Siegfried von Walheim

Maybe it's not a beauty thing but a mid-life crisis thing? I.e. you're afraid of decaying and dying. If you have a bad relationship with your parents/grandparents, it may also be a fear of looking like them. I'm taking a reach but it's something I noticed with my mother. Do you see a therapist about this? I think resolving this could not only make you happier but a much better mother in the long run. I'm sure your sons will have something in the vicinity at some point (like maybe a girlfriend who cares a bit too much about looks or maybe even they themselves feeling insecure--probably won't happen if you raise them to be reasonably confident but if it's trend in your family lines it may reoccur genetically). You're welcome. On the other end maybe the problem if "you fighting yourself." Physical attractive is not nothing. Far from it. It's an indicator your value as a woman. Not the only indicator but it's 99% of people's first impressions and passing glances. And when I say "value as a woman" I don't mean just sexually/fertility wise. I mean looking good implies having self-discipline; it sometimes implies moral virtue because, rightly or wrongly, I think people are conditioned to see physically attractive people as being morally superior to ugly (by their own fault not genetically though I'm sure there's exceptions) people. While I'm sure beauty can only imply so much about someone, I do know it's a good offhand indicator of a person's self-worth, self-confidence, and potentially a "voucher" against insecurity, laziness, and some other undesirable behavioral traits. Personally I knew growing up that in many ways "the clothes make the man", i.e. men are judged by how well they keep themselves and the authorities will often act accordingly. I kept clean and dressed decently, especially in school, in order to avoid that terrible "blacklisting" many male students get by (often female) teachers. Now I know there's more to my own "vanity" than just wanting to impress authorities and stay out of trouble (like the white kids that look like Eminem or the black kids that look like anal lovers) because I'm sure part of it is me being a male wanting to impress available females as opposed to being "rejected", even by females I had no sexual interest in (and I had no sexual interested until I was around 13 and not really until 14-15). Possible you also have a certain "urge to impress" and "fear of social rejection" based on looks. I'm not saying it's totally rational (I mean my generally honest behavior probably had a lot to do with how authorities treated me as well) but it's not totally off either (because there are lots of superficial people and looks DO have some character implications). I might be taking another reach but I think an alternative might be you simply fearing rejection via bad character (as implied by lack of self-maintenance). That's not far from what you seem to think it is. And my solution is to try to figure out WHY you care about your looks and come to value them because they are wonderful to have (especially if you have to work to maintain them). I don't know if I said this but forget makeup in general; most of what makeup projects can be projected naturally depending on the mood you're in anyway. I think taking care of yourself + realizing why your looks matter (as opposed to either saying they're mere smoke and mirrors or all 100% of everything) and realizing why you're anxious will assuage your concerns. Also don't be afraid to be honest with your husband. Men hate nags but we hate dishonest (which includes not saying anything) women far more. I'm sure if he has any sense at all he's noticed something though, and he may have some helpful advice for you. More helpful than FDR possibly given he's your man after all. Also in general men love to help women they like so long as they're praised/rewarded for it, so there's that aspect in case you didn't know. Men naturally enjoy knighting because there's both a thrill and a hunger for a reward. So long as you aren't constantly needy or needy for things he can't solve (because first and foremost I think men look to "solve", therefore if he thinks he's powerless he might get frustrated if you keep asking him for help in a matter he thinks he can't do anything about) I think being needy at all is more than fine. Men get bored and like to know they're doing something to keep their wives. I assume vice versa too, since men have problems and like to be helped though I'd assume the kinds of problems we have and the help we want is somewhat different since if it's external we can usually do it ourselves.

"A land long united, will inevitably be divided; a land long divided, will inevitably be united" -Intellectually lazy but telling saying about Chinese history by some guy and most famously used to characterize the Three Kingdoms period (184A.D. -290A.D. -ish), the bloodiest period in all history till WWII and the most romanticized part of Chinese history at large. While cool-sounding deterministic sayings are by no means arguments, they definitely reflect the mindset of the people writing from and/or of the time. In this period China was divided into a hundred pieces and then by 220 China was forged into three kingdoms: Wei in the North (the biggest by both land and population, 5 million people), Wu in the southeast (second biggest,2.5. million people, strongest maritime power with hegemony over the east coast as well as rich trade routes), and Shu in the southwest ( a mountainous region populated by only 1 million people by the high point of it, which was relative to a pre-184 Chinese population of 50 million). By 263 Shu was bled to death, it's male population almost entirely crushed by the Wei Empire and the Wei Empire collapsed from dynasty weakness (i.e. the ruling family had become both incompetent and had no "moral authority" unlike an established European or Japanese ruler therefore the Sima family rather easily usurped the Wei in forming Jin) and lastly the Wu (which had become the counterbalance to Jin's unification of China) were the last to submit by 280 when their ruling family and endless corrupt government fell upon its own sword and failed to put up a siginifcant resistance to the Jin's invasion. By 290 China was forcibly united by the Jin Emperor Sima Yan, however only a hundred years later the Jin Dynasty would be utterly crippled by barbarian invasions and internal disunity, losing the northern half of China for many centuries till the Jin Dynasty's fall and the rise of the Great Tang in the 10th century. Before the bloodiest civil war in history (in which famine and war-related diasters were the main culprit) Han China had a population of 50 million. After forcible reunification by the Jin China had merely 13 million people and the birth rate during this time was what kept the warlords armies full in spite of the huge loss of life. China today struggles to maintain hold over its ethnic minorities and spends more than it's own war budget simply to "keep them in line". I bring up the point of China as the weakness of a centralized and collectivist authority; they get too big, too expensive, too inefficient, and eventually fall on their own weight. At the same time the Roman Empire was experiencing similar difficulties. I do agree and notice centralized forces tend to be superior to decentralized forces. However small, centralized forces tend to be superior to big, centralized forces. An easy example is the rising Prussian Kingdom versus *insert any other neighboring country here*. Under Fridericus Rex the Prussian Kingdom expanded greatly, defeating far larger and more ancient foes and becoming an empire in all but name, eventually forging the German Empire by blood and iron. This empire, brought about through force and guile, collapsed not even 50 years later during WWI and shrank further in WWII. In contrast there is the Russian Empire which was forged slowly over time through the assimilation of city-states (both forcibly and not) and it lasted from the 1710's to 1918-ish (when the October Revolution destroyed it). Also, the latter Chinese Empires which adopted the "Han System" of soft power to influence the world around them, which kept them powerful without having to move large armies across thousands of miles, however by the time White folks came knocking it wasn't big and busy China that answered the door but rather small Japan minding its own business. It wasn't the big and busy collectivist empire but the nation-state that chose to close itself off from the world. Japan became a great power while China became a divided cake to be eaten, until WWII when Japan was humbled and China was again forcibly united by radicals. The purpose of all I've said above is this: big countries with multiple ethnic/cultural/linguistic groups and busybody antics tend to evaporate rather than thrive while small countries (or big ones with one sparse but well-connected similar ethnic groups) that mind their own business tend to beat the crap out of big countries. Therefore the trend for who is most powerful is definitely on the side of nation-states, not empires. Britain will, if she minds herself, surpass the whole of Europe in fighting power, longevity, and survivability in due time. Meanwhile the EU states will fragment and eat each other alive. Britain might fall into the hubris trap of getting involved, and so might Russia. However I think there are clear benefits to being small and compact rather than big and lanky. America is lucky because America is unrivaled; Canada's a big pu__y, Mexico's a sh__hole, and South America in general is backwards and populated by self-cannibalizing cuck-publics. America can do whatever America wants because, like the Roman Empire, he's basically "the only man in a town of women". Unlike Britain or Russia or Japan, who have to compete and resist the temptation of imperialism. They may become the stronger for it, who can say for sure. I can say however that historical trends are seldom broken without exceptional circumstances. Though I am not sure what the OP means by "intransigent minorities", it is always a minority that rules and in general the smaller and better vetted the better society will be for it. Hence why I'm an AnCap; ultimately the best and brightest rule when there are no rulers.

I have a better idea; we men need to go Galt (i.e. focus on ourselves and not settling for bad women--not exactly going Galt so much as making better choices but I'll call it "going Galt" anyway) then take over society by allowable means once it reaches the crisis point and use the past as our "Never Again" moment to reshape the government and legal system. You know Russia learned from the Soviet Union. America can learn from itself too. I'd rather tunnel in and wait for the current society to collapse so I can join the good guys in remaking society as current society simply isn't worth fighting for let alone dying for.

If morality is subjective then there is no morality; just preference. Therefore morality cannot be redefined as anything other than "that which is objectively good vs. evil". It's easy to morally excuse killing animals because of the NAP and other principles; animals as a species are in constant violation of each other's property rights and if humans behaved as such they'd be jailed, killed, medicated, etc. Also feeding starving people cannot be moral because what if they are, for example, pedophiles? If there is one foreseeable case in which it is immoral than it is not automatically moral.

If morality=logical consistency than a hitman can be moral if he is willing to be "hit" himself. On the topic titled "Socrates Jones: Pro-Philosopher" I have something more on this as I'm reading UPB from start to finish for the first time. Basically morality=logical consistency only because it is possible to come to very terrible though consistent conclusions.

Update: past 1:22:00 ish of the 5 and a half hour youtube audiobook of UPB I have found my point; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvTXFxPwb0 Here Stefpai states that it is illogical for a gunman to use violence as his "argument", i.e. it is UPB to reason not use force. UPB has been defined as being universally preferable behavior by everyone. Honest debate is subjective. To the gunman in question, he may prefer all debates be resolved through force because he knows he will usually win because he has a gun. He may even state a preference to being shot by a superior gunman to changing his ways (i.e. he's truly consistent and not a mere brute). This is a potential loophole, depending on the definition of murder. After all the gunman in question consents to being shot whenever he argues therefore he would not be murdered--because he "asked for it" by universalizing the principle that "might makes right". While it is not immoral for the gunman if he makes it abundantly clear and contractually binding that arguing with him involves the high likelihood of death, it is a problematic potential oversight. In other words this aspect of applied UPB is not a moral question, therefore UPB (in this context) is not a moral tool. However I admit this is one case. I don't know if I can confidently argue UPB is absolutely not a moral tool because I haven't finished yet. He may have something prepared for the objection I just made. However again, if he hasn't, that doesn't necessarily disprove UPB as a moral tool because it does reveal that which is a moral question versus a preference question. I.e. shooting someone in a debate can be made "amoral" if both participants agree to resolve their dispute with violence rather than arguments. It also means honest debate is NOT UPB. Because someone has a different idea of what constitutes an "honest debate". However the preference for an honest debate of some form could be UPB because even the morally consistent gunman prefers all debates to be resolved by force--which he considers "honest debate". That could however create some terrible hypothetical scenarios. I'll hold off on that because for now this is all I've heard and could reasonably debate about--and my above point could be disproven further in the book. I'll put up further updates as I find something that I am either skeptical of or functions as a disproof to my potential objection (I phrase it that way because I haven't read UPB therefore I cannot object to it, however Mishi2 has and this was originally his objection--namely where's the moral compass that determines whether something is moral/immoral and prevents these kinds of scenarios).

At first I thought I understood it well enough from hearing it being argued over hundreds of podcasts. However Mishi brought up an excellent point and since no one really responded to it it must either not be a good point at all (i.e. a sign he missed something obvious) or it was a very good point and hard to refute. Since I'm inclined to think the former I decided to put some time to actually listen to the audiobook of UPB because although I think I know the basic argument the more I poke at it the less I actually know, therefore I ought to learn it and see if I understand it afterwards. In other words, until recently, laziness. As of recently, business (in that I haven't finished it yet). EDIT: I didn't mention it in this thread but I wanted to avoid arguing UPB until I've actually read it. However clearly I didn't hold to my own declaration as I attempted above to argue something I, perhaps clearly, only have a foggy idea about. I thought it was as simple as "can I justify this to all situations without changing the definition?" If yes, it's moral. If I can never justify it then it is immoral. Obviously I'm missing something. I apologize for possibly wasting your time since, as I have only read a little of it, I have only a foggy idea of UPB based on Stefpai's podcast debates on the call-in-show, which clearly isn't enough to actually know it. I'll try to resist the temptation to speak of something I am ignorant of in the future since that's obviously a bad thing to do and well... Arrogance isn't something I want to allow myself to have, so for now I'm going to avoid the subject till I've finished the 5 hours and 45 minutes or so the audiobook goes for.

No!!! Definitely not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; and that is doubly true of moral actions! It may be less evil for me to kill someone by accident ("how does a gun work? Whoops...") than to do so with intent, but it is still evil and I need to repay that somehow (how I don't know so I'll keep my hands off of dangerous looking tools I have no experience with). And I doubt illegals aliens are THAT dumb. They may be statistically retarded but even apes know the rule of the jungle and if an alien is wiling to use might to justify his "right" then he ought to be held accountable.

o.o Is that a euphemism for what I think THAT is????

Actually we could do those things. The problem is with a government we'd be arrested/shot/persecuted for it. Mafias, gangs, militias, etc. have existed since forever. A government only gets in the way of them taking action, for better or worse. That being said sometimes that's a good thing since vigilantism isn't always right and can be often wrong. However I think Stefpai's argued well enough that we don't need a government to have a legal system, and it's a legal system that I'm really referring to that can stop the mob from making the wrong decisions.

Okay, what's the alternative to having a currency? I don't disagree government monopolies of currencies has a nasty tendency to backfire in the long run (whether it be through inflation-funded wars, economic bubbles and bursts, etc.) however until I hear a reasoned argument for an alternative to a currency I don't see the point of complaining about currencies. Of course I am pretty sure most folks here agree government monopolies of a currency is bad and has terrible consequences. I think this issue is a dead horse. What's interesting is that you imply by stating there are problems with currencies that we ought to have another means of exchange. What's this other means?

I am neither old nor a woman, but these are my thoughts on the matter. Your fears may be correct. You mentioned you married and impregnated before self-knowledge so there's a decent chance you married the wrong man and have terrible friends. If that's the case your body is basically warning you that you will almost inevitably have a terrible second-half of your existence--in which case the best you can do is teach your sons what not to do and who not to marry so they don't make the same mistakes. Alternatively you may only be partially correct. Your husband may not have chosen you (initially) for your virtues but he came to find and like them, in which case I strongly recommending focusing on being a good woman/wife/mother so that your husband doesn't require sex to "tolerate you" (which honestly is most men's relationship with most women; women are not inherently attractive because their personalities and modes of being/thinking conflict with men's. From men's ability to compartmentalize our problems/issues to being more "rational" than emotional, there's quite a few negatives on our end to being straight. Nothing against you, just letting you know that by default a typical woman must be somewhat sexy to compensate for being a typical woman) --which is a pretty bad and sad thing to be depending on, right? This is where S.K. and understanding men comes in. Otherwise you're screwed (and not in a good way). Therefore, since I have no idea who you are, just a few bits and pieces, I recommend capitalizing on your best qualities (like, presumably, being a good housewife, mother, being supportive--but not enabling--, rational--relative to the average trigger-happy woman at least--, patient, composed (don't know how many men want/require this but I can say a woman who isn't easily miffed is easily in the 7+ territory even if she's plain--no need to be hot when you have great personality traits though being both makes you a 9+!) and staving off the physically debilitating part of age through regular exercise (not this surgery crap and as far as I know makeup is literally poisonous so I wouldn't recommend that except for extremely special occasions) so that you can get around without hobbling about and falling over yourself (it's a lot easier to be fit and do things under 30 than over 30, and 40+ is a nightmare if Stef's anecdotes about how he HAS to work out to keep remotely fit is any indicator). In short: be a wonderful personality and source of love, comfort, and wisdom and you will have nothing to fear. It doesn't hurt to exercise because that will keep you healthy for more of your old life and may extend your "SMV" for what that's worth (which may frankly not be much because men DO lose testosterone as they have children, raise children, and age. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he just isn't sexually interested in anything outside the internet after a certain point and that might be a good thing because it frees you from having to look younger than you are and also it means you two can bond as human beings rather than as flesh suits--although that being said it's not mutually exclusive. A man and woman who love each other can bond both as souls and as bodies, I'm just saying without stress on the latter the former might be easier and better developed. Kinda like how a blind person's sense of hearing might be extra-powered). However I didn't account for what your husband and friends may be like. Obviously you don't want to be the one doing all the work. Make sure your husband stays fit (enough to please you, do his job, and raise his children) too since I'm sure you'll be far more motivated if he's keeping pace with you rather than lagging behind. Also I don't know what your friend-circle looks like but if you haven't done some house cleaning post S.K. then sooner is better because the last thing you want is Iago or Jezebel poisoning your, your children's, or your husband's ears and badly influencing them. Again, I repeat, I am neither a woman nor old and have no experience with women nor children. I am 19 and a virgin. However I am pretty damn sure this basic advice isn't far from the truth given how few families do it and how the few that do do it tend to do well. EDIT: Important question: what do you mean by "vanity"? That's a word that gets thrown around and now has some vagueness in it's meaning. I'm asking because vanity=/= fear of being ugly/desire to maintain attractiveness.

I think I made a logical breakthrough in determining moral vs. immoral. Is it unjustifiable in every case it's in??? Murder by definition cannot ever be justified, therefore murder is immoral. Is it justified in every case it's in??? Self-defense is not always justified, therefore it's not moral but not immoral either (it's context dependent). An easy example is "self-defense" against a toddler.... I figured this when I remembered what someone said about "if the definition has to change, it is not moral" and what "universally" actually means; it can be applied in every conceivable scenario. I.e. murder can never be justified no matter how hard I try. Killing is a different story (like self-defense against a killer) but murder, as a foundation, is always immoral. By extension, so is theft and rape. They can't ever be justified without changing the definitions and/or the scenario. Like to justify theft I have to somehow make it appear as if I owned what I'm stealing in the first place--i.e. I have to use a lot of BS to fog the reality of the situation. Honestly I made this topic because I feared the potential that morality is a myth; i.e. there is no right or wrong. Now that I made this breakthrough (which I'm sure if I heard Stefan or someone else say in a way that'd click in my mind I'd realize this is hardly "my" breakthrough rather my realization) I feel a lot more confident talking about whether something is moral or immoral. It is immoral if it can be broken down to murder or theft. It is moral if it is always in every situation a justifiable action. Saving a non-moral-criminal for example is always justified but saving people (their lives I mean, in a hypothetical situation) isn't always moral because what if the person I'm saving is a murderer/rapist/thief etc. I'm hardly done since I have to morally justify things I know are practically beneficial (like freedom and civil liberty) but are not as easily defensible. While not everyone was equally helpful (perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was asking for, or some people don't have the answers), from what help there was I had the means to figure this out. Thank you for all your participations, I'm not calling this thread over since I think more can be said (and I could still be wrong) but I think this a major step in the right direction (for me anyway).

I think if the golden rule is amended somewhat to follow what I heard Stef say once-- "When meeting a stranger, treat them the best you can and after that treat them as they've treated you"--then it is a perfectly reasonable rule to follow. Of course it's flawed--I mean if I was a masochist, as said above, I would treat people like crap to be treated badly by them back. I might achieve my goal but the rule then doesn't make society better it's just a rule of thumb that if I behave a certain way similar people are going to be attracted by my behavior and people in general are more likely to reciprocate my behavior. Therefore it's clearly not a moral rule (because the effects can be bad as well as good, though I might be ignorant of morality to assume moral=good effects) but certainly a practical one (with limitations--treating moochers with generosity isn't likely to pay off for example) that can be made more practical with amendments.

Ehhh... I think all will involve blood, sweat, and tears to create due to the boiling and ever-escalating tensions but not all are equal and some perform better than others. I am not entirely sure what you mean by "ideology" though; do you mean "culture"? I.e., values? If so than C might be exemplified by Russia which has its own "ethno-states" (i.e. each ethnic group has its own territories and varying levels of autonomy under the federal government). D is basically 90% of the world with varying results. Japan is an easy example of D. I think D is most preferable if the culture is moral and the people are smart. A is basically a boiling pot left alone for too long while B only works with a very strong ideology/culture like Islam (on the bad end), Catholicism (on the good end), or general Christendom (somewhere in between). An easy example is Europe at large. Many different races but similar cultural values due to a shared umbrella religion which has sanitized war greatly since the Dark Ages (until WWI and II when atheism/secularism began to rise in earnest) and kept the Europeans as "civil" as they could be relative to what they had and the alternatives around at the time. I think B is my preferred goal but it requires all the races be of European/Oriental (i.e. East Asian I have not given up Stefpai's half-hearted crusade to revive the word as a moniker for Chinese/Japanese/Korean) due to the requirement of both empathy (a largely European and some Oriental phenomenon) and reasonable intelligence. D and my vision of B might not be very different depending on the definition of "race" involved (I am talking Germans, North Slavs, South Slavs, Celts, etc. etc. not just "Europeans" since not all Whites are equal nor the same across ethnic lines) but the idea is that a strong unifying culture set (like Christianity in general) can tame ethnic tensions (which may have been seen in the case of Germany, Russia, or France) and slowly but surely meld them harmoniously (i.e. mutual consent not violence/rape or whatever). A and C are both hot beds for civil war (or at least secessions). Cases in point: Yugoslavia (for A), pre-Civil War America (for C). Yugoslavia had 3 separate but unreconcialible ethnic groups while C arguably had just one (American=odd mix of English, Celtic, and German) but two very different cultures (Free WASPy North versus Late Roman South). Therefore either B or D is preferred for long term stability, with me leaning towards D as if the races are too different biologically than that alone might result in long term problems (and inabilities).

Whenever I try to generalize something now, I often find myself realizing there's a hole in the argument. So it does have a lot of self-corrective benefits. Theft is defined as taking something from someone when the someone doesn't want it taken, therefore it can be called UPB to not steal. However the question isn't in preference but morality. Why is it immoral to steal? Why is it immoral to violate someone else's property rights? I can't answer that. Just that it's impractical society-wise to not have a concept of property rights. Facts are facts, they can be misinterpreted but they remain ever true. The problem is, for instance, if a group decides universally that another group is toxic and must be exterminated and squares the circle by stating basically "if we become toxic we want to be exterminated too". Yet mass-murder is obviously immoral. However murder is defined as immoral killing. Like self-defense isn't considered moral by anyone who recognizes the NAP because the breaker of morality absolves himself from any moral protections. However the problem remains; fallible men can make problematic conclusions and universalize them. Also UPB from what little I know uses the word "moral" a lot but doesn't answer how something is determined to be moral. Morality is objective therefore there is only one truth to it. Meanwhile "preference" is "subjective morality" (so to speak). Therefore while UPB makes sense from the "preferable" perspective or the practical perspective it doesn't hold moral weight because problematic concepts like genocide can be universalized (i.e. if any group does A genocide is valid, extending to both the proclaimer's group and the targeted group) and while one might stop the train and say "it wouldn't because murder requires the other party to not want to be killed" I'd remind the person that murder is defined as (to the best of my knowledge) "immoral killing". I refer to @Mishi2 since he was the one who brought up this potential hole. I am having a hard time filling it. Lastly there is the problem of subjective individuals attempting (and succeeding at least as far as their personal circles go) to universalize things that are either immoral or not a moral question (i.e. subjective things like preferred hair color or whatnot) and there not being a church-like structure to determine what is good and what is evil for the general populace who cannot be expected to either have the time or the will (or even the intelligence) to decipher what is moral and immoral on their own. I think I can sum up my objections as such: P=Preferable therefore not "moral"; If something is "preferable" then it is like having a favored video game or anime versus some other unimportant thing; and the general public and/or sophists can create some really bad "universalizable principles" (like exterminating toxic groups for example). I'd HOPE you are trying to be critical :-P I mean, in the sense of trying to determine what I mean and figure out whether it's valid or wrong. After all I struggle to give a good argument to myself why anything is moral without resorting to pragmatism (which isn't moral reasoning) or appeals to authority (which is an extension of pragmatism). Murder is murder (i.e. murder exists) because it's problematic is not the same as saying murder is wrong because it is (by definition) immoral. Meaning remove morality and there is no such thing as murder, unless it is re-defined as "undesired killing" but then killers can claim they don't want to be killed therefore killing killers is murder and not self-defense (or both, but then that defangs the moral authority of what "murder" means, doesn't it?)

I can't take a man over 30 seriously if he isn't married with children. When a man repeatedly restates the same thing but with different types of flowery language and repeatedly gets the same direct and straightforward wet-fish of reality and yet continues to repeat himself as if he had heard nothing... Also, I really hate how Kokesh doesn't at least admit his plan puts millions of lives at risk and means the rape and torment of many more millions. Hell I was waiting for Stefan to repeat a point he tweeted: open borders has resulted in the rape of a million or more English girls! Hell, mention the rape gangs and the child rapists of Sweden and Germany for more. If anyone argues for open borders they must be willing to verbally admit that the pain and suffering of rape is worth the delusion they think will result from tolerating bottomless humiliation and indignity. I'd respect him a lot more if he'd open say "look, I don't care about people who don't agree with me. If a few million strangers have to die for the dream to come to reality then the ends do justify the means...". I come to the conclusion he has this in his mindset because he continually ignores Stef's damning statistics and doesn't react when Stef points out that if nothing changes bloody ethnic cleansings and religious/cultural wars are the result (well he said "civil war" but we know how bad it'll be. The American Civil War won't even compare to it. The Russian October Revolution being a far better comparison. Perhaps the Yugoslav Wars during WWII and after the Cold War). Either way anyone who's a libertarian and not redpilled about race and IQ and culture is pretty much as crazy as the communists.

The problem here is subjectivity. We're trying to discern what is true, not what is close to true or pragmatically close. Like how can I morally argue against murder? Pragmatism is always my end result after enough "why's". However there does seem a trend where the most moral societies become rich empires then eventually lose what made them rich and become poor again.

Until I've finished I can't comment much, but I can say if it's by definition it isn't "his" or "your's" or "mine", it's true or untrue. However language does change therefore definitions change, so there's some fog to be traversed. Either it is true or it is untrue. If the former it cannot, it the latter it must. All I can say for now until I've gotten to the bottom of it. Agreed. Hence why I think a Church (i.e. a group of people dedicated to both learning the truth and disseminating it into actionable steps for the general populace) is necessary for any moral order.

I know I have the IQ, but I don't have the confidence. Experience is what I'm aiming for in this regard. It seems so easy (and other times hard) watching Stefpai do it behind a microphone but in reality there's a lot that can happen to a conversation if both parties aren't fully aware and in control of it, at least from their own end. I didn't play the game nor watch it to completion, but I do think they're beginner's level tools that are quite handy (and the "Deer Repellent" thing was hilarious lol). Unfortunately beyond God or UPB I don't think philosophers are able to discern what is moral because of how difficult it is even for institutions that have been around for thousands of years. I'd like to think UPB's got it but one Mishi2 has made the point that it relies on it being universally preferable by fallible men and therefore is subjective to change and manipulation. Especially if localized. However I haven't read UPB much (only read Practical Anarchy's parts of DRO's and CDA's) so I can't say for certain what the correct answer is to this dilemma--or if there's an answer! Philosophy came to me when someone tweeted a link to Stefpai's race and IQ videos, and I went down that rabbit hole into a whole new world. At first I thought it was going to be a boring lecture but that changed as I listened and was amazed by not only the facts but the man presenting them. Then I moved to the Truth About (biographies) section and eventually consumed hundreds of hours with Stefpai in my left ear and a video game or (back when I was in High School project work) focused with my right. Now of course I don't have as much time as I did to binge-listen (at least not without sacrificing something more than I'm willing from my schedule) but the initial red-pill overdose was definitely an initially-crippling eventually-enlightening and finally-uplifting ("The Enemy is here and they outnumber us ten to one! However they're a peasant mob and we're KNIGHTS! Deus Vult, we're gonna trounce these motha___ers!" if this train of shout makes sense) experience. It most noticeably helped me in two areas: #1 I chose not to go to college and waste hundreds of thousands of dollars, and instead chose to get started a novelist immediately after High School (though technically I started when I was 12, I hadn't dedicated myself to doing it as a full-time job since I first entered High School, and so I'm again treating it like a career and job as of recently). #2: It affected my mindset and by extention the quality of my work and my work ethic. When I had extreme confidence in the Communist agenda I had a great work ethnic and confidence in myself to get X done. When I red-pilled initially I lost my confidence and was increasingly inert. Eventually, as I described above, I became enlightened and felt ever-more confident when I realized I had the power to shape my life for good and bad without having to tie myself down to either the longevity of the State nor the promise of a utopia by someone else's hands. No longer was it about my entrusting my life to someone else--I have the power! And the effect of that was slow but exponential over time. I'm far happier now than ever and far more productive and faithful in regards to myself and my future with the realization that so long as I follow a self-decided plan and keep myself flexible for unexpected situations I'll be able to accomplish my dreams. Ironically "The Story of Your Enslavement" wasn't much to me since I already "knew" it as a "recovering Communist" and also in between a "recovering Fascist". I don't think there's any one video that really sparked me. It was the combination of deconstructing false heroes while redeeming false villains and pointing the true heroes as well as reconciling how the past 200 years have shaped this day and age that has really had the most impact on me. I've always studied history in my free time, but there's a huge difference between studying another culture's or another race's history for enjoyment and/or inspiration and learning my own history and by extension seeing the resulting revelations. There's a lot I can say about the great Stefpai. Once I am making more money than is needed for rent I'm definitely making up for the 2 years of freeloading and donating to him a good chunk of regular money. Easily saved me millions and perhaps in the long run helped me to earn millions.

Here's a playlist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJn4R6aZU8&index=12&list=PLRweuK5e82UVQwFl8LeBHEMjb4OAZ9i3y In particular I like "Distant Fields" the best followed by the "Road of Clouds", "Wind Orchid", "Yonder Dreams", "Battlefield of Light", and "Supreme Ruler Suite". Definitely great songs for a game that's otherwise numbers and stat-sheets driven. Though as far as I know she hasn't had any musical involvement later in the series, the series as a whole boasts some of the greatest soundtracks I've ever heard.

And you may be right but I don't know. Like what's a "more attractive man"? Sexually it makes some sense a hornier guy is more attractive but I doubt that's what you mean. I think "dealing with sexual frustration" is fapping versus sleeping around. I don't know if women or you find "experienced" men more attractive than not but I also don't know if "attractive" means sexy or better (like to reverse the genders, a hot woman who really knows her way around a schlong or a woman who's really moral and reliable. She could be both but attractive is a vague word). I am an attractive guy. I could be really hot if I dedicated myself to it. However I don't want hotness to be my main appeal, I'd rather it be my values. If that turns off a lot of women that's a good thing. I want an exceptional woman who wants an exceptional man. Perhaps fapping really is harming me in some way beyond "sensitivity", but I think it's worth it because it's enjoyable without the obvious risks and costs of sex with random women. Also as a Roman Catholic I consider premarital sex to be very immoral and a dealbreaker. I'm not saying I wouldn't marry a slut (meaning woman who has had casual sex/premarital sex not necessarily a "whore") but she'd better have self-knowledge and the experience had better been a vaccine of sorts against repeating that action. As a man the harder to get (in bed) a woman is, the more attractive (both sexy wise and virtue-wise) because not only is she demonstrating intelligence and self-discipline but also proving that should I marry her she'll make it hard (if not impossible) for a younger man to cuck me (of course I wouldn't expect that from a quality woman. Worst case scenario I am divorced and for the right reasons. Course again if I find the right woman I'm not letting myself go and becoming a bad guy because then if I were the woman I'd definitely leave. Breach of marriage contract). So, as far to-fap versus not-to-fap goes, I think the arguments have been stronger in favor of the former because otherwise I'm either a lusty beast without much inhibitions or I am committing the same sin I disown bad women for; sleeping around. And I know if I am a hypocrite I'll never attract an honest or good woman...

Yoko Kanno: Everything in "Nobunaga's Ambition: Tenshoki" and "Forgotten Hero". Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII (by an Orchestra straight out of Moscow for the earlier ones and one out of Budapest for XIII).

Agreed. Not complicated. The problem is this: biology can mutate. Man if fallible. Therefore relying on the general public to always (doesn't this require an always if we abandon the traditional court structure?) know the difference and react accordingly is bound to lead to trouble. A bar fight is very minor compared to political or child-rearing arguments constructed from a flawed misunderstanding of morality and the NAP. Therefore, I think, a priesthood is required to constantly study morality and get it as close to right and infallible as possible. Likewise a legal court (like DROs) are required but must be balanced by a priesthood otherwise subjective preference for THIS law set or THAT law set will most likely result in a lot of overlap and contradictions. Like if I want to blast my stereos loudly and my DRO is cool with that but half my neighbors' DROs aren't, who wins? Do we compromise and form separate neighborhoods? Do we settle it to a vote? (Then at this point morality is non-existent because numbers =/= truth) or do we tolerate the status quo? Or does one group of DROs cave to the other (which is again no longer an issue of morality)? Of course this is a minor non-morally challenging problem. What about bigger stuff like child beating? Spousal abuse? Property violations? Theft? It's easy to denounce murder and rape, but there is a lot less obvious stuff (heck who decides murder/rape is evil? By definition they are because by definition we cannot both want to do it and have it done unto us but what if my argument doesn't convince the jury or the jury ignores it?) and who holds the general public/law system accountable? I'd argue a priesthood is necessary and private individuals must monitor the priesthood like we would the DROs and CDAs (for anyone who doesn't get the acronyms; they are Dispute Resolution Organization (think private police) and Collective Defense Agencies (think mercenaries) respectively). I don't know if I got the final answer to @Mishi2's question but I think I at least have settle what it is society-wise. Personally is a different story since we might have disagreements and how do we know who is right? Like child beating is logically a violation of the NAP because they can't reason as well (if at all) as adults. But what about animals (for the same reason)? Doesn't hunting become immoral? Logically my answer is "no" because I believe in holding a universal standard for everyone and most/all animals regularly violate the NAP and therefore have no right to defense like a human who is lawful might. However if we keep going you might find a hole here.... how do we resolve it and get it right? Practically it's easy; morality is for people, savagery is for animals and that's it. But where do we draw the line where moral qualms stop and mere pragmatism begins... I don't think "is hunting moral" a big question, but failing to answer the small stuff could lead to justifying big stuff like ethnic cleansing or total wars...

We don't need perfection for anarchism. No rulers =/= no guides, priests, judges, police, etc. Just none that violate morality. Of course as to how this will work/etc. I've been discussing with Mishi2 on another thread (What Is Moral) and one he made (What Are Violations of the NAP). We've hit a roadblock, perhaps. I forward you there fore more. However I am also advocating for monarchism and an aristocracy of the financially elite businessmen balanced by the moral compass of the Roman Catholic Church and Stefanism to be the transitory system since there is no way morality will take a strong enough hold quickly enough on 10% of the populace to incite a revolution before the States inevitably collapse and devolve into more states bickering over the cadavers. Russia's got no ethnic conflicts whatsoever! Their "diversity" is hugely segregated and therefore not a problem! They have an awesome leader who's been around for nearly 18 years now! They are far more Russian than any of us are "insert ethnicity here"! They're experiencing a Golden Age and are the highest point they've ever been! They're far more Christian than we are! They are far tougher than we are! They are far more redpilled then we are! They are downright better than us in every single way except where it comes to liberties on the Internet but we have to choose our warts. I prefer Russia's warts (unfree internet, not as big as America's but still big government, maybe something I'm not considering insert here, etc) over America's warts (anti-male, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-American, etc.). Oh yeah, Russian men are actually celebrated and actually manly. Their women are actually womanly too! Can you believe it??? I thought all White folks were androgynous LBGT nothings off instagram.... Oh yeah again, Russia doesn't have an LGBT problem. Can you believe it? Whether or not a man claiming to be a woman can use a woman's bathroom isn't a question there. It's like they live on a whole other planet... Basically Russia is what America used to be; a shining city of greatness growing ever bigger. I doubt they'll be "perfect" forever but I'm sure they'll be the new hegemonists when Europe and America collapse. I want my children to be ruling the world, not serving the rulers' ethnic cleansings and cultural genocides. ...Did I mention Russia has Vladimir Putin, attractive women, and manly men? It's like they didn't lose a fifth of their male population during WWII. They reincarnated into the current generation.