Siegfried von Walheim

I think it's complicated, but also simple (depending on your circumstances; I'll try to keep it abstract-ish since I don't wanna make false assumptions). If you know a guy, a guy you love like a brother, and that guy loves you like a brother, then you could go without seeing or hearing him for a decade and you'd still be brothers. However most of us don't have Sworn Brothers or Sisters. Most of us make friends based on how we were when we met them (like common hobbies, common quirks, common views, etc. etc.) and therefore lose them because as we evolve (or devolve), we shake off whatever made us "friends" to begin with. Therefore in order to know if Daniel, to give a name, is still your friend; simply ask yourself if you love him. Ask yourself if you find him a good, reliable, steady guy that really gels with you. If Daniel doesn't, then sadly that means you've both gone different paths and you have to just accept it and move on. A part of the issue you mentioned is that your friend (I'll keep calling him Daniel, and the other Samuel) have spouses/fiances (whatever you want to call them--I'll just say "wives" to keep it simple) that are basically bad news. Why are they married to bad news? Well, you may be too late in "saving them" therefore you're most likely best off cutting them off (ideally after sitting them down and giving them a heart-to-heart warning, as I think you owe them that if you really consider them your friends). However if they're girlfriend-boyfriend (i.e. not tied yet) then maybe you can be the bro who punches them in the balls and saves them from a lifetime of betadom. Having said that, you have to be prepared to take the gloves off and walk away (to recognize you can't help Dan or Sam with their bad spouses/dates and if you continue it'll just harm your own marriage/family prospects). Ultimately, I think it depends on 2 things: do you love your old friends (like LOVE them)? And do you think they'll be receptive to a heart-to-heart and get the Heck out of their slow-moving train crashes? If the answers to these questions are both "yes", then you know what to do. If either is "no" however... Well, sadly you know what that means (at best you can warn them, but then you must go). EDIT: It appears I got the genders backwards, but I don't really think that matters since I think my advice applies anyway.

Agreed. As the product of a single mom, I'd rather be alive than not. However I'd rather have a dad than not have one too. So, I decided to revolt against that trend and find a good woman and make lots of babies with her once I've gotten financially independent and figured this whole "investing" thing out. At your signature: I'm not sure what "triggers" moderation; personally I've gotten used to it so I take advantage of it as a time to edit what I've posted as well as a window to "change my mind" (like maybe I regret getting involved in a topic, therefore I delete it. Otherwise it's impossible to delete a post). Normally it takes no longer than a week to pass moderation; recently it's been within 24 hours for me, though I'm not sure why. I think Wednesday-Friday is when messages typically are reviewed for passing moderation. I suggest copying important posts onto a Word doc since sometimes posts are evaporated (as if deleted) and I haven't found a consistent pattern as to why that is (could be a moderation A.I. auto-deleting posts that have been in pending moderation for too long).

I meant specifically the European Union. I don't like them, I think they're wannabe communists and will destroy the peace that followed WWII. However I think they deserve credit because, somehow, Europe (that is in the EU) has been free of peace since WWII in spite of a Cold War that was undoubtedly tense and scary for those living on the borders of the Western and Eastern blocs. As for Europeans as a people; I'm indifferent. No matter where I go, I will find people I like and dislike for one reason or another. I have people-shopped for a while, trying to figure out who I'd fit best with, and overall my conclusion is that I'm best where I am (in America) because I've adapted to America's warts and have undervalued America's virtues. I plan to move to a better part of the country, but not to an entirely different country (and in general I'm aiming to live where it's low tax and "free" for me to one day build my dream house in the countryside). I really don't like a lot of what makes modern Europe modern Europe, but at the same time I would have to ask "compared to what?" and in some cases I definitely prefer the alternatives; in others I definitely don't. Overall, I believe we're best sticking with the places we know and only leaving if we're simply unable to live at peace where we are (like a literal war zone, or crime-ridden cesspit). Also, I definitely emphasize focusing on building our own clans/families because that's the way of building a better future; checking out (biologically, morally, etc.) is just surrendering the future to those who have the willpower to make it their's.

We cannot be sure what will happen. Many people living under Obama, that are on the Right, believed America would go downhill and never come back. Many people thought this under Bush II as well. And yet, out of nowhere, a Wild Trump appears! Those that give up, don't survive, don't have children, Black Pill, etc. etc. will have no say in the world of tomorrow. Those that persevere with faith and confidence in victory will be the ones who decide the future--for better or worse. If you don't like the idea of people you disagree with deciding your future for you, then don't Black Pill and let them win. Do what you can to have a positive effect on those around you (socially and morally especially; politics is downstream of culture, said--I think--Ben Shapiro) and live with joy of the moment and excitement for the potential of coming days--not only do you not know what bad can happen, you can't be sure what good could happen either. I mean, culturally, does anyone really care for the modern West? I appreciate that I can be left alone to do as I please within the law, but I wouldn't die for it. I'm grateful to live in the cushiest era known to man--that's for sure. I therefore focus on my life, my future family, my career as well as potential wealth. I intend to live out as much of what I preach (internally and externally) as possible and give a steady foundation for my sons to launch from, guide my daughters towards their future husbands, and prepare all of them so that they are practically flexible and capable of defending themselves and sticking up for themselves. Some dude running away from Genghis Khan became the founder of the Ottoman Chieftaincy. That dude, literally just some refugee, became the founding ancestor of one of the biggest and longest-living dynasties in world history. If some bum named Atman can found a small country, if that bum's son could then turn it into a major country, and then that same bum's grandson turn it into the empire that overthrew the Byzantines, then surely we privileged (by an abundance of resources and technology) folk can do a small percentage point of that in our own lives? I say we appreciate what we have in the present, open our minds to the many possibilities of the future, and focus on tending our own gardens as most of us simply cannot move the world like Trump or Putin can--however we can inspire those would-be heroes and provide a support base for those of like minds and good character.

There was NEVER free speech (in the sense that anyone could say whatever they wanted without fear of consequence from the government or fellow townies) in European history. Even in America, free speech only applies to the citizen's relationship with the government. In companies (be they business or personal) free speech is only as free as the Overton Window is wide. Even in Churches, where in Catholicism they are supposed to be sanctuaries (and thus totally Free Speech), you could never discount the possibility of an angry mob taking offense to what you say and thus treating you accordingly. Although I am pro-Free Speech, I am anti-sensationalism. Europe may have a crappy Union, but it is still a lot better than what was there in the beginning of the 20th century. Give the EU props for 50+ years of peace; as much as I dislike them, I believe they're owed it because Europe has never had it better. The price of individuality, beyond what is allowed, is exclusion from the dominant group. I'm not saying this is good or bad--it's just how nature works. And even as an excluded individual, that does not necessitate gene-death/life-end--it just means you have to tread new roads and be a pioneer, because the beaten path is not for you. Everyone alive today in the West ought to be grateful for what excess they have and are allowed to get away with; there is no better time to be alive. The future cannot be predicted (at least by someone like me), therefore one must not resign oneself to a deterministic world view that X is going to happen because of YZ. I say all this to snatch the Black Pill out of the mouths of those overdosing on Red Pills (or "false Red Pills") as checking out of society or of life is just surrendering the future to those with the willpower to make it their own. Modern times obviously has a Hell of a lot of problems, but we ought never forget what advantages and benefits we have as the result of our ancestors' hard work and wisdom--likewise we ought be critical of where they fell short, but without forgetting where they were strong. I'm curious if anyone else who follows these forums have had the same thoughts or observations I've described above; I think too many of us are either Black Pilling or distorting reality based on our limited vision of it.

"Post-meritocracy". Good God, Linux is about to get blown out of the water... Well, termites are a damnable problem everywhere they infest, and I'm certain they'll inevitably lose just because they can't live without a host (so all it takes is pioneers to say "no" and suddenly the termites don't have a host to feed off of anymore).

I am observing myself, as I exist, as I am growing into this or that--trying to make sure I'm growing upwards rather than shrinking. I have no way of knowing how reflective animals are and I don't care; I'm a human supremacist lol.

Considering most of our ancestors were either primitive barbarians or cruel savages, I hardly consider that an argument. "Creepy" is an expression; I made no argument because I have no intention of changing your mind. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong, practically speaking. That would be interesting. Grooming a girl into womanhood is sketchy from and outsider's view--where the Hell is her dad? I guess we know what kind of family she comes from, then--and the best possible scenario I can imagine is essentially semi-incest because you're simultaneously "dad" and "lover" practically speaking. Ultimately though; I'm looking for a sweet, serene, and motherly woman I can rely on. I'm not looking to groom a girl or domesticate a wild mare. I have no idea where I'll find a remotely decent woman but I'm sure she's saying the same thing about the men. Billions of people make for a big world.

You do realize it's far more likely for Uncle Joe to take advantage of the young girl (not even a woman) rather then "respectfully/honstly groom her", right? It's damn creepy; the balance of power, mentally, experience-wise, etc. is so great I would leave it to your imagination if I had a young daughter and she was dating some 30+ year old. Considering I'm looking for a woman that is--in short--serene, sweet, loving, and motherly, I don't think inspecting cradles is the best way. My mother is 12 years younger than my father so looking up, I can see a Hell of a lot of reasons to NOT go looking below deck (however he was in his forties and she her late twenties, so at least they were adults). Besides, that example of a guy and his wife growing together is not possible with an already-grown man grooming a much younger woman. If you really don't like Middle Eastern grooming gangs, why are you endorsing its softer equivalent? And what you say is "not nothing for a young girl..." is also true of young boys (and really, young men too). However I don't expect some slightly older woman of great character to notice me before I'm a proven male and to take great interest in me. And grooming me? Good God that's suspicious, don't you think? Morally the wrongness is obvious: the balance of mental power is so significant I'm tempted to call it "rape". Refer to my first paragraph for more on that. Practically it's variable: for a weak man that wants a girl he can control, sure--I guess. But for a decent man looking for a woman he can rely on? Definitely not. I won't discount the possibility of a younger woman, especially once I'm approaching 30 (assuming I'm unmarried by then), but several of the key reasons why he's looking for someone so young is explicitly to not be challenged, to be deferred to, and of course for the fertility window. While I empathize with the third thing, the first two things are red flags. He could say "not be challenged" in the context of not being nagged or pointlessly challenged (like by someone who clearly doesn't know what she's talking about) and "to be deferred to" in regards to things she knows little/nothing and he knows something, but I'd rather to just find a woman who knows what she's talking about then try to find an obedient girl.

It is a horrible idea. Capable but mildly depressed people will also engage in total escapism (which isn't free--other people have to sustain it somehow) as well as the worthless and the result is civilizational implosion by Holodeck. However it could work as a eugenics program since the few that don't succumb to satanic temptation will be the ones that wind up making babies and thus seizing the world of the future. But I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the population was capable of rejecting the literal blue pill, and even more surprised if half of them are young and female. I'm not arguing whether it's possible (because I have no idea), just that it's an extremely terrible idea as the temptation to escape reality in a way even the best of video games cannot would likely result in most people (smart and dumb) checking out of the gene pool (and civilization in general) with only a minority remaining (and we have no reason to believe they won't "pull the plug" and do some unpredictable societal reordering that could be good, bad, or a mix of both). Ultimately I'm against it but not to the point of making it illegal as I think (in the long run) the minority that choose the red pill will wind up reigning supreme in this scenario (however that would like mean untold suffering and death as I'm sure many would want to "pull the plug" on the Holodeck parasites while the rest would rather try to sustain it--and the end result would be either civil war and/or foreign intervention which could result in foreign conquest or the nation being ruled by radicals of one ideology or another).

I know Stefan Molynuex commented about "EQ" in the past (and where he did the videos are titled with EQ/Emotional Intelligence so they aren't hard to find) but from what I remember "EQ Tests" are very much game-able and the results are subjective based on what the test-taker thinks. I think the correlation between high EQ and (success? You'd have to see his old videos on the subject for proper details) -something- was so small as to be totally unreliable. While empathy and charisma are obviously useful tools, "EQ" is just a very poor attempt at numerating something that's as-of-yet untestable (to my knowledge) the same way IQ is.

I suspected this; after all, pregnancy is proof of a lack of virginity (and supposedly breasts were too: as they may have once been retractable and only "came out" when a woman was pregnant/gave birth) and that can be arousing. After all, if X found her attractive enough to impregnate, maybe I could too? Or something like that. I also suspect that the more "Earthly" a woman is about her sexuality and reproduction system (rather than mentally splitting and creating a "lustful/evil" and "loving/good side", realizing that it's both lust and love in the creation of a baby and making more of them) and perhaps the younger she is (at what point is "ideal" versus "too young"? I don't know, but I do know 18 is generally the safe age legally so maybe it's around there). I'm not sure if it's intelligence in a woman that might make her dislike children and childishness. After all, most of the abusive bitches by peers grew up with were damn-near retarded! And personally, as a guy with a big IQ cock (not to compensate or anything 0.o), I really enjoy playing with children and fantasize about making babies and then raising them into adulthood. And if I, a high IQ guy, really want to make and raise babies, then surely high IQ women can as well. Maybe there IS a correlation between high IQ and not-wanting-to-raise children that is in fact biological rather than high IQ people being more likely to eat the infertile "wait until you're 80" crap. But I suspect it's really all a matter of mindset: if you love children (specifically the idea of your own children--personally I don't really care about strangers' children all that much, while I do care about children related to me, and definitely care about the children not yet made by me) and view making and raising babies as the best part of adulthood and the "real beginning" rather than an end, then I suspect making babies, birthing babies, and raising them into adults becomes a Hell of a lot easier. I'm highly skeptical. Perhaps is a mental or biological thing; maybe it's Dad vs. Chad or K vs r. Maybe it's a total mindset thing as I've never really cared for the petty oneupmanship (I'd rather be the guy that beats them in whatever matters that they never see coming, or more directly at like boxing or whatever). If I was with a bunch of guys and they started egging each other on about who has the balls to get some woman in some bar, I'd be the guy chastising them for their stupidity and tell them to either ask her out for a one-night-stand or do the smart thing and wait for marriage. I'm a good Catholic boy... If I had a problem with some guy specifically, I wouldn't be so beta as to go for his wife. I'd go directly for him (in whatever way is permitted by law) one way or another. I'm not exactly averse to physical confrontation... and almost thanks to that, I haven't had physical confrontations since I was a teenager. Of course, part of it was just being able to spot real danger instinctively. I'm not some sort of hard-nosed tough guy, just a talkative guy who isn't afraid to state exactly what he thinks and feels so long as he knows the consequences of doing so wouldn't put him 6 feet under (like you know I wouldn't be so frank with a gangster with tattoos all over his face--I'd keep clear of him). Yeah if I knew a guy like this I'd kick his ass to the curb. How much of a weakling could he be? I've got my own insecurities, but acting upon them in such a way? Disgusting. If I was a woman and took this as an example of most men's thinking, or I didn't know better men, I'd probably be a feminist after reading this. Just switch the genders; I could easily imagine a feminist saying this to justify female cheating of men. It's "masculinism" in the sense of being "male feminism". Point is, the behavior you describe is incredibly beta and frankly subhuman by my own standards and way of thinking. I'm sure there's a class go guys who think/act like this but any woman with a brain would be able to smell these guys a mile away and avoid them. Any woman with a brain doing anything with these guys knows it'll be a one-night-stand or asking for long-term trouble (or both). To be clear, all of my descriptions before about male mindset towards cheating is based on how K-selected family types think. I don't really care about human vermin, and neither should a woman who is thinking long-term, beyond keeping them as far away from me as possible. It's impossible to generalize all male or female sexuality because of the big K/r and Alpha/Beta divides. What you describe sounds like the way either a Beta K or r thinks (as Betas tend to be either manipulative and/or cowardly; r selected people are short-sighted and immoral). Theoretically an Alpha r wouldn't even hide his "cheating" so it wouldn't be cheating (because he'd be very up front with his future/potential disloyalty and therefore sexual monogamy was never "part of the deal" so to speak). Not to mention I have a hard time imagining how succumbing to weakness makes a man stronger or better. It just makes him a weakling unworthy of respect. If I knew his wife, I'd probably encourage her to cheat on him because he not only broke his vows but also proved himself too beta to be looked at in the eyes. However if I knew such a woman, she probably wouldn't be married to a beta male... How is it viewed differently? I only ever hear that line from Leftists and even then I've never heard a real difference because the common thread is a breaking of loyalty. While the consequences were surely different historically/biologically, practically it's the same: man hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks his trust); woman hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks her trust). The typical difference is the consequences: when a man cheats, he's investing into a new gene pool. When a woman cheats, she's removing her husband from her gene pool and inviting a new man. Either way... I have never met anyone who wasn't a whore (and I don't mean just slutty women; I mean slutty men too) that had a complicated view of cheating. It's dead simple: breaking vows/loyalty=cheating. Even in the case of hypergamy, that IS a power-move as the higher status male is presumably someone who could dominate the lower status male. And since it's not too hard for most women to control most men... well, it's indirect, but it's power.

You're welcome! I'm confident with the rocket of Fatherhood flying up your ass, you'll have all the energy and commitment you need. Your adulthood has just begun; pretty much everything before your wife's pregnancy was pretending. Enjoy the richest decades of your life! I can't wait till I'm in your shoes :-)

The answer is "no". Usually European intellectual goods (for lack of a better word) comes from European immigrants/settlers not so much from what they natively create in their native lands. America has always been culturally distinct from England, France, Germany, and other European countries in spite of being genetically composed of these countries for a reason: (and I don't know the reasons for sure, but I think one reason is:) we're geographically distant and politically independent of Europe. This may spark some resistance among Conservative Americans though; which is to say an equivalent bill is very likely to be fought hard (or harder) in America due to having a Europe to act as an example of what happens when traditional American values like Freedom of Speech and ideas are struck down.

This is actually an interesting update that I just didn't notice. I'm not sure whether to congratulate you though: on one hand I cannot fathom loving a girl (compared to a mentally mature woman) however I know that's your thing and if you can get a girl than I can surely find a woman. I'd rather see fellow eccentric males succeed than fail, after all. But it's also too early to say; I suspect she may have lied to you about her lack of virginity as it's considered shameful to be a female virgin in some parts of the West. However I guess there's one obvious way YOU could find out and verify... ...But that's none of my business. The important thing is that you found a girl to... groom? Honestly it's creepy as fuck but I guess it's better than a feminist or reckless nut-job. But just about anyone is. And your tastes are almost the opposite of mine, so I guess it's hard for me to congratulate what'd be a failure for me.