I'm sure there is a good reason for that. One doesn't leave a place that is perfectly fine, especially not in the millions. One might even consider the German immigrant waves to be refugees. 2. As I mentioned above, there are nuances to Germany too, and the Saxons and Bavarians have already been showing promising signs, birthing the AFD movement and allying themselves with the V4 respectively. I would be curious to know about these dynamics too. Maybe striped toothpaste can give sense. 3. I am glad our conversations have been fruitful. I have learned about AnCap from you as well. Mr.Molyneux speaks often of reason and evidence. While reason may be on the AnCap side, the evidence is entirely on the side of Monarchy. Something to calculate is whether it is Monarchy that leads to AnCap, or is it Democracy. I actually think that Democracy may be the winner on this one, but again, this is only theory.

Hi, striped toothpaste This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for putting in the effort. As I said above, I am having trouble understanding you Germans. 1. Actually, not in the Midwest, but I am coming here to verify my homework, preferably by Germans. I currently live in Belgium. 2. I am not really Anarchist, but I am very open to the idea. 3. Ok. One by one 4. You can be as insensitive as you want, as long as you don't insult my intelligence. I got a great sense of humour. Compared to other Europeans, of course. Germans are objectively hardworking based on gdp per capita. If you produce, that means you work. The most productive being southern Germany, which is catholic. See map: http://i.imgur.com/Izf8k2F.jpg You give a fair explanation, but I don't think that is it. In the 17th and 18th centuries, many German speakers moved to the Carpathian Basin and the Volga River, where they outproduced the locals by such a margin that their cities became the local industrial centres. See Brasov, Volgograd I thought this might be controversial. I am well aware of censorship in Germany. I have made a post about it before. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49213-how-far-does-free-speech-go/?tab=comments#comment-447497 The reason I said that is because I was talking about the German people, and far as I know, social austricism is not so strong there. And they are happy to engage in a discussion. I see you as evidence for that. But correct me if I'm wrong. I am so glad you debunked this myth. As far as my experience goes, Germans party like no other, save the Dutch perhaps. The reason everyone thinks they are socially conservative is that they are usually very late in legally accepting progressive causes compared to the West Why exactly should I not divide Germany into 3 parts? Right-Wingers like to use that explanation to rationalise why the German people are so inviting towards their destruction. I tend to disagree based on personal conversations. Germany does not exist, or at least has not existed before the Franco-Prussian War. Bavaria existed, Saxony existed, Prussia existed. What I mean is that Germany does not have a monopoly on German culture. As I said, half of the German speakers lived outside of Germany in 1914. If I ask you, "who is German"? What would you answer? An American is someone who has American citizenship, a Japanese is someone who has a Japanese parent, a Russian is someone who swears loyalty to the Russian Federation. I'll let Mr.Molyneux make my case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CETiBe9X7g&t=0s Wikipedia, I guess. Would you say that someone from Hamburg would undertsand the local dialect in Zürich? I understand there is a language continuum from north to south, but so is there one from Naples to Lisbon. Would you classify Sicilian and Galician as the same language? You don't have a particular militaristic heritage? The things you learn... Not sure if Poland agrees though. Sorry, I meant Kingdom of Prussia. I don't think your case stands there. Every country run by a Military Order is by definition militarised. Take Malta for instance. The only reason they could repell the Ottomans twice was their militarised state. But I am interested in your case. Again, there is a reason I am asking the FDR community on this stuff. Right, I should have said "most of the German speaking peoples". Anyway, I think you may be right about this one. I don't get it. My point was that freedom is not the best argument you can make to someone from present Germany because you would not be talking about the same thing. Yes, the French do not have a sense of humour. Sure, tell a story. My point here was that German citizens consistently vote for more government control at the expense of their individual liberties, and they rationalise it too. I am going to have to see some stats on that one. But you are right. The last election in Germany drew a 76% turnout, while the one in the US was 54%. Glad to be corrected. To be fair, I did take some satirical liberty with that one. That makes sense. I don't think we disagree here, but I'm glad you gave an explanation. You can see that at the very beginning of september, some drastic changes had occurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2017#/media/File:German_Opinion_Polls_2017_Election.png Thanks for your patience!

I have German blood, I speak German, and I love German history, but I have a tough time getting explanations to what is going on with their country. I hope some are more enlightened than I am. Here is what I learned. Stereotypes and truths Germans are hardworking, very tolerant of opinions (no, really), and they are mostly social conservatives. However... Germans vary from state to state... it's a big country. For simplicity, you can categorise Germany into 3 cultures: - North-West: protestant, radically liberal, selfish, socialist, globalist - North-East: atheists, socially conservative, depressed, socialist, europhile - South: catholic, politically centrist, very rich, altruistic, capitalist, nationalist Culture "Guilt Culture" or Schuldkultur is a decent theory, but it is not nearly the whole story. The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a German Culture. Germany, as proclaimed after the Franco-Prussian war, is hardly 200 years old. The German identity is based in language and in language alone. Not in geography, history, ethnicity, genetics, nor ideology (which is the real tragedy). If you don't speak a german dialect, you are not German anymore. Inversely, if you speak German, you are good to go. Now, it must be noted that there is no such thing as a German Language. Were it not for the artificially standardised Hochdeutsch, someone from Lower Germany could not understand Upper Germans. In conclusion, there is no such thing as German Culture. So you cannot expect anyone to assimilate to something that does not exist. Freedom Germany was the first true authoritarian country in history, which can be explained by their militaristic heritage. United Germany only came about due to the efforts of the Prussian Empire, which had their roots in the Military State of the Teutonic Knights. "The Prussian state does not have an army; The Prussian army has a state."The martial style of the Prussian State was the reason they could unite all the German-speaking peoples of Europe. So why would they change what already works?Prussia was the first state in the world to fully nationalise all the functions that the Church used to carry out traditionally: Schools, population census, healthcre, and of course, welfare. Effectively every country in the world that employs social programs finds their forerunner in Bismarck. My point is that the German people have no concept of what the Anglophones call "freedom", since they haven't experienced it in generations. The ones who yearned for the freedoms they used to enjoy under the Holy Roman Empire have already left and settled the Midwest. If you are from the Anglosphere, you cannot use the word "freedom" or "Freiheit" in a conversation with a German and expect him to think of the same meaning as you do. Germans do not place freedom in their value system as highly as some other peoples, as they value stability and security much more. Politics Germans don't like politics, nor do they have time for it, since they much rather work. The average German couldn't care less whether or not they rake in half of his earnings as long as they do not prevent him from doing his job. The debate between Merkel (CDU) and Schultz (SPD) that happened on the 3rd of September spoke volumes about the attitute of the average German towards the political system. The debate was watched by 20 million people on cable in Germany, which is a fourth of the country's population. In contrast, nearly half of the US population tuned in for the first The debate resulted in a sharp downturn of about 5 points for both candidates in the opinion polls, but coincidentally also in the 10 point rise for the new nationalist AFD party. Although the debate lasted an hour and a half, 43 minutes were spent talking solely about the Migrant Crisis. In fact, more time was spent bashing the Hungarian Prime Minister than the Amrican President. This odd display of priorities said a lot about the concerns of the political elite, but I was not convinced that the German people held the same concerns in mind. I mean after all, 70% of the populace voted for one of these two candidates, of whom both are pro open borders. Immigration As of 1914 at its territorial height, there were 65 million German-speakers within the borders of the German Empire, and the equal amount of German-speakers outside of it in Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, German-Africa, etc. Germans were a majority only in Switzerland, and in the other countries they were always minorities. Wherever they went, the Germans worked hard, they learned the language, and fought for their new homeland. Germans are the model minority. This attitude towards the idea of settling in a new land influences their decisions to this day. When they accept someone onto their own lands, they expect of them what they would expect of themselves. And this is why they would need cultural sensitivity training... Not everyone is German. The biggest problem with current migrant crisis is that most Germans still haven't seen a single migrant. They only know these newcomers in theory. Most Germans do not live in the population centres where the ghettos start to form. As far as they know, everything is going well. Education Homeschooling is illegal in Germany, and is punished by imprisonment. Education, including higher ed and preschool is mandatory, and mostly socialised, but special status exceptions exist for Religious and Private schools. Curriculums are mostly dictated by individual States. All this means that everyone is literally raised by the government. If you ask an average German lad about the Teutonic Knights, he will have no idea what you are talking about. However, if you ask him what he thinks of European Federalism, he probably already has a powerpoint presentation ready to go on his phone. In short, government education in Germany is geared towards fostering loyalty in the children not for Germany, but for the European Union.

Postmodern relativism and extreme skepticism are not new or revolutionary worldviews. We like to call it Buddhism in the east, particularly "Yellow Buddhism" as it was commonly known in the Manchu Empire. The adherent might feel a warm and fuzzy tingle of moral and intellectual enlightenment superior to all the absolutist peasants, but in the end, they will end up in communism. Just like it happened in every Asian country where Buddhism was dominant. Note that Communism was not born in Asia, and yet East Asians are the most harcore propagators. Eary coincidence, I would say.

"...little to no state, little to no taxation" was the exact quote. Caught my attention too.

1. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are mistaking me for Don Juan again. 2. Here be the problem... Nobody I have ever seen at my age is into good guys, and I have never seen a girl who wasn't into me since I was 14. Could it be that I have never seen a single good girl in my life? I guess that is possible, even though I have been to more countries than I can count. Or you should give me a more specific definition of a good girl. As for my friends, they are good, and I am not up to debating that. 3. You are missing my point. There are certain things in life that no words can replace as teachers. And it is hard to imagine a girl being wise without experiencing those things. The things I mean are the following: Birth, death, hunger, thirst, poverty, plenty, work, boredom, love, hate... 4. It is not about sex, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. 5. You don't know that. Either way, they are already familiar with my type, that is true. 6. You have to define trash girl to me better. And you cannot do that by assuming that only trash girls are attracted to badboys, because if that were so simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The entire point is that they are not trash girls. 7. You suddenly went waaaay off this time. I don't think I am ready to discuss this with him. 8. Well, the congregation happened this week, and I am not sure whether I want to be proud of myself. This was the first time I played in over a year, and I was far too successful in the bad sense. I can't not play. Even if I am not playing, I am still playing passively. The good news is that I had a very lengthy discussion with my mother about it, and she gave a few important answers. My father is definitely the one whom I take after, as he is the one who simply walks into a room of strangers and has everyone doing exactly what he wants in minutes. One thing in which I differ is that I only aim at good girls. With everyone else I am absolutely normal. Another issue is that I am not exactly convinced that it is immoral, though in my conscience I know it is. That is so because most of the time it leads to nothing. I get what I want, (which again, is not sex nor praise), and I move on.

Hi, EGreg I love your diligent take on AnCap theory. Apart from all the intellectually lazy comments from certain members, I am thuroughly enjoying the discussion. One thing on which I must note our agreement is that FDR is not as free as I would expect a free market to be. My disagreement with the mainstream FDR dogma is concerning violence. I have tried to start many discussions on it, as I thought nothing was out of order, especially if discussed civilly. Gavin McInnes discusses violence many times on his shows, and I agree with him that violence, particularly the initiation of it, has a moral place in society. But clearly my mind will never be changed, since we are not allowed to discuss it here.

1. The one you see on tv is definitely a badboy. I am not so sure about real life bikers. I have touched on that point before that I don't think a badboy would be enlisted, much less given control of an army. Because underneath he is emotionally volatile and unpredictable. There is definitely a deep distinction between badboy and badguy. Correct me if I'm wrong. 2. Important question. For the thrill of it. My fetish is the exercising of control, particularly over good girls. It is not sex that I want from them, it was a pretty big letdown as I tried it, rather that particular gaze you get from them when they worship you more than they worship God. That gaze full of trust, hope, obedience, etc. This is what I know currently, and this is where I am stuck. I do not know what question to ask myself besides the obvious: "did I ever feel powerless in my childhood?"

I don't know what you are referring to here. 1. I actually used to think, even only 2 years ago, that how I look at women was normal. I used to think that every man liked the game. But then I realised not only that my brothers didn't think like me, but hardly anyone did. So it is hard for me to pinpoint what exactly is abnormal in my attitude. And that is why I'm here. Ask away.... 2. I am at an age where hardly any girl even notices a good guy. No girl I know is into good guys. And I know many high quality guys. What is true is that I have certain contempt for women that is only fuelled by their blindness. But more importantly, it really hurts to hear of a good girl falling. There were many moderately good girls at my school, and once we graduated, most of them moved away from their parents, and then got picked up by badboys shortly thereafter. So sad, what a waste. I only befriend quality men, because I am disgusted by lesser man such as myself. And they range all the way from 20 to 100 years of age. I don't think there is an issue in that area. 3. This sentence of yours is key, because I am not convinced. My impression of women has suffered a bit because I have already taken down so many good girls. Quality households, quality upbringing, quality education, everything, And they don't seem to see my dark side, or they do and that is what draws them. 1. My worry is that I don't have to settle for lesser women. As far as I know, I can have anyone I want, since I have never been turned down yet. Don't misunderstand, I am trying to become Jesus Number 2, which is why I am here in the first place. 2. Yeah, not convinced. I wanted to start a thread on this one as well actually. There is a term we have for certain people in Mongolia: "hasn't seen life". It is labelled on someone who has no idea how the real world works, since they have never seen death, suffering, pleasure, hunger, thirst, stress, evil, good...etc. There is a reason we have this term. According to our culture, one has to suffer in order to grasp full reality. And ideally, a good girl has not suffered so much. (My ACE score is 4 by the way) 3. One would think. But then I don't have any smart female acquaintances. This could be important: There is a certain relationship I have with the mothers of girls. Apparently, I can only fool the mothers for so long, as they recognise my archetype very soon. Not immediately, but very early on. The number of wars I have fought with mothers... At least that is what they claim. As far as I know, everyone is at least partially related to everyone. We can trace back to one common ancestor not more than 2000 years ago. I believe Vsauce has a video on this very topic.... 1. I disagree with your premise. Bad guys differ from badboys substantially. It is not the bad guy that comes up so often on the call-in shows, but the badboy. A badguy is blatantly obvious, while the badboy is camoflauged to women. Also, I don't think a badboy is confident, although he displays many of the traits. 2. Good point. I have pondered on that before... It is certainly true that I play the game to gain more experience and more confidence, and I do believe I have gained some confidence over the years. But here is the paradox: If the game gives me confidence, why do I keep at it? I am clearly not confident if I keep playing the game, since I play to gain confidence. Here is why I posted this topic. There is an emergency, as in a few days, I am going to see girls of my age for the first time in a a year. Additionally, there are very high quality women there from all over Europe. I could only avoid the game for so long because I have been avoiding girls altogether. Somehow I know I cannot resist the temptation once it comes.

Hi, smarterthanone That's quite alright. Any input is much appreciated. Confidence seems to be a key word here on the topic, which explains a lot, however not everything. It also seems to me that badboys aren't really confident, but put up a facade of confidence, like I do. I actually remember taking mental notes in my very young years of confident men, and then applying their appearances. Note that I am not talking about BAD GUYS, as those are a completely different case. I am specifically talking about bad boys, who are very interesting set of individuals, as they get brought up on the call-in show whenever it is a woman calling in. Why do people have to bring up Genghis Khan so often on FDR? Hitler too cliche? I am just a bit biased because he is the main reason I am not slurping cold wet noodles from a dirty bowl with assymetrical chopsticks at the moment. Instead I am tearing up boiled mutton with my bare hands and a knife that one might mistake for a bayonett retreived from the Somme in 1920.

I must admit I have to do some research on them as well. That said, for some odd reason, they seem to pop their head wherever shits going down... like the number one person you would suspect in a crime novel who later turns out to be the coolest detective ever (terrible analogy). Even if you don't know who the foundation are, we certainly know George Soros, or Soros György as he is known in Hungary. Needless to say, he is not of our fondest of exports. For all the talk of teutonic efficiency, one wonders to this day how they missed this guy. It's Stefan by the way. He's german.

What arguments would you present to someone of that mindset, to one to whom liberty and life do not mean the greatest of values? Forced eugenics is not new, as it has a very strong case for it, and has tempted most of our minds. So what's wrong with hastening Nietzsche's Übermensch?

Czechslovakia, Soviet Union (arguable), Breakup of the Benelux countries, just to name a few current ones. Hi, Will 001 In my humble opinion, the USA cannot be partitioned (for now at least) for the same reason that Switzerland cannot be. The country is founded on ideological grounds, not nationalistic, historic, ethnic, genetic or lingual. These aspects play a role, sure, but they are trumped by the American Idea. If however, the Americans choose to place genetics, race, or whatever else over ideology, then partitioning is inevitable. But I think that is far from happening, despite what the alt-right and the leftists have been doing. I would be far more concerned about France and Germany in your stead.

I don't think I excused them. Excusing them would be depriving them of moral agency. That I certainly do not. However, I don't think it is just to blame a native Japanese for only speaking at an A1 level in english after having studied a month. I see my parents' improvements, and thusly cannot be mad at them for too long. Well, as they say, men propose and women dispose. In my experience, if you permit me another analogy... It is like a battle that starts with very minor skirmishes, and only gradually escalating to full frontal assault. And in the end, looking back, it is very hard to determine who began the skirmishes in the first place. Most of the times however, I feel like it is the women who relay the first signal. If it is the man, it comes off as creepy, and nothing comes of that relationship. Control, as I said, is the main issue here. As I may have mentioned before, I lost my free will almost completely around the age of 14, and am still recovering from it. Maybe it was a way for me to exercise and actualise my free will. What better way that to dominate someone else's free will. 1. Makes sense, although that area is still in debate by people much smarter than any of us. In my case, I am really suspecting a lot of nature, as I have mentioned further back. There were a lot of signs very early in my childhood. 2. There is no question that I am empathetic. I don't even want to question that, as it has been determined very well so far. On the other hand, I don't think being empathetic excludes enjoying torture. There are hundreds of very evil people, who use their empathy to know people and harm them thereby. I have made great use of my empathy to figure women out. One more thing about empathy that may be relevant is that it does cause a constant war inside a bad person. Feeling the pain of the other and enjoying it at the same time is a very strenuous and conflicting state of mind. 3. As sad as it is, I think that goes a bit too deep for the average lass. Figuring one person out is hard enough for them, all without throwing in all the acquaintances. 4. So I guess they should be taght by daddy to be fluent in man. Makes sense. A father figure is without question a great challenge, speaking from a badboy perspective. That's a good idea. I am already familiar with certain figures from the classics, like the Phantom of the Opera, The Silent Knight (Hungarian, don't think anyone here knows), these are the two that pop into mind right now. The phantom of the opera in particular has a special place in my heart, as I saw the movie version when I was not yet in school, and the character clicked for me instantly. Not as a role model, but as a relation. I wanted the power that he has. They actually softened up the character a bit compared to the book, but still. I suppose you refer to when I say "quality women". Well, I have very good taste, if I do say so myself. Listing beauty as a criteium would be a waste of time, I trust. - What I look for first is if she had ever as much as touched a guy. If there was as much as a hand-holding, I walk away. We men are very good at smelling other men, and I pay -special attention in that aspect. - Secondly, stable family. To be frank, I have yet to find a girl who has complete stability in that area and is also beautiful. But a girl who has good relations with daddy is a prize. This is key, as such girls are usually courageous, honest, caring, loyal, whatnot. - If the girl has passed so far, then she is most likely also very pure of heart, which is my third criterium. To be honest, these girls start to scare me. You can never approach these girls head-on, because they are not looking for you. So first you have to plant a thought of yourself into their head in a very elaborate and roundabout way through a third party. - Lastly, the smarts. I believe it is impossible to be all of the above and smart as well. You cannot be street-savvy if you have been sheltered all your life in daddy's arms. But if I am wrong, I have a ring ready.