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.

I think you're dead-wrong--as a young unmarried man anyway. Men do not want to cheat; men want to be loved. If men don't feel loved by their wife, they will find love wherever they can get it (and that doesn't necessarily have to be from a woman btw; it could be a pet, close friend, or close relative). Some cynical traditionalists even endorsed male-cheating as a lazy way out of just being better wives/mothers. Even some lazy men chose to let their wives cheat rather than be good husbands/fathers. However this is obviously not a solution worth considering... ...Instead, I recommend to all women that they act motherly--this guarantees a man's faithfulness. The exceptions are with cads who are simply too rabbit-like to be familial. So don't bother with unstable/unreliable guys in the first place (and in my experience: they're super easy to spot). But reliable guys (and I'm tempted to think this is most guys by my own personal experience dealing with males my age) are very easy to keep: just hug them, love them, and otherwise be good to them. You maybe want to use them as "practice" before becoming an actual mother since the basics aren't even that different... As for guys: I don't know how to "prepare". But I do know if I found a good woman, I'd act "fatherly" so long as she was "motherly". Meaning so long as I felt loved and wanted, I would not only act loving and protective but also wanting of the woman. Like, we'd be magnets! I think any woman who is motherly and chose a reliable guy has nothing to worry about from cheating. Men are naturally repelled by the idea of cheating and only consider it if they feel unloved, unwanted or otherwise like a slave or a bastard. I hypothesize this is especially true with motherless men. EDIT: About all the above posts I've made: I apologize for their disorderliness and repetitiveness. I wanted to make a point but it wasn't until the end that I was able to shorten it and make it sharp, you know? I hope I've helped (you do provide me with some insight--especially about motherhood--and that's why I enjoy reading you in the first place. It helps me prepare for what I could expect from a woman as well as think about what to do as a solution for certain problems--like isolation and difficulty of pregnancy/birthing).

"Society" doesn't exist. In history, it was "family" that ensured the marrying and the birthing and all that. I don't want to assume, but perhaps you or women you know/knew have a jealousy problem becaues--frankly--why does it matter if some stranger gets attention? Why do you need attention? What's wrong with being the shortest, ugliest, etc. on the bloc? Wouldn't you rather be surrounded by people that are amazing? Especially compared to you or me? I know I would. (And to be clear: I don't mean to say "I want to be bad so everyone is good by comparsion", I mean "I want everyone to be great so that I have only up to look). Isolation is definitely a big problem--especially within families. And it seems awfully strange for women to seek attention from strangers rather than their husbands (maybe that's the solution to the problem you're describing; re-focus that desire for attention onto the husband and children by being a great wife/mother). If anything (I kinda repeat), a man/woman should be focused mostly if not only on their family. It's harder nowadays entirely because a lot of us have to "rebuild" our families as we lack parents or grandparents to support us. Therefore we must be our own "founders" and make it so that our future children have parents (us) and their children have grandparents (us) to give them the guidance we didn't get.

EDIT: I kinda wrote this after the second paragraph since I thought the jealously/status thing deserved attention. Basically, please take what I wrote down below with a grain of salt as I used a unicorn as an example for a horse. == Because what does any of the rest described matter if you're (not YOU but Tomi or similar types) not going to have kids? Adulthood really begins with parenthood; until then we're just faking it, really. Maybe I'm unusual because I actually looked forward to fatherhood and have since I was little (I remember being 5 and wanting to be a daddy and had fun coming up with names) or maybe I'm actually "better fit" or "oldschool" in some kind of way because I think the common norm of today is actually very unusual and bizarre from a historical standpoint. Having children for their own sake was a very commonly accepted ambition; the greatest kings in history (and when I say "great" I mean lived a long time, did a lot, and otherwise wasn't just some easy-come easy-go) had literally dozens upon dozens of children--including adopted children from friends, former/dead enemies, their concubines, etc. It was very normal for the alpha of alphas to be a very family-oriented person. An easy example being Cao Cao of ancient China, founder of the Wei Empire: at the time of his natural death of 66, he had 28-ish children by 12 women. Among those children were step-children (he was unusual for his time in that he had a preference for widows over young and inexperienced women) and he raised them in the same setting as his biological children alongside his wife (who mothered about 6 children who lived), concubines, and close friends. He was basically a big family man when he wasn't waging wars for Chinese unification. Now as you might imagine, Cao Cao is an example of "historically made to be.../evolved to be..." to an extreme. He was literally a super-genius (he was--and is still considered---one of the greatest poets of all time, as well as a musician, general, politician, administrator, and family patriarch) and basically the kind of guy that would make Christian Gray look like a pale imitation (in terms of being super-successful, youthful, and alpha in terms of his interpersonal relationships. Personality-wise, Cao Cao was famously easy-going and casual in a culture where stiffness and over-politeness was the norm. He spoke to the commoners, soldiers, and nobles as social equals and is known to take criticism well and encourage public debates between the smartest and wisest of his country. He's basically perfect). Point is though, guys like Cao Cao were not unusual in terms of generally keeping a close family while also working ensuring there was an unofficial system in place that groomed males to fight and work as well as females to love and breed. Basically men were taught to be men while women were taught to be women. From what I know, families used to actually be a thing. Meaning Grandpa would actually be involved in who his children and grandchildren married, their work, etc. while Grandma, aunties, etc. would assist other females in handling the struggles of pregnancy as well as ensuring the least amount of scarring, malfunction, etc. possible. Women used to give birth to literally dozens of children and less than half would survive. Modern women have it much easier than historical women; perhaps modern women are weaker than historical women. And I mean that physically--perhaps being a farmer or a rancher helped strengthen the muscles necessary for being pregnant and birthing children as well as playing with and meaningfully engaging them. I can't be sure, but I have to wonder how most historical women could give birth year after year after year while modern women can't even handle a single pregnancy. Perhaps it really is a physical thing; maybe it's best young women--like 18 to 20--do the birthing because that's when they can do it with the least amount of physical damage and scarring. And then maybe as the female body gets used to pregnancy and birthing it isn't so destructive to the bowels. After all, contrary to popular belief, medieval people were not only sanitary but quite smart about family organization. In East Asian houses would be rather big (kind of like compounds) and made to house generations of family members in fairly close proximity so that elders could assist/educate the youth and basically mitigate--if not eliminate--all the problems you described. Mental strength may also have been far stronger; in the past having kids at a young age wasn't just the norm it was the ideal. A young man, around 16-18, marrying a similarly aged young woman before actually embarking on his career (and of course impregnating her ASAP) was the standard fare and young men effectively became men once they had a strong driver to do manly work (namely raise their children). Likewise what separated a girl from a woman was whether or not she was a mother (and presumably, the younger a woman was the best fit she was to have that first pregnancy and first birthing). Honestly I'd rather be a woman because I'd be very willing to risk all the pains and struggles you've described just so I could have that physical closeness with my future children. There is nothing more I want in life than to make babies and raise them to adulthood and then see them make and raise babies. I think a big problem (not just young women but young men too) is that people don't have the "familial mindset" that we used to have nor the culture that structured boys and girls to become men and women. There was no patriarch/matriarch in the modern sense of a domineering bastard/bitch (although they obviously existed, they were neither the ideal nor the accepted norm) but rather an informal but highly functional system of men who groomed boys to take their place and women who groomed girls to do the same. Basically older relatives raised younger relatives; young people, once ready, got to work and made babies. Older people helped the younger people work and raise those babies. Then eventually it was pretty easy to pop out a baby a year because women's bodies were well-adapted to it and the men were actually men because they had children to strive for. Men respected their women because they'd see them birthing/raising and women respected their men because they saw them working/providing. Men would naturally want to play with their children when women were too exhausted; women naturally would want to assist and comfort their men when the men were exhausted from laboring. Obviously there were horrors and craps and all that; but the point is--there used to be an unofficial system in place that "got things done" and ensured the birth rate (not counting still-borns or those that died before adulthood) would be a 5 on average rather than a mere 1.1. == EDIT: I didn't want to totally re-write the above (nor delete it all since I think I made some good points you might not have known or considered); but I think I could have made my point in less words: boys had dads/uncles/grandpas; girls had moms/aunts/grandmas. Modern times, we lack these (effectively). Why? I don't know for sure. I think mindset has a lot to do with it (blame feminism?). Re-focus your (or any girl who has this problem) desire for attention of complete strangers onto husband/children by becoming a great wife/mother. Embrace the awesome journey of making and raising babies instead of treating them/seeing them like parasites. Stefan really loves being a dad (I never heard him complain); maybe it's because of his mindset and the way he treated his baby girl. I don't know. Point is: I think the solution is to "rough it" in our generation so that our children have us to support them when they make babies; and their kids will have us as grandparents. This is basically how we rebuild the family unit. Making it harmonious and good? Not totally sure. I believe mutual appreciation, respect, and love helps a lot since these things are sorely lacking nowadays (especially on TV/media/fiction). Men want mothers; women want fathers; I think this is a very simple way to figure out how to do things. The complicated part is identifying "father/motherliness" as someone lacking these examples.

Does this have any impact on Americans who use the Internet? Or does it only apply to Europeans under the E.U.?

Basically a European Romance of the Three Kingdoms with a focus on both idealists coming up against a world that may or may not be moldable to their desires, and the familial side of things that create the next generation of leaders. EDIT: I've been working on it since I was 12 in various forms. It's amazing how it evolved over time, as originally it was much less deep and grounded. Now, millions of words later, I think my first for-publish work has great potential provided I am not delusional. Basically I aim to beat George R.R. Martin by focusing less on amoral advantage-seekers and more on idealists and heroes--who represent conflicting ideals and must come into conflict with one another. Two significant moral-battles are monarchism vs. republicanism and ethno-centrism (racial Nationalism) versus cultural/religious nationalism (Civic Nationalism). There are others (plausibly unintended as I don't often know what I'm creating in the moment, just where I'm trying to steer the chariot) but these are the big ones as religion, identity, responsibility, and class are big themes (like for example: "Nobless Oblige", Noble Obligation, as a rather important code among nobles that essentially compels them to think outwardly and promotes selflessness, responsibility towards their countrymen, as well as responsibility towards their faith and morals. Mere citizens/countrymen do not have this obligation, and thus are much more selfish in their mindsets than nobles who grew up with the idea that they are responsible for the lives of others and must act accordingly). I am not attempting to recreate history nor even capture its zeitgeist 100%--I do not think that's possible--but rather explore an alternative perspective that I've seldom seen in Western media (which consistently portrays 99% of nobles as bad guys and muh patriarchy) as well as put that against a more commonly accepted system of living (democracy) and portray heroes from both sides who have not only commitment but good reasons to back their commitment up. Problem is: they cannot co-exist because the one value that consistently separates them is the value of Freedom vs. Responsibility. How much of either is just? A monarchist (or religious collectivist in general) believes that man is flawed and thus cannot govern himself. Man must be governed by the best society has to offer and the best have to held accountable by each other and ensure that they are living morally correct lives in order to both inspire (as an example) and protect (as the knights who do most of the leading and fighting). On the other hand the republican side believes that man cannot be moral unless he is as free as possible. If nobles restrict their choice, then the people can never truly be moral as they become like permanent children to a class of parents. It is preferable if the people vote for their own destruction than for a class of un-elected and hard to control individuals try to reign them in as it does not matter if the average Joe makes wise decisions but is free to suffer the consequences of them. And not everything I described above contradicts, nor does every monarchist believe as I just described nor every republican. These are the musings of their chief representatives that the reader will be reading from and how they will argue against the other both internally (to push themselves to fight) and externally (when not fighting but arguing). Obviously most people on both sides don't think that hard about it--but the people that drive the sides (like the politicians and intellectuals of the Left or the nobles and priests of the Right) have a much more solid opinion and rationale for why they are on the side that they are (although they are hardly a monolith--much like real life). These ideological conflicts are not the main reason for fighting (for the most part) in this fictional Europe but they are what goes on in the minds of those who are mindful enough to ask themselves and others if they are just in fighting foreigners under the standards of their commanders. Family and identity mainly comes in the struggle for those of mixed races (or exile from their own race) in identifying with either their new people or the present people they live with. Or even those who are of that people but fail to really feel communal with them. And, politically, whether common religion, common blood, and/or common culture is the most unifying for disparate and aggressive neighbors. Family is more directly a theme when the protagonists become fathers, mothers, grandfathers, etc. and the perspective shifts from the current generation onto the next (which naturally has its own ideals which were/are affected by how they grew up compared to their parents). I've never felt like I was honestly depicted by most personality tests and only vaguely accurate in others (like that four-acronym one that I forget the name of). I am highly skeptical of their potential as how they word and weight questions tends to be inconsistent. Probably not too different than the first test. Open-mindedness I can easily imagine hanging around 55 since I am both curious and guarded; I am not inclined to jump on bandwagons but I am also not inclined to stick to sinking ships. Considering creativity is not something I'm lacking, that could be high in contrast to my much more conservative way of living (and thus balancing out around the middle). I think my Conscientiousness being very high makes sense as I tend to feel very badly when I slack off or fail to meet expectations I set for myseslf (especially if its for others relying on me). However I think 91 is too flattering to be true; maybe 75, as I am not that hard-working (hence why I'm a novelist--a job that's not really a job. Extraversion: tricky. I don't go out much so it ought to be quite low; however when I do I tend to be freely talkative and enjoy it. I can understand it being high because of that, but it doesn't reflect how I actually live. I aspire to live in my own constructed home--with 10ft walls around it--in the Midwestern countryside as a semi-hermit ("semi" because I intend to marry and make lots of babies). That's very introverted, I would think, but I've never shied away from conversations that interested me though I used to be a lot more awkward as a kid. Melting the ice, you know? Agreeableness: I think it being 2 Percentile was just in comparison to other test takers on that site as I don't think I'm that iconoclast. 25 is probably more accurate, as I am very much inclined to "Speak the truth to shame the Devil" do not value people that only tell me what I want to hear and shy away from warning me of danger--caused by others or myself. I love people who are forthright and have little patience for sugar-coating. Neuroticism: it being low makes sense, as I seldom feel internal pains and worries like I used to. I feel kind of like how I remember before high school (when I started to feel increasingly depressed and "raw" as I was increasingly free to mourn and look back on the crap before me) in that I am mostly confident and content. Overall, outside these metrics, I would describe myself as a cheerful loner who likes attractive things, fun things, and wants to live both freely and securely. Therefore: I am a novelist aiming to move to somewhere secure (crime-wise) and build my own little castle so I can have perfect privacy and protection against various animals so that I can actually enjoy fresh air outside rather than from a window. If I can make enough money, I'd love to take some Japanese inspiration for the backyard as I think a wooden porch under a roof to protect against sun and rain with view of flowers and a small pond would be a totally perfect little sanctuary. I want walls so that nothing can rudely surprise me (be they humans or animals) and so I can feel confident in the safety of anyone else in my future family who wants to laze under a roofed patio and listen to the subtle sounds of nature. LOL exact opposite of me. I hate disorderliness and can't be happy unless I've done my daily duties. Also, on abstractions (as in how much I or anyone likes abstract things), I ought to mention things like science and engineering tend to bore me very heavily unless it's directly related to something I enjoy (like swords!). I am kind of like a woman in the sense I prefer to focus on people over things--as I find those great and rare individuals oh so captivating and interesting but not so much the scientists or engineers (who I understand the value of but am either not intelligent enough or just not curious enough to care about the work of--and therefore I must be cautious as there are charlatans in both fields). What do you mean here? Like "ramp up the confidence/energy?" I tend to feel energetic when I'm speaking with people (especially those I like/love and about common interests) but I am impatient and inclined to be very forward if I am bored or losing interest. Well, I was surprised to make such a long reply... 0.0

I definitely don't recommend someone who has to be an earner YESTERDAY to try writing as a career. I'm 20 and I've had my youth to write and grow; I have a chance to not only succeed but fail and still be able to re-adapt as needed. You don't. I highly suggest you focus on something you know you can do and find a way to make more money off that and consistently. Expect to be poor for at least your son's youth; a great man I know that's a mentor to me was poor when he immigrated to America and was also a father/husband. Now he's making a hundred grand per year as a doctor. He started learning English in both factories and service jobs; surely you, an English speaker, can aspire to be half as good as a foreigner? I don't know what you ought to do as I don't know you though I know your urgency; focus on building up your resume, remind yourself you've got (at least) one child to take care of, and let that propel your forwards. Always be on the look out for a better position and try to focus on specific skills you have (or could have). Writing is not something for those with great responsibility unless they're both proven and secured an income (neither is the case for a newbie). It helps to know that most people in a given field either suck or are just okay. Try to be great; be the best you can be, and if you've got talent then you'll do well enough at least. And there's nothing wrong with that... ...However in your case, I suggest you shoot for the stars so that you'll at least get out of the slums. Having been a poor kid; a lack of money isn't a problem (really): it's other poor people (especially as neighbors or classmates). If you can't make money enough to live somewhere nice (note that apartments and houses are being rented at relatively low costs in the Midwest--where I aim to live eventually) then you must teach your children how to fight or at least spot and avoid trouble (if not both): as that's life as a poor kid. I'm lucky to have naturally good senses for danger and a fairly large body for a kid growing up, so I managed to avoid serious trouble as a teenager though I had to fight often as a preteen and younger. For your children's sakes: work hard, work smart, so they don't have to struggle so hard as kids. A lack of money is nothing; a lack of company is something; and bad company is everything awful.

TWO can do a Big 5 Test! === Your Results Closed-Minded  Open to New Experiences Disorganized  Conscientious Introverted  Extraverted Disagreeable  Agreeable Calm / Relaxed  Nervous / High-Strung What aspects of personality does this tell me about? There has been much research on how people describe others, and five major dimensions of human personality have been found. They are often referred to as the OCEAN model of personality, because of the acronym from the names of the five dimensions. Here are your results: Open-Mindedness High scorers tend to be original, creative, curious, complex; Low scorers tend to be conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative.  You typically don't seek out new experiences. (Your percentile: 59) Conscientiousness High scorers tend to be reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful; Low scorers tend to be disorganized, undependable, negligent.  You are very well-organized, and can be relied upon. (Your percentile: 91) Extraversion High scorers tend to be sociable, friendly, fun loving, talkative; Low scorers tend to be introverted, reserved, inhibited, quiet.  You are relatively social and enjoy the company of others. (Your percentile: 76) Agreeableness High scorers tend to be good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous; Low scorers tend to be critical, rude, harsh, callous.  You find it easy to criticize others. (Your percentile: 2) Negative Emotionality High scorers tend to be nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying; Low scorers tend to be calm, relaxed, secure, hardy.  You probably remain calm, even in tense situations. (Your percentile: 14) === I took another version of the test for fun and noticed the "bar" representing my Agreeableness was basically half-full--yet said "5 percentile". Apparently the bars actually aren't just decoration in that one, which leads me to conclude that the majority of test takers are extremely "agreeable" however I am actually "average" as far as the test is capable of measuring. Everything else's bar more or less matched the numbers above but I noticed Agreeableness was unusually high (around half-full or more) given my very low percentile of 5%. ADDED: I then took a third test which was almost the exact opposite of the results I pasted above. VERY high Agreeableness and Neuroticism, somewhat Extraverted, moderately low Conscientiousness, and roughly the same Open Mindedness. I'm very skeptical of these internet personality tests. Especially when they tend to use different questions (or differently worded questions meant to satisfy the same triggers--thus I am inclined to answer them differently). My first results are probably the closest to reality though I doubt I'm in the 2 Percentile of the entire population (though maybe of the test takers of the anonymous test) in Agreeableness. I suggest anyone taking these tests to be skeptical and perhaps take several from different sites since they word things very differently and even use different metrics--which naturally greatly affects the results.

Personally I can't relate to any of those examples since I haven't driven yet nor am I a dog owner; I have been hypocritical with older family members (parents, grandparents) but you might not count them due to the... imbalance of the relationship. So I'll assume you mean "literally everybody else". In that case I can't empathize with your question because I find myself being a hypocrite around people I have a hard, personal relationship with (like my parents) but nobody else--partially because I have very few close relationships and so most of my non-familial relationships are casual or professional. I think the key is to live up to your own standards. Don't like assholes who leave their dog's shit in your neighborhood? Then pick up your dog's shit and set an example! Don't be the guy who just doesn't give a crap and lets his dog shit everywhere... ...and if you didn't care to complain about others' who let their dogs shit everywhere, why would you even consider managing your own dog? At least if you're a hypocrite you can be prompted to actually live up to your spoken (or mentally thought out) values while if you had no values in the first place you'd essentially be just another asshole presumably without any kind of standards to push up to. Therefore: I think it's best to be as judgemental as naturally comes to mind because from there "you" (whoever "you" is in this context) have a standard to live up to--as well as the ability to horizontally enforce standards (which are hopefully good ones--or at least ones that don't make me feel like a bird in a cage).

Like myself(Lol)! Now I just have to prove to my peers I've made the right decision and be financially independent before they graduate college with a hundred thousand+ in debt...

What matters is that White Conservatives are still the most fertile (second to Hispanics by a slight margin) and thus they will become the overwhelming majority of Whites in general. Eventually most (80%+) Whites will be Conservative since the birth rates are 2.8 to 1.1 (I think--something stupidly low for White Liberals) and that's good since, after a couple generations, only the wisest and best fit of Whites will be around to vote, enter politics, etc. as the Left is dying out from their lack of fertility. It's a passive (and unpredictable) solution to the demographic crisis, but it's a plausible one since the numbers favor it and thus gives America a few generations before seriously having End-Roman-style problems. Right now it's the "Panic Phase", by the time I'm 40 or 60 it could go a lot of ways but the numbers favor White Conservatives. And I'd rather Whites go down in proportion of the population if it means the remaining Whites are mostly Conservatives. I know the kinds of "Conservatives" (are you "really" conservative if you think it's a good idea to genderbend your daughters into sons?--however the studies I found off YouTube probably went by self-identification) you speak of but they won't last (because they're not making babies) and thus their unsustainable practices will go with the Dodo. It's extremely difficult to predict the future given the large amount of moving pieces, but I am optimistic since Liberals and those that follow their ways are dying off compared to Conservatives and similar types who are at least slightly above replacement level.