Siegfried von Walheim
-
Posts
713 -
Joined
-
Days Won
18
Posts posted by Siegfried von Walheim
-
-
1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:
Hi, taraelizabeth21 !
1. Yeah, a function to condense a topic would be nice. As long as you are not accusing me of trolling (like some others have), I genuinely appreciate any input.
2. I say he is a good man and I mean it because he honestly thought boys need to be beaten to some extent. Literally every boy in Mongolia is beaten, but that does not mean every mongolian is a bad person. Now, of course, there were beatings that could be classified as "disciplining", and those that are pure rage violence. He ceased the latter very early on, when I was around 5, and later he stopped beating me completely at 9. Personally, I don't think the beating or the emotionaly abuse has to do with my abusive tendencies, because neither of my brothers turned out like me, and these tendencies were observable very early on in my childhood. I don't know, but it is worth exploring.
3. This may have some truth to it. I do recognise my behaviour as that of my father's. But again, neither of my brothers took after him in this area either, despite being exposed to the same abuse. Sure, I know we all react with varying defence mechanisms; all I'm saying is that I can't be sure. If it is anything, I suspect it's genetics, not childhood.If it was genes, you'd all be identical. Clearly siblings aren't always identical. The parable of the brothers raised by an alcoholic--one doesn't touch alcohol and lives well while the other becomes an alcoholic deadbeat--is an easy example since they both say they did what they did because their dad was a drunk.
Likewise you might have hit the drunk's side on the likely-results-spectrum rather than the successful guy's, whereas your brothers are on the other end.
I think that's a very big influence and I'm glad @taraelizabeth21 pointed that out. You shouldn't underestimate the possibility--though I am sure it's not the only factor or influencer, I am sure it is a notable one.
In fact I doubt it's any one thing but a collection of things. Personally when I was overcoming the desire to be a dictator and a (bad) patriarch, I discovered it wasn't just me feeling powerless under a bad father but also the school system's arbitrariness and the obvious double standards and inefficiencies that resulted in me being hugely discriminated against and abused.
...And more. Seldom are our dark sides created by just one thing; they typically grow from an environment that feeds it. And they can't be destroyed, only recognized, accepted, and re-purposed for something more benign and benevolent.
-
28 minutes ago, aviet said:
You don't have to be an omega male, look at everything you can do to improve yourself:
lift / workout
up your wardrobe
study how to deal with women
get a hair cutThe road to marriage is fraught, but this is where you're heading otherwise:
...I wouldn't mind being interviewed by Lauren Southern. :-P
...Of course I'd rather marry her. And I doubt going MGTOW is the way to that.
-
21 hours ago, Spladam said:
I would love to get married and have kids, so long as there wasn't such terrible consequences for loosing. Also, even if I do get it right, what if I get marriage done right with the wrong person? I guess I should get out there a bit more and see it for myself.
I think, from my position as a guy with no dating experience whatsoever but with great ambitions, you simply have to make yourself the kind of guy a truly good woman would love and then learn what the tells of bad women are so you can filter them out in search of greatness.
I don't think it's all that complicated, and I also think trying to find a good woman by using the tactics of those seeking bad/temporary women will backfire rather than help. I mean, as a man, would you feel comfortable dating a woman whose clearly been around and knows how to play a man? Maybe for a hot night but beyond that I'd be terrified of how I could be played. No one is totally immune to being manipulated and it's important to recognize those who could do so to us.
Therefore I think your best bet is to become wise but also be honest and direct. I've heard complaints that Stefpai doesn't offer alternatives to PUA but he offers alternatives all the time: directness and honesty. He gives men and women the same advice, I assume because it works.
And as a rule I am most inclined to take advice from those who are more or less where I want to be in life (at least in a given subject, though I'd weigh them as a whole if I fear pursing the subject as a whole).
21 hours ago, Spladam said:But yeah, I am inspired by that
Good. Focus on your career dreams and once you're steady you can then start sending the searchlights for decent women and begin filtering out the red flag-bearers and femme fatales.
-
ENTP-A
Quite different from when I took it two years ago, which I think was ESTJ-T, basically I was a lot more anxious and less confident and inclined to improvise.
Now I got "The Debator". Perhaps I am becoming closer to the Great Stefpai? I suppose this makes some sense as I had also pracitcally changed the way I thought and what I desired since then too. For example two years ago I was a Communist and a not-so-closet power-seeker and warmonger.
Now I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist/Monarchist/Nationalist/Christian/(do I even have a one word label for myself?) and desire to build a family and become a true man possessed of both integrity and accomplishment as well as the leisure to indulge in my favorite hobbies.
Practically I went from future-Democratic-politician-and-fascist to novelist/wannabe-patriarch.
====
MIND
This trait determines how we interact with our environment.
67%
EXTRAVERTED
33%
INTROVERTED
ENERGY
This trait shows where we direct our mental energy.
55%
INTUITIVE
45%
OBSERVANT
NATURE
This trait determines how we make decisions and cope with emotions.
69%
THINKING
31%
FEELING
TACTICS
This trait reflects our approach to work, planning and decision-making.
49%
JUDGING
51%
PROSPECTING
IDENTITY
This trait underpins all others, showing how confident we are in our abilities and decisions.
53%
ASSERTIVE
47%
TURBULENT
============Yo @Mishi2! Take it too and share!
-
As a Beta K (I'll be honest; although I am straight-forward and honest, I don't go out much and when I do it's almost always for routine reasons so me calling myself Alpha K is like me calling myself the champion boxer of my household when I'm the only boxer), I see no reason for living unless I give myself one.
A bit of an implicit given, yeah? If I don't give myself a goal, why not lay back and slowly erode? Becoming a father is about as instinctual and fundamental a goal for men as any; in fact I don't think you can really call yourself an adult male unless you are actively following a plan of some sort that results in becoming a father, and aren't really a man until you've become a father.
Before we talk practically about the hoops and nets you may or may not face and have to maneuver, I'm going to do as you've asked and list some simple pros and cons with being a K man versus an r boy (i.e. becoming a father and husband versus an eternal man-child and/or hermit).
K MAN: Pros
-You have a purpose for being that is biologically reinforced. You will be doing what's natural and therefore in harmony with yourself as compared to being depressed/anxious and/or direction-less.
-Assuming you marry rightly, you'll have the greatest conceivable ally: a true and loyal wife. She can, depending on what you focus on getting, whether she has it, and whether she accepts what you have to offer in turn, become a great mother; housewife; sex machine; accountant; singer; instrument player; playmate (not sexually think like games or hobbies); friend; comrade (i.e. someone who'll stand by you in a fight both physically and spiritually); intellectual; etc.
-Assuming you both husband and father correctly (if you can do the first the second ought to be natural, while the second can't be done without the first) your children will pretty much inspire endless love, happiness, and joy for you and perhaps live on to eclipse you in terms of life accomplishments. The possible joy and pride that comes from being a good Father is endless.
K MAN: CONS
-Fuck up and your life is over. May as well stare down the Hudson, Skuykule, Tiber, or whatever and jump.
Basically your life will either be Heaven or Hell depending on whether you succeed or fail.
r boy: proz
-Your life has the potential to be a series of easy orgasms, both literally and metaphorically. Whether you choose to be a useless waste of skin or a high performing but sterile monster, you have the chance to dedicate your life to pretty much anything that stimulates you in the moment and forget about the heavy and weighty concepts known as "creation" and "love". I mean, don't you just want to smoke weed, do LSD, and shoot yourself in the balls with STDs?
r boyz: conz
-Unless you are an r by default, you will feel an omnipresent anxiety and creeping sense of depression because you'll know deep down you're not living life the way you're supposed to (biologically, morally, or however) and will feel just as bad if not worse than if you screwed up trying to be a K Man.
Basically there is no happy ending for r boyz unless you are a high performing sociopath like pretty much any Democratic politician.
=======
If you want to be happy, you really don't have a choice but to become a K Man. Life is shit if you fail, but even more so if you don't try. And while the r boyz waste their lives and their genes away you, like me, could be living life to the fullest in the true spirit of masculinity and do that which the likes of Frankenstein can't do: CREATE LIFE. And it's all as simple as finding the right woman, getting a secure source of income, finding the right place to live, and being a good Father. The devil is in the details, but if you are anything like me you know it's better to try and fail than never try at all. Martyrs are sung for, but never the cowards. Meanwhile the victors get all kinds of laurel wreaths and monuments built for them. When life is as simple as "Win/Fail" and "Fail/Fail", you know already which path to go. There is no viable happy life as an r boy unless you truly make yourself an r. And the reason why I decided to categorize childless men over 30 as r boyz is because unless you want to go insane you must fundamentally screw the long term future and focus entirely on the present to be happy as a single man fighting his own biological imperative.
Practically speaking, I have 3 very simple life steps you should consider--because I'm following them myself.
STEP ONE: Attain a secure source of income, ideally equivalent to 80K + per year (American dollars). Do this by age 25-30. Maybe 35 if this step requires 4-6 or more years of college and school. As a wannabe novelist my plan is to be published within the next couple years and try to make a substantial enough income from it to justify relying on it entirely.
STEP TWO: Find a woman. I recommend watching Stef's "How to find a nice girl..." for details. Basically be yourself, but first make yourself into the kind of man you'd want your daughter to marry, clean out the skeletons you're hiding in the closet, then when surfing the women comes, do what Stef's wife did and be forward and direct with what you want and what you're looking for. Doing this will scare off the r women and attract the K women because you'll be demonstrating both a desire for what they're also wanting, and the courage to be upfront and take rejection. I plan on doing this between ages 25-30, aiming for a woman of approximate age.
STEP THREE: Find a permenant place of residence. Ideally a high quality (read: WASPy, with W also meaning "Wealthy") neighborhood in a country you'd be willing to risk your life for in the event the bull crap hits the fan and you must fight for your Fatherland/Motherland/Trapland. I plan on moving to Russia because I don't consider America worth fighting for, and am therefore learning Russia, but this is just me and my prophecies of doom making me think this way.
STEP FOUR (SCREW COUNTING): Become a Father of as many children as you can reasonably afford. I think 5 is a great number since if you do it right you can provide for your children their own best and eternal friends, whom themselves can rely upon when becoming K Men/Women and effectively form a close knit extended family/clan over time. As a man I'd like to do this by 30-32 so that I won't be old, creaky, and shooting blanks. Take into consideration the kind of women you're into and whether being her superior in terms of wisdom and experience will be a problem. Since I want a woman who is better than me in every way (or at least in certain ways, and equal in others) I don't intent to aim any younger than 2 years since I have a very low tolerance for stupidity and ignorance unless she has some seriously redeeming qualities like being a genius who is a fast learner.
...well, that's what I have to say. How does this help you? Feel inspired to be a man yet? Or are you considering cutting your balls off and joining the suicidal herd of MGTOWs (who have good points but not the willpower to use them to secure a good woman and/or change their environments) and r's?
-
1
-
-
Just watch it. Especially the end...
-
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:
There is no question that sociopathy is somehow evolutionarily advantageous. Otherwise there is no explanation for why it is so common.
To be frank, I don't know anyone else who behaves like this. I don't even know how relevant this is to the topic, but at this point almost everything seems intertwined.
Which is why I've given up the sniper rife and have decided to rely on a minigun.
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:Background is important, no question. But if you listen to someone long enough, you don't have to know their background anymore. Asking for background is like taking a shortcut in connaisance. If I know what tribe someone is from, there is a lot I can assume of their mentality without having to ask directly. To make my point, the accent of Mr.Molyneux bothered me only during the first few videos, but by the tenth video, I didn't care where he was from anymore, because I had heard enough of his ideas.
More or less agreed. Honestly I thought his accent was annoying at first, now I like it and can't help but associate him with model masculinity.
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:We can connect over a different medium like skype, if you feel comfortable with that. Having exchange ideas for so long, it is not a concern anyomore whether or not you are actually a 56 year old unemployed gamer larping as an anarchist. I think we could have some productive conversations. Send me a message.
If I knew how to use Skype properly and wasn't about to replace my terrible hp laptop, I'd jump on that chance.
Email me at [email protected] for anything. I can't use the messaging system here because I am being moderated.
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:The debate of genetics vs free will will be going on for a while.
And how culture/upbringing can really close the window of likely outcomes for most people. However because exceptions exist for pretty much everything, I tend to rely on genes for populations/demographics and free will for individuals.
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:I'm pretty sure it is more about control than praise. Maybe the case is that my father had lived so long without being in control that he does everything he can to avoid that state. I believe he mentioned something like "she stole my father from me".
Here is what is definitely true: There was a short while when I was controlled by a girl. I detested myself for that so much that I have never let anyone so close to myself again. I think here is where the answer lies.I think both are the case since when you control a woman you want her to praise and care for you. The falseness of it bites, however.
But then, are you really faking? Aren't you at some level the Western champion you're pretending to be, even if you're smoothing out the edges? Perhaps the key to taming the lion is mounting it rather than whipping it.
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:I highlight this sentence, because it speaks of the weird contradiction. My lust for control is my slaver.
Maybe the key is as simple as letting go to become in control of yourself. I mean, your biggest problem from what I can tell is your fear of losing self control and being controlled by your baser instincts. Perhaps if you stop fighting you won't have to fear losing. From what I know of psychology, and what Stefpai calls the "Mecosystem", the key to being mentally sound is to stop hating aspects of yourself, recognizing why it's there, and how it can be repurposed or mitigated. Making peace with your inner barbarian and bringing him into your court rather than endless waging wars of attrition against him.
40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: -
On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:
1. As I said in my very first post, guil-culture is definitely a thing. There are 3 nations that lost both world wars. Germany, Austria and Hungary. All three have been relentlessly bombarded with shame since 1945. Germany wasn't even the main culprit in starting these wars either. In the first, it was clearly Austra who fired the first shot. And contrary to popular belief, it was not Germany that annexed Austria, rather Austra that annexed Germany, since Herr Hitler was Austrian. It was an Austrian that fired the first shot in the second as well.
That settled, what sets Germans in Germany apart from everyone else is the unusual disability to recognise mistakes and change. "Knowledge applied is the sign of intelligence", and Germans are without question intelligent. Yet they keep on voting for the exact same leftist policies that have failed them so many times before in the last century. Both Austria and Hungary have very fluctuating election rounds, because they recognise the need for change.
2. That is true, however, you can bet that communism was a much more effective guilt-machine for the Hungarians. 600 thousand Jews were killed by the Hungary, which makes Hungarians proportionally having killed more Jews than Germany. The population of the Empire at its height was 200 mill; killed 6 million jews. The population of the Kingdom of Hungary at its height was 15 mill; killed 0.6 mill. They are simply not showing the same symptoms.Hi, luxfelix !
1. I have to admit that Monarchy had killed its credibility with WW1. Nevertheless, there are still royal families around who have not yet relinquished their titles, and they are still only marrying with other royals, just as if they were waiting for an opportune moment to resume their full control over Europe. Adding to that, there are more silent monarchists in Europe than one might guess. In Austra, for example, a recent poll revealed that 20% of the population supported the return of the Habsburg. I think you can safely double that number though, just as you can always double the numbers of the Right.
Interesting. But it is not really monarchic to rely on a majority; rather an elite minority (based on courage and conviction, not necessarily wealth).
I have no doubt some of the stabler families will return; however why they would return would, I think, dictate their longevity (as well of course as how many members of their circle seize power--theoretically if the Habsburgs returned, they could unite as a bloc against usurpers/outsiders who might be less or more benevolent).
On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:
2. I always found it rather amusing how we still call the Medieval Era "Dark Ages", when we just lived through the most brutal time period in history, which we call the "Era of Progress" with a straight face. Monarchy has a proven track record; we know of no time in recorded history when there was no successful monarchy. Whereas Democracy, has a horrible, though admittedly short record.I am referring to the time of the Fall of the Roman Empire to the founding of the First French Empire under Charlemagne and the Christianization of the Slavs. Before this and after the fall of the Roman Empire, there was quite the struggle for existence between barbarians, Christians, and civilized pagans.
On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:
3. There will come a time when we will return to the way humans are supposed to live, including the Germans.A.K.A. the fall of the welfare state.
On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:
4. Power, unless forcibly kept disunited, will always centralise. That is just the way power works. You can already see it everywhere in the world. There are no examples of a shrinking government. This can result in one of two ways: Dictatorship, or Monarchy. What is the difference? There is a god behind Monarchy, while behind Dictatorship, there is only a man. Seeing how things are developing in Germany, it will be a dictatorship first for sure, unless the southern catholic states secede of course.Not only that but there is the aristocracy which has personal investment in the lands they own/collect taxes from. I'd rather have a few tens of thousands of guys with above average intelligence(at least) plus Christian ethics and vested interest over a quickly multiplying mob of bunny rabbits dictating how I live my life--if there must be a government at all.
Russia might be able to sustain a democracy because they have a culture of responsibility and respecting others' property, unlike modern America where nothing if ever our fault and ever-escalating taxation and welfare is justice.
20 hours ago, luxfelix said:
History rhymes.
History is made in wisdom; and repeated in ignorance.
20 hours ago, luxfelix said:
There is historical precedent for Germans moving to Russia (including some of their monarchs).Yepper. I am learning the language as I type, actually.
-
I very much agree with you. I have in the past shared some videogames I knew to be interesting in terms of themes and underlying intents. I think it would be very fun for Stefpai to loosen his tie, pick up a controller, throw some logs on the fire, and analyze the themes, intent, and validity (of those themes) from various media like games and anime (especially since I think Stefpai is allergic to anime from what little I've heard him mention).
First anime I'd recommend to Stefbot is Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Just search it up on YouTube and you'll understand quickly enough.
I could write a Domesday Book of video games; I think I'll just repeat some key ones like Romance of the Three Kingdoms; Fallout; Dark Souls; Persona; Ogre Battle; and (for funzies I add) Record of Agarest War: Zero (which I think in spite of itself actually is a bit instructive).
Stefpai's critique of Stranger Things actually makes me more curious about it. I didn't know it was a TV Show, let alone existed. I think I'll check it out.
-
"Is he Russian?";"Yes."
"Is he Jewish?"; "Yes"
*DingDingDing* "YES!!!"
I think I got very lucky in getting a good therapist. I remember first telling my mother two years ago that I needed help and wanted to seek therapy and the one I got was the one she had before he changed clinics. A very great guy (who is half-Jewish and Russian by the way) who is pretty much Stefan Molyneux with a foot of extra height and fluency in 3 or more languages (English being his third, Russian and German being first and second).
He's also a regular listener of FDR by the way.
This might be off topic, but I was wondering how hard/easy long/quick it was for other people to find a good therapist? Maybe it helped my chances he was an immigrant fresh out of the horrors of the Soviet Union and the lawless 90's.
-
29 minutes ago, barn said:
When the possibility of upward mobility in terms of r/K ('r' really) comes up I can't help but get reminded of similar challenges people wishing to solve at the issue of life choices & I.Q. correlation down to seemingly the 'immovable object vs. irresistible force' paradox. So far, no one could 'engineer/find a design for a bridge with sufficient reach, enough'. [non argument, but may I add.. 'F' determinism!]
I've only seen K deterioration, repressed K regeneration (my line of thinking at the second one, if it requires gradual counterforce = escalation, it has to be evidence of a strong property, not a transition, hence the clue). 'r' conversion? Seriously doubt it. Sort of a square circle... I want to be wrong, though. Discard hope, has nothing to do with it, 'F' determinism. One day someone will figure it out... or not.
Simbolically or not, I can't be a Christian as of yet (don't think of futures) and don't care for it, even if by bettering oneself that means it's a net benefit for the Christians included. Aren't we sharing constituting, life giving whatever? It's only logical to start with the care and respect that prevents destruction. (=be smart, or accept being threatened by others)
Can be called humility or short sightedness, whatever... Guess if heaven existed, it won't become a worse place when some of us works harder regardless of believing or not & whether it made any difference. I never considered negative motivation / untangible goals efficient anyway(=sustainable).
I'm repeating but with a twist...
We stopped being born a long time ago. What if there's the '0' ahead of us, ever closer?
Barnsley
If I understand you correctly, you're saying r's go dormant and take orders under K rule, not convert to K, right?
I suppose that's true but under K rule the Ks gradually outnumber the r's to the point where if it wasn't for the welfare-warfare state the r's might have become so tiny as to cease to exist.
Everyone has tendencies towards both directions however, hence why I think transition is possible though rare.
I don't understand the Christian/atheist ramblings--are you saying you're an r and you find the future not worth living for? All right, if that's the case, then eventually you'll be forced to suffer the consequences at some point. I don't really care since I don't plan on waiting for the world to burn when I can move to another one (like Russia) and I have no power to stop rabbits from being rabbits, nor would I really want to if I could since I'd rather rabbits make themselves extinct rather than drag down the kangaroos.
-
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:
His main point was that if you ignore the vast time span that the Roman empire existed within, and the complexity that entails, you can cherry pick just about anything as the cause of Rome's fall and they're all equally valid. The fall of Rome is not reducible to any one factor. About moral decline specifically, Shaun describes how there is no point in Roman history that you can point to and say, "Ah yes, at this time period Rome was moral". Rather, Rome at many points of its history had people exactly like you, who complain of moral decline and point backward to some time when things were better, but this time never truly existed. It's just the power of nostalgia.
Except Stefpai didn't pinpoint only 1 or 2 causes but rather a whole mess of them coalescing at once to cause a slow breakdown over time.
In every time in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. A motto for the anime Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and a very true one in many ways. The problems may change, but no age is truly and perfectly golden. A problem will always exist, most likely. I'd prefer to have to worry about X than Y, but I have Y to deal with at the moment and the Y that Stefpai focuses on is worse, I think, than the X that some other countries have to worry about. However they may both be trumped by the historical Z.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:What is mutilation? Piercing your ears? Getting a tattoo? Removing a tumor? The way you're using it is just pointless hyperbole.
Castration is a pretty good example.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:I've already discussed the nature of sex and gender at length with Donnadogsoth in this thread. A more full explanation is in that conversation, but here is something to consider: In having the brain structure that I do, I'm a transgender woman. Whether or not I transition or live as a man changes nothing about what I am in that regard. In the formation of a metaphysical identity, what do you suppose has a greater impact? A penis or the brain?
Do you mean what has a greater impact in determining what someone thinks they are? I guess the brain since it can be deluded to think just about anything. I don't care about perceived identity though; I care about what is true and what isn't.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:Isaac Newton, George Washington, Beethoven, Vivaldi? Wastes of space all of them, apparently. You are simply proving my point about a breeding obsessed mindset. You apparently cannot imagine a world with purpose outside of parenthood, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
George Washington is horrible man. For more I suggest Stef's Truth About George Washington. I don't know about the others, beyond one being a scientist, one musician, and...I don't know who Vivaldi is.
In the long term culture is made of people, and the people of tomorrow are made by the people of today. I don't know what this "breeding obsessed mindset" comment is supposed to mean since it sounds like you are mis-characterizing me.
I know people tend to be best when raised well; and bad when raised bad. Since I am a libertarian of sorts, I only care about people's private affairs when their affect either me or my progeny. Most homosexuals that are true to themselves won't be raising children and therefore don't matter in the long run. They won't be alive to vote on whether my future grandson fights some pointless war in the Middle East, for example. They could influence the culture negatively, but that's not a result of their sexuality but of their...well, their preaching, their arguments, their actions. That I'd have a problem with if they're bad. Ideas transcend time.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:And what does it mean when you say you don't factor in a childless man (or gay man as you put it, though I'm not sure why the specificity) in moral decisions? You are starting to sound like a dangerously immoral individual. This is no excuse to factor someone out of morality.
Because unless he was an influential intellectual, speaker, or whatever of sorts he won't have any influence in the long run. I don't factor the r selected in what society will look like when in an environment of scarcity/K-dom for example because they won't breed much and therefore have the power to significantly influence it.
I said gay man because gay men can't have kids unless they force themselves too. Childless counts too I suppose. Maybe the context in which I said it was with a gay man involved as an example.
However the point is mainly in terms of culture and political power; if you don't exist, you don't matter. People cease to exist after death unless they left behind a powerful idea or have descendants to carry their standards. I don't care much about LGBT because it'll cease to exist once everyone who is LGBT stops breeding and raising children.
...However I think this has more to do with politics than morality. Morality is morality. Being gay doesn't exclude someone from being protected/obligated to morality, it just means they'll cease to be a factor upon death whereas those that are remembered or have kids will have a strong influence on the coming generations. Especially in a voting society.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:I'm assuming by Rubicon you mean transition? Your solution is like recommending sugar pills in place of antibiotics when someone is dying of an infection. I'm assuming you aren't trans and don't really have a stake in this issue, so I wouldn't expect you to be aware of the data/research on this topic. But I would expect you to be aware of your own ignorance and avoid telling people what to do without having a clue what outcome your advice would lead to. Here is some evidence in favor of transition. Where is yours?
I don't care enough. I read something to do with "wellness" but as Donna said--would a doctor recommend sawing off a leg or an arm if it improved the "wellness" of the patient? If so, then he's an immoral quack.
My solution is recognizing what is true from what is flattery and appeasement. What can be practically done versus what can be indulged to simulate having one's impossible desires met.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:You are not a fence sitter if you're advocating your position to be the truth. You've hurled yourself a hundred feet opposite the fence to me. Unless you're talking about fence sitting on the issue of whether or not I should be forced to conform/exterminated or allowed to live as I choose. If that's the fence you're sitting on then let me know and I'll end this conversation.
The fence is between whether you and other LGBTs are crazy beyond redemption (and therefore cannot be treated as moral agents and require carers like the retarded and the elderly) or whether LGBTs are like normal people but with special kinks (in which case LGBT pursuing identity politics is like me pursuing Albino Lovers Pride--special snowflake syndrome, unless of course there are legitimate threats like death or physical pain or threats thereoff in which case it makes sense to identify those that actually are threatening people for being abnormal and mentally sick rather than tolerant or considerate of them).
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:The rest of what you've said here is really nothing more than reiterating your belief that proliferating your individual genes is the only worthwhile purpose in this world, and I don't want to spend any more time on this. This is a completely subjective assertion. You do you.
Did you mean right-wing extremist? Or do you think it's the left-wing radicals most likely to roll out the gas chambers for trans people? That's fairly amusing.
National Socialism ? Fascism, which is an outgrowth of Socialism? Considering how similar they are to the Communists, they are best characterized as Leftists just like them. The Far Right are AnCaps and Libertarians--the pro-individual and pro-free will against the anti-individual and deterministic.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:
Whether you realize it or not, you are being antagonistic by recommending something that would be blatantly harmful to me.What is harmful about recognizing you are ill and seeking help? Maybe to your preconceptions but not to yourself.
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:I'm better off now as a result of transition, so my own experience invalidates your claims, and the data invalidates your solutions as well.
How do you measure being "better off"? You're completely sterile and marriageable. It's like me saying I'm better off for having my arms and legs lopped off!
3 hours ago, JamiMacki said:If your wife had cancer and a man came to her trying to convince her that she should buy into homeopathic quackery instead of modern medicine, you should rightly accuse this person of being a morally reprehensible and dangerous charlatan. It doesn't matter if he has good intentions and believes 100% that his cures work. They don't, and if your wife believes him and ends up suffering for it, then he does take a lion's share of the blame. How do you think you would respond to the charlatan if that happened?
Are you comparing your penis to cancer? Or a tumor?
I doubt I'll be able to convince you how far gone you've gotten but I hope the conversations between you-me and you-Donna illuminate people on how some LGBTs think of their disorder.
-
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:
I lose my progress very often, but when I return, it reappears. I don't know why it doesn't for you.
Maybe Opera's a meanie or I'm not using it right... :-(
QuoteI have "studied", so to speak, women for a while now, and very diligently with genuine curiousity. I have read Pride and Prejudice, I watched all 3 of the Bridget Jones movies, and I watched Twilight... twice... for science of course. To be honest, it wasn't as bad as government education in terms of torment. Plus, I actually learned some real things, and I have put into practice much of it. One consistent thing that always appears in these movies is the badboy character. I have learned that the badboy thing is effective, though not WHY it is effective.
My best guess: smart sociopaths make the best breadwinners historically, and being a great breadwinner is like having wide hips, a nice ass, pale skin and milky breasts to a man: irresistible without wisdom of what such illusions can lead to.
QuoteYeah. Spoken like a true philosopher. Unfortunately, you cannot launch a rocket with theoretical physics. The planet is not round, but ovoid. And we are not perfect, but fallen.
Therefore practice what I preach is what I intend to do. This is not perfection that I preach, but the realization that we are imperfect and therefore must be humble to our weaknesses, proud of our strengths, and wise to know who is stronger and weaker than us in a given subject.
QuoteNow you are getting there. It is definitely a defence mechanism for me, partially at least. It projects a little bit of confidence, yet also humility and insecurity, and the capacity to self-knowledge. I don't really remember where I picked up this behaviour.
Maybe your mother? It reminds me of something an alpha woman might do to filter out the betas.
QuoteI don't particularly care to ask for the backgrounds of other people, because that is not nearly as good information as the ideas one emmits. I like your ideas so far. You remind me of myself of a couple years ago.
Thank you. Although I think backgrounds can given necessary context and credence to a man's words.
QuoteIt's alright. I am working on it. As for my father, preeminently, he is not western, by which I mean he does not behave like you would in the west. Asians are much stronger in nonverbal communication, but it is just as valid, or even more so that words. Asians value actions over words. He never said sorry, but he has done a lot to rectify what he had done.
I'll take your word for it. I am having similar things going on personally.
QuoteI think genetics may be important here, though I think not as important as our roman compadre would suggest.
Maybe. But free will trumps almost everything. Most people tend to conform to patters, but the leaders of society tend to actively break them.
QuoteI don't really remember a time when I went out of my way to earn the praise of people other than girls with potential. That said, I don't really know who I am. I have never known, but I hear it is normal at this age. What I am striving for is forming a personality that don't feel like drowning myself in the Danube every time I cross it. Yes, we are getting somewhere. Sadly, this is as far as I ever had gone myself.
You mentioned your female relatives verbally abused your father. I think you're becoming like a younger version of your father in that you want women's praise to avoid their scorn. Basically you want to be praised unlike your scorned father. I think once you start being yourself and not a faker you will actually appreciate the praise and be humbled by it.
Quote
Well, not yet. We still have to address the question of control and my literal lust for dominance.I think they both result from the fear of becoming like your father; scorned by his family (especially his wife and daughters from what you told me or I remember) and perhaps wasted decades in which he could have chosen and done differently.
I think once you get some genuine praise and truly learn to respect the wise and the good, you'll lose your desire for dominance/control/safety and instead pursue personal and societal reform. After all the difference between Liu Bei and other would-be revivers of the Han Empire and the ethical system that was prevalent in its hey-day was that Liu Bei was a strict adherer to his beliefs and continued resisting the temptation to surrender or seize power in the moment until his chance finally came with the help of the Sleeping Dragon Zhuge Liang and he had his chance to establish a rump state in Ba Shu.
Perhaps if you live morally and be true, your compliments will become real and therefore lovable for longer than the second you hear them (which is when they're bittersweet). After a while of being true, you might want to take advantage of your desire to be an active reformer and become a hero instead of a villain. I am content to be the hermit that inspires the hero, since I am not made of the stuff personally.
QuoteI out-do good guys in their goodguyness. An average good guy, or even an exceptional one, cannot fully satisfy a girl's wants. There will always be something off, and that is life, that is how it should be; there is only one Donald Trump. Unless of course I come around and present them the full package. If you had the chance to buy your dream Mercedes Benz, or the same Benz in your favourite colour, you would be a fool not to pick that one. What today's men are lacking, is usually a dominant character... which makes this my lucky era. The reason I have been so successful despite my unhealthy lust for dominance, is that my dominant nature is much closer to the preferred level than that of my peers.
With wisdom there is the realization that no one is perfect. A wise woman, like a wise man, smells something when it appears too good to be true. If I saw a woman who fit every kink I wanted from being a tall albino goddess to having the voice of an angel, I'd brace myself for the truly dark heart hidden beneath the sweetness as chances are she isn't perfect but seeking prey.
Likewise a young woman, like a young man, must be made fearful of those that seem perfect since chances are they're merely camouflaging their true nature. The albino goddess might be real, but it's far more likely she's flying the skies for prey. Likewise the Aryan Champion of Big White WASPY Philosophical Beefiness might be real, but it's far more likely he's baiting. Stefpai is close to the perfect man, as all his flaws are physical with all his character flaws either mitigated or re-purposed to be defensive tools.
Like your lust for dominance and control (which is safety) could be re-purposed into a lust for breaking the dominance and control of the unworthy and supporting the worthy (to be abstract).
ADDED: I think the best advice to young men and women might be to be wary of those that try to hide themselves and falsify themselves. Those that wear their flaws on their sleeves might be more worth giving a chance since they could be smart and trying to repel certain types while attracting others via their honesty. It is dishonest to hide one's flaws and brave to be open about one's flaws/weaknesses. Therefore I think the safest thing for autistic men and women to do (I mean this in the sense they aren't the best judges of character or sniffers of BS) is to actively search for some counterbalancing weaknesses since they are most likely there even if they're disguised or re-purposed. No one is flawless after all.
-
Willpower requires courage; because courage is required to face the real and imagined obstacles that require willpower in the first place.
Willpower is required to successfully achieve ambitions grander than "work at McDonalds; Bang this thirty-something year old single mom".
As was said above, willpower can be gained by successful practice of it. I'd suggest starting small like keeping a healthy daily routine of waking up early, doing exercises, sleeping before midnight, etc. and doing stuff that you can take pride in; like a job that is a stepping stone to a career, regular work towards a project (especially if your career is oriented around regular work by your own direction instead of by someone else's order), praying/meditating to learn about one's own past mistakes and what to learn from them, etc.
As also said above, I think having a strong will for something is also important. Wanting something can be a great incentive for doing the necessary steps for achieving it. It may make it easier to exercise willpower since you can have faith that by doing X it'll lead to Y.
-
58 minutes ago, luxfelix said:
I've heard this case made before.
In the case of Germany, what would you say that means?
Restoring the House of Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittlesbach, and/or Wettin (etc.)?
An elective monarchy/new dynasty?
Restoring something like the HRE (many smaller nations)?Something new, I believe.
Theoretically speaking, I doubt the old dynasties come off as credible leaders to anyone seeking freedom and peace. After all, they screwed up badly enough at the end to be forcibly removed from power.
I think if any monarchies come about, it'll be as a result of either a military coup or a revolution. Perhaps a Prime Minister manages to get a bunch of generals to agree with him and support him, thereby providing him the fist to strike down the existing system and prop one up of his own design. Of course it's much more likely he'll set up a dictatorship that's oppressive and socialistic, but there is a small chance he'll pull a Pinochet and actually be a good-willed guy seeking positive change. if he is, he might be set up a stable government based on some form of aristocracy and set his own family, or the family of a good friend, to be the dynast.
I think it's very unlikely to happen this way--much more likely bad guys will take over and do as they please--but afterwards there's likely to be counter-revolutions from various different parties and I think the ones that will prove most stable in the end are either moderate republics or benevolent monarchies. The Republic might Rome-style transition into a practical monarchy, and the benevolent monarchies (i.e. they'll be reasonable and have a morally lawful and consistent system) will probably maintain themselves simply because they are better than what came before them (or the people are too exhausted to be roused up for another revolt).
My guess: within to 100 years from now all of Europe will be faced with revolts and the result will be repeated civil and national wars that will end with the establishment of stable monarchies and a few republics. I assume Christendom will be the basis for the stable countries and that they'll probably follow a post-Dark Ages pattern from thereon; most likely starting off good and slowly going bad until the next cycle.
I think Germany in particular will suffer due to the immense social, ethical, and ethnic problems they have. The militant socialists will probably seize power followed by fascistic revolts; one side will rule for a generation until the system inevitably collapses and either a pseudo-republican (i.e. a guy planning on using the banner of restoring democracy as cover for a dictatorship) or outright dictatorial strongman will stand up to seize power. I'm sure before or by the time they win, foreign intervention will splinter Germany and all Europe to the point where I'm sure hundreds of smaller countries are formed and they'll probably do whatever the local warlord (most likely either a charismatic orator with a militia or general) wants them to do (probably start off with a fake democracy followed by a real monarchy) and slowly over time these oppressive systems will be moderated by the anchors (i.e. the financial/material investors, descendants of generals and war heroes,) who'll become the new nobility, and eventually Germany will be like a mix of Arabia (foreign intervention messing things up like crazy) and the Holy Roman Empire (a bunch of smaller states converging to throw out the interventionists).
I'm sure it won't happen exactly like I predicted, but I am sure over time Europe as a whole will move forwards by looking backwards and eventually moderate the same way Europe moderated after the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages; via stable monarchies and elitist republics.
Whether they'll be better off or not is to be debated ( think they will). However I'm pretty sure everyone in Europe will be affected by it (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if after a hundred years Russia becomes a bastion of old-school democracy, in the same vein America was before the Federal Reserve. However I think it's equally likely the Russians will get comfortable having a familiar face in charge and let monarchism return without much resistance).
In conclusion I think Europe (and America) will just get exhausted and monarchies will seize power simply because no one will be left to fight them.
Personally this is why I plan on immigrating to Russia if America still looks hot for civil war within the next 10 years. I think Russia will be far more stable as a republic than any other country.
-
Yes. I think this makes sense. Someone who enjoys being good is all-around a great guy--not only does him doing good enrich the world, it enriches himself.
Someone who's evil can be made to act good (or at least decent) with the fear of damnation while someone who's predisposed towards neither good nor evil can be convinced to be good for the sake of feeling gratified for doing good.
A practical and personal example: I want to build a family, and in the long run, a dynasty. Therefore anything I do that makes myself a wealthier man as well as a man more desirable to good women (which is needed to make a good family, which is needed to inspire a good dynasty/extended family) makes me happier because I feel progress towards achieving that goal.
I think the problem is that only the K selected can be made to feel this pleasure. The r selected might be convertible--I don't know--but I do know there are people who start off one way and become the other. I suppose if I wanted to convince an r to be K, I'd look for any K leanings as well as ways being K can satisfy r desires, and hope the guy can make the decision himself to transition into being a K. However genes might get in the way of free will. I don't know for sure. I think that's an important variable.
-
I don't know if it's a moral argument, but I can say for a certainty that people who do things that obviously will cause severe mental or physical problems--especially if it's guaranteed--to their potential children ought to be severely punished. The death penalty wouldn't be harsh enough.
However if there is no risk of pregnancy then incest (so long as it isn't parent-child because that's rape no matter how you look at it) is simply a repulsive thing best left for hentai to explore. In real life it's brutal, disgusting, and evil.
-
On 11/9/2017 at 5:21 PM, JamiMacki said:
I see in just about every line of what you've said something that's factually false, uninformed, misguided, or potentially harmful. It makes it very difficult to unpack since explaining the folly of something often takes much greater effort than it does to state the folly. I'll do my best to focus on the most important bits.
Please specify.
QuoteAbout the fall of Rome and bad mothering: Your view seems to mirror Stefan's pretty precisely so a response to his seems like a sufficient response to yours. I'll present the lovely Shaun and Jen on youtube to counter that more thoroughly than I could in this format.
I'll be sure to at least watch a little. I didn't before making this response; I apologize, I was tired when i first read this and forgot.
EDIT: I've listened to the first 3 minutes: he's already mis-characterizing Stefpai and mis-characterizing his arguments. I'll keep listening and re-listen to the Fall of Rome, but keep in mind I'm already skeptical of his criticism of the Big Stefpai-sama.
EDIT 2: 10 minutes in. Finally some critiquing although mis-characterizations and character assassinations (can a brother get a "taken out of context"???) make me highly suspicious. I suspect he intends, as he stated he does not intend, to mislead the audience. "Who am I kidding..." he said afterwards.
I'll keep listening but to say I'm suspicious of his intent and character is an understatement.
EDIT 3: This was a rather long hit piece that was pedantic--focused on either mis-characterizing Stefpai or focusing on small bits where he may have mixed a word with another in a sentence, to downright bashing him as a "woman hater"... among other things. I won't bother trying to critique a bad critique. Anyone who wants to listen can click the link above.
Post Watching: what's the point of the video? It hasn't discredited Stefpai's argument that moral decay was a huge problem for Rome. While I have used him to cite the rise of women (in a bad sense) on occassion, I think it should be obvious that women have always ruled civilized society because... who raises the warriors, the talkers, the thinkers, the laborers, and the creators? Good women generally make good men and more good women; bad women the reverse.
QuoteSince this is apparently your main argument I'll focus on this. You seem to be making a false assumption that being transgender is something you do, when it's something you are. The "false man/woman" description is nothing more than your opinion, and idea that it's impossible to sustain a family as a transgender person is simply nonsensical, and will inevitably lead you to the no true Scotsman fallacy in trying to defend it, because you're simply redefining family to suit your purposes. To your last point, how can someone be always a man while at the same time be able to become less or more of one? Is there some kind of point system to manhood that you've created? Your entire argument here is invalid because all of your premises are either false, or simply your preferences for how these words should be defined.
Well, we are free to act. If I felt or thought myself a woman, I am free to choose what I do from that point on.
Manhood: Penis-wielder. Womanhood: vagina-wielder. Masculine: brave, integral, forthright. Feminine: caring, empathetic, composed. Some overlap as well as some subjectivity, but I don't think it matters to my argument since I don't care to define man or woman because the genitals between our legs suffice.
I do not deny the possibility of a man with a womanly brain or mindset; just that a man could become a woman. Especially a biologically functional (i.e. reproductive) woman. If he could, then a sex change could actually be treated as a true changing of the gender. Otherwise it's merely bodily mutilation.
QuoteI'd just like to point out it's very likely you are imagining the causality backwards. "For some reason" LGBT people are abuse victims more often than the general population. Are you considering the possibility that it simply means people are more likely to abuse someone who's LGBT? I have seen studies that deal with this topic but I'm too short on time at the moment to go searching for it. If I find one I'll edit this post and put it here.
I dunno. Maybe some LGBTers were "that way" and were abused for being "that way" while others became "that way" as a result of abuse. The order of causality is not unimportant, just beyond my knowledge. On one hand I know abuse tends to repeat, on the other someone must trigger the inclination to abuse in the first place. Of course free will is what establishes and breaks the cycle.
QuoteI consider your views here and the rest of your comments the result of a breeding obsessed headspace. Just because you consider the passing on of one's genes the highest purpose, doesn't mean it must be for everyone else. Some people are infertile, and some fertile people simply choose not to reproduce. Calling this suicide is just dishonest wordplay. If human beings are individuals, then the idea of living on through your offspring is fanciful and comforting, yet false. Have as many children as you like, but at the end of our lives you and I will be just as dead as the other.
Well if a man isn't having kids he's practically a waste of space. I mean, there's not much pointing to living beyond mere bodily pleasures without the intention of making babies to both enjoy the good aspects of life as well as inherit the accumulated wealth of knowledge and materials of myself and my future wife.
I don't care if a man does XYZ so long as he doesn't harm others, in particular future or existing children. Therefore if a gay man wishes to never have children, I simply do not factor him in any political or moral decision because he'll cease to be a factor upon death.
QuoteAs for having anything against me, I don't believe you. I think you're probably a kind hearted person and may have some amount of compassion for me or empathy, but that amounts to very little when the ideas you hold are harmful and destructive. Intent does matter and I appreciate your compassion, but consequences matter more. You recognize that there is an issue, and are critiquing my solution without offering a viable alternative...
My solution is to either: (for someone before the Rubicon) seek therapy and attempt to become a good father/mother in spite of being born or made crippled (or perhaps work with the altering--like if a man has a truly feminine brain, then perhaps he should act as the mother and a masculine woman should be the father--I don't know but I think someone involved ought to learn this for himself), or if past the Rubicon, seek to warn others from crossing and spend your life either in the clergy helping people, or doing as you please so long as you don't harm anyone.
Quote...And not only that, you're talking favorably about people like me being eliminated from the gene pool. The main reason you can come up with in support of my transition is that it means I'll likely die without proliferating my genes? Really? If down the road, circumstances changed for the worse and eugenics was once again on the table...
QuoteWell genetically you are crippled. I obviously want people to be born healthy. I don't care about homosexuality or other forms of mild disability (well mild is subjective--blindness, nearsightedness, or frailty is much easier I imagine to work with than being totally unattracted to the opposite sex but either way you're still a fully functional human being) but I do recognize it as a disadvantage, therefore the less the better.
However I am not in support of you self-mutilating and self-harming. It's not evil since you aren't harming anyone (else), however it is hardly kind to support someone stabbing himself.
Therefore if LGBTs decide to embrace their LGBTs and cut themselves off from the future, then they are a non-factor doomed to self-extinction. On the other hand if they seek help and try to actually invest in the future beyond themselves their genes will live on but they'll be productive members of society.
I have said I am fence-sitter. Largely because I think from the outside it's a self-correcting problem. From the inside it's obviously much more difficult.
Quote... why should I trust that someone who thinks like you wouldn't be fully permissive of my being tossed in a gas chamber?
Because I'd be thrown in with you for not being radically against you.
I'm a fence-sitter, not a left-wing extremist.
I appreciate being called kind-hearted and good-intended, however I'd rather you actually take my warnings and solutions seriously instead of simply as antagonistic or oppositional.
However, I repeat, I am ambivalent. I care only so far as it affects me and my children's' future.
-
On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:
2. Here be the problem... Nobody I have ever seen at my age is into good guys, and I have never seen a girl who wasn't into me since I was 14. Could it be that I have never seen a single good girl in my life? I guess that is possible, even though I have been to more countries than I can count. Or you should give me a more specific definition of a good girl.
As for my friends, they are good, and I am not up to debating that.Reading over some of the older posts here (and feeling a bit embarrassed since I got a bit pissy with one. Though in my defense, I tend to respond either early in the morning or late at night...), i notice this contradiction.
If girls your age aren't into good guys then how are you pretending to be a good guy to get them? Sure it conforms to my theory that you simply haven't met the good girls yet, but it conflicts with yours that good girls can be fooled.
I don't know how important this contradiction is, but I think it might be worth pointing out.
-
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:
Before I say anything: I pressed the wrong buttons and lost my progress again. *Censored*!!!!!!!!!
So, er, the quality of my response might be mixed.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:Exactly. People are illogical and irrationall. Once you accept that, a whole lot oh history starts to make complete sense.
Irrational but in recognizable patterns that make sense given the right (which would be objectively wrong) mindset.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:Right, thanks You make an important distinction between beta-alpha and R-K. Something I may have missed. I think my theory is still more or less correct though, either way, I will wait for violet 's response.
I'd be interested in what a woman has to say given as a man I have to guess what the other side thinks. But I might be overestimating the credibility of gender. I mean, a white man can talk about the black experience factually even if he doesn't sound as good saying it. But then again, a black man probably knows more about what it means to be a black man than even a very well-studied white man.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:
Of course, I meant Beta-Ks.Here is a scenario that I paint for every feminist and beta male I meet: In the future, you and your spouse are going to disagree, and you are going to disagree bigtime, on values for example, and you won't be able to resolve it through negotiation. At the end of it, either one of your wills will have to prevail, or your marriage will fall apart. As you know the old saying, war is the continuation of diplomacy. If diplomacy fails (and it will), one of you will have to back down, or you will have to escalate, maybe even to the point of violence. In this situation, it helps to have a pre-established principle of dispute-resolution. Now, you never want to bring the state or a third party into it, because all that will do is destroy the man, and nor do you want your children to be your arbiters, because that is child abuse. You have to keep it between yourselves. Which means one of your wills will have to be predeterminedly (in the marriage contract) the greater will.
Won't happen. If I can't reason with my wife, I won't marry her. We will know each others' values before we marry because that's first and second date material. In general we will defer to whoever is wiser (like when I'm greater at something or the provider of something, I get the authority, while if she's better then the authority is her's, while if we're both poor then we ought to seek an outside source like a doctor of three for medical stuff assuming medical stuff is the thing we're bad at).
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:1. You think that's called complimenting? Well, I have to disclose that you have seen nothing yet. On a serious note, if you look at the jabs I take at myself, you will see that I m just being honest. If I wanted to truly flatter myself, and not just in the tongue and cheek manner I did earlier, I can.
It is, technically. It's cute because I find such alpha characteristics to be attractive from women (and I suppose men but obviously for different reasons), cool because it's also a sign of self-confidence, and mildly autistic because you probably don't realize you are doing it. However if you do then it's also smart because you're probably trying to repel certain types of people and attract other types. Definitely a level of social acuity I find attractive.
In fact, I wish I knew you personally since I think we'd make good friends. Of course I don't know how much of myself I have revealed to be certain of that. Just a hunch.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:2. No, it is definitely not off-topic. I have an unusual amount of female characteristics that is pretty clear to anyone who knows me. So much so that my father used to viciously mock me for being girly when I was small. There is no question that I have some overdose of female hormones, or even a partly female brain. This is what I utilise to understand how women work. I never took a class in women's studies. It just happens that I could sympathise with them more than the average dude.
I'm sorry to hear that (note: I want to be more expressive in giving sympathy since Stef does this and I want to be like Stefpai. I do meant it though), that shouldn't have happened and I hope you're right about your father taking responsibility, repenting, and trying to make restitution with you.
I don't want to talk about the genetic stuff since I'm all about free will. I think the key is acting in accordance to morality, being proud of your strengths, humble to your weaknesses, and...something I wrote below, be yourself so that your praise is earned.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:
3. The funny thing is that I think I am hot only as far as empyrical evidence allows. I have the exact amount of ego that I can confirm to be warranted based on my interactions with people, particularly women. Which is again, why I play with women. Personally, I don't like my face, and I don't like my body; I have to get it confirmed to be hot every single day.Brother, this I think is where the conversation needs to go. I think because you were abused as kid you desire praise as a man. You put on a false self to get that praise because being yourself probably meant a beat down as a little kid. Therefore you probably fear being fully yourself because you might not be liked by people you want to like you (or at least praise you) and probably realize that and therefore want control to both feel safe as well as get revenge against your father and mother for mocking you for being yourself as a kid.
That might not be a bullseye but I think we're getting somewhere.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:1. Excellent question. I will give you an example. This happened back in high school.
If you suddenly saw me show up at a school field day with a medium sized dog in my arms that I am holding like a baby, you may think it was odd, and you would be right. When I did that, guys were amused, teachers were amused, staff were amused. But of course, they were not my audience. I was putting on the show for a particular nice girl. Because I knew what it would trigger on her. At this point, we hadn't yet talked much, but I was already "wooing" her. As far as she was concerned, this incident had already answered most of her questions. She got the signal that I was family man material. As I have said before, lying outright is not my thing, that is not our element as men, plus, women sniff it out anyway.
This is just one simple incident, but I hope it gives you a sense of how I lie.I think the key for you is to be yourself so that when people compliment you, they're complimenting you and not just a projection. Then your self-confidence will be earned and, on top of living according to morality, you'll get better over time.
To sum up I think the practical key is to: take pride in your strengths, be humble to your weaknesses, and be unapologetically yourself.
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:
2. Yeah, I got some jewish blood. In fact, let me lay it all out for you: 20% Tsahar tribe, 20% Uzemchin tribe, 10% Northern Han, 30% Magyar tribe, 10% Hungarian Jew, 10% Danubian German.
3. I have been acutely aware of my background, since I never looked anothing like any of my countrymen. One would say my Special Snowflake claim be warranted. Keep in mind though that I have 2 brothers of the exact same stock, who are very much unlike me in these tendencies towards women.I think I hit gold this time; what do you think?
-
22 minutes ago, meetjoeblack said:
Your conversion rate sounds spectacular and that coming from someone that spam approaches lol
I keep forgetting he compliments himself a lot. I guess I've gotten quite used to him, eh? Even from a man I sort of find that level of autism cute. There's just something, regardless of who's saying it, attractive about unintended or instinctive self-flattery or self-compliments.
Really off topic but Mishi reminds me of a really hot woman more than anything. I could easily imagine a woman with his personality and mentality....
....and then I start wishing Mishi was an attractive woman. He'd be a lot like my mother when she was his age.
I know he has self-confidence issues even though he knows he's hot. I think it has something to do with projecting a false self and people liking the fake him rather than the real him. A month and we've come this far, I wonder how far we'll continue to get...
-
On 11/9/2017 at 5:09 AM, Mishi2 said:
In historical context, these guys definitely look like the saviours of their countries. One thing about Hitler is that he portrayed such an image of christian humility, that he only wore a single medal on his chest: the wound badge that he received during ww1. About Mao, the same thing. He wore the exact same grey workers suit that everyone else in China wore. These guys knew their stuff.
Indeed. I think I was a bit too arrogant in saying they were obvious since, to know them in real time, a man would have to be really attentive to their words and knowledgeable of their actions. Without that, how can Hitler not seem like Charles Martel and Mao like Liu Bei?
QuoteGood question. Apparently in English it has been published as The book of Saints . My family only had it in Hungarian, and the direct translation would be The Life of Saints.
Thank you. I think the "Life of Saints" makes a better title but that's semantics.
QuoteI enjoy it for the same reason that one enjoys doing crack. It literally gives me a high. And you know, we all have our vices.
I dunno. A vice to be a vice has to be self-destructive. I have my hobbies, but they aren't self-destructive unless I live exclusively for them and ignore my work and my livelihood. I am sure man can be without vice without having to have the strong constitution of a saint.
QuoteIt's alright. Thanks. There are still a few question left unanswered, but of course I don't expect you to know everything.
Maybe I can keep poking. I'm still interested in the topic since Violet brought in an interesting view.
Quote3. You make a looooot of good points regarding the r/k theory. I grew up in the East in the developing world, not the west though, so that theory doesn't really hold up. However...
Here is the theory that yours brings to mind: In a society with limited resources, they produce R-men and K-women, and in a socity of abundance, we have K-men and R-women. As far as I can tell, there are many virtuous women in poorer societies, who get married, stay married, and have lots of children. In the west, as it seems, women have become repulsively promiscuous, and have chosen only to settle for the highest status men, hence MGTOW. As for men, there are a ton of strong and masculine R selected men, who are aggressive, willing to bang a lot of women and make a lot of babies, hence the Migrant Crisis. Whereas in the west, men don't even have sex anymore, and many have even gone MGTOW, hence the Migrant Crisis.
Apparently, I am the aggressive thrid worlder who is missing in the west. I suppose this is where RK theory may play a part.I think you misunderstand alpha/beta versus r/k.
An alpha is a man of integrity and assertiveness; a beta is a boy of cowardice and either arrogance or excessive humility.
An Alpha K is like Stefan Molyneux or Charles Martel. An Alpha r is more like Genghis Khan or Hitler. Basically Good vs. Evil.
Beta ks might include the wimps that is the modern White male, but I'm hesitant since the definition of K requires alpha integrity and assertiveness, though under duress I can understand keeping one's head low, I wouldn't call that cowardice. I suppose a Beta K might be the guy that is somewhat wise and inclined towards wisdom but lacks the courage or the integrity (or the morals) to do what is right.
Beta rs are the drug addicts, horny boys and girls, and basically the waste of skin that isn't worth taking seriously as anything other than movable pawns on the demonic chess board.
The West's Ks have either died from too many wars, been out-bred by the r's, and/or are being out-voted out-muscled by the mobs of r's.
Betas have always made for common conscripts, alphas are the volunteers (especially back when conscription was practically impossible for countries not named China), nobles, and knights.
The Alpha K's are either going Galt (albeit not self-destructively like the Beta K's), standing up (like Stef), or jumping ship (like me considering heading off to Russia once I'm able since I consider Russia a beacon of light to be defended compared to the inequity of the West). Beta K's are either keeping silent or taking advantage to further themselves. Alpha r's lead the extremist groups while the beta r's are everyone's foot soldiers.
Our problem is that the Alpha K's have been dethroned with the chaining of their determination by the left and their alienation from the foot soldiers that used to call them noble.
Quote4. I like beta men, because they make good husbands. On the other hand, I have a strong contempt for them because I see in them the decay of the West. Whenever I look for a friend, I look for someone whom I can take to the next siege of Constantinople. Today's guys can't even hold a flag straight.
What do you mean by "beta men"? I've never gotten along with betas. They disgust me with their cowardice and ineptitude. I have only ever gotten along with alphas, but I am basing this statement on the definitions I've provided. I suppose some could be mistaken for betas (like beta ks) since most of them weren't horny boys or players. Which I'd define as a beta r.
Quote5. When I was small, I found it rather odd and backwards that in the Bible it says women should submit to the man. But as I got older and saw the West, it has become pretty clear to me why Islam and Christianity are still so popular. There is no such thing as democracy; It will be either the man on top, or the woman. If it is the woman though, society will collapse, as we have seen with Sweden.
Well, I am one for the belief that man must submit when he is in the wrong, and stand when in the right.
I think politically it is foolish to assume just because women have the vote that women are naturally bad at politics; women have been involved in politics since the dawn of time. They raise the kings, advise their noble husbands, and encourage their knights. The problem with the West is republicanism since the common woman, like the common man, is bad at politics.
Perhaps I am a strange creature, but I am most attracted to women who are assertive when right, humble when wrong, and capable of knowing the difference and maintaining their integrity.
-
4 hours ago, GatoVillano said:
Then your problem is with democracy and not the idiots. If the idiots wont have the power to redistribute the wealth through the power of the state, then they can enjoy an happy peaceful life, doing work that would seem easy for other, but brings gratification to them. I have met some of the mentally retarded who were working simple jobs like cleaning dishes. They took their work very seriously and found a lot of gratification doing it. I have no problem with these people having a good life.
Agreed. More or less. I don't want to absolve idiots the responsibility of being good and moral political actors, however. However no republicanism or no statism in general would make the potentiality for masses of stupid to cause political trouble nearly nonexistent.
4 hours ago, GatoVillano said:Also, the libertarian argument always start with the original state of humanity, the default in some way, which is the state of nature. What a human has in the state of nature are considered his natural rights. The none aggression principal dictate that you are not forced to help someone, but you are to leave him, at lease, in the state that he was when you found him. Which means that he is unarmed and with all of his physical integrity. In a state of nature, a person has the ability to procreate and has the ability to do so in a peaceful and consensual manner. Therefore, procreation is a natural right. Sterilizing someone, either for political reasons or economical reasons or any reason whatsoever, is to forcefully alter the physic of someone and take away his right to procreate. This is coercion. It goes against the non aggression principal. Therefore, anyone who advocates for this treatment cannot, by definition, call himself a libertarian. It violates all the libertarian principals, right up to the treatises of John Locke.
I don't even know what can be defined as a "state of nature". I'd argue we are always in a state of nature, because...well, people are people making choices based on what they know and what they're allowed by other people or the environment.
I could argue it's "natural" to rape, pillage, steal, murder, and basically go full Genghis Khan. However I wouldn't call that moral, therefore I don't refer to nature as a moral measure.
And also fundamentally I don't think we disagree if we can both agree with the premise that to screw it must be consensual for it to not be immoral. Although it could be immoral if it is cheating or rape of a minor, etc. etc... I'm going to keep it simple because it is easy to move the goal post with this one.
4 hours ago, GatoVillano said:Locke said that, in extreme circumstances, we could remove a person's natural right. But this is when that person will harm others. And this can never be taken lithely.
In order for me to agree that someone should be put to death or sterilized for the crime of rape, there would need to be a fair trial, with a non bias court and that irrefutable evidences were presented in order for the accused to be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be guilty. And even then, I would prefer that the accused be locked up for life or received psychiatric help. Because, a lot of what is considered rape is left to interpretation. If you look at the rape laws these days, you need to ask for consent every 5 minutes during sex, or else, it is rape. We would have to castrate every men in the country.
Of course I think trails ought to be taken seriously and punishments considered carefully. If a guy isn't proven to be a rapist, then the punishment for rape should not be enforced. If he's only maybe a rapist, then time needs to be spent checking every possible angle until the prosecutor can be without a doubt sure the crime was committed.
I am not speaking of any perverting of definitions but rather in ideal forms. Of course terms like rape can be perverted to mean all kinds of things, generally against men for some sexist reasons, however for the sake of argument I have, and am, considering the definition of rape to be out-and-out force with obvious declarations of no and struggles of resistance by the purported victim.
Of course it gets much tricker when intoxicants are involved, because if both parties were drunk then they could be argued to have "raped each other" since neither could consent, however would taht cancel each other out or would they both be punished? Obviously there's a lot to be talked about when formulating and executing laws.
However given a black-and-white proven scenario, I think execution is deserved for any violent crime that threatens the life of others' or as the punishment for repeated acts of terrorism or harassment (like stoning houses and death threats).
Of course, I can't say I have the final answers.
-
History is made in wisdom; repeated in ignorance.
Concerns about the Alt-Right and Supremacist Ideology
in Current Events
Posted · Edited by Siegfried von Walheim
Clarification edits and some typos
Well, this is a topic I regularly debate with myself and others because it is so fundamental with my self-called prophecies of doom and why I am almost certain I will jump ship for Russia...
...Take the wisdom and musings of a 19 year old with a grain of salt, as always.
Let's look at it from an "Ends" perspective; what works?
Well, ethnostates and empires that do not discriminate and also self-segregate work. Racism is an unavoidable fact of life and it appears only European races (as a demographic--I know there are exceptions like the wonderful black guy that regularly calls in but I'm going to speak in broad terms and assume you all realize I am speaking of rules, which are important because in the long run the rule makes the society) are capable of overcoming racism and basing their tribal identity on values rather than blood. Historically White folks weren't really racist after the advent of Christianity because we slowly evolved to favor people based on shared values and morality over bone structure or visible racial differences. See Saint Maurice as a YUGE example of how not racist White folks have been since the 12th century (at least!). Suffice it to say it's not really in our nature to put blood over spirit unless we are being discriminated against or embittered.
I think there are two ways to cure racism: changing the national mindset to value values over race, or to let bygones be bygones and let the races self-segregate in large numbers. Think America (till 1950) for the former and Russia for the latter. Two multiethnic societies that made it work because the people coming to America had to assimilate to survive while in Russia people flocked/were born at their respective ethnostates and largely let bygones be bygones (with their unique brand of Islam certainly helping in Tatarstan).
However there are two problems (at least): America no longer has values, and even when it did Blacks largely considered their race a more significant identifier than the Whites (whom also were fairly ethnically centric but this diluted over generations whereas Blacks didn't). Therefore Christianity and Classical Liberalism only work with White races, as only White folks can be convinced to surrender their ethnic heritage in favor of a new national and cultural one.
The latter problem is that for America to be divided into ethnostates, a civil war must necessarily ensue, and the result would most likely be far bloodier than intended. In fact I'd bet once the guns start blazing it'll be warlords who reign supreme.
But if we don't ease racial tensions (as well as ideological tensions) civil war will be inevitable. Forget Europe where they are pretty much guaranteed a Second Dark Age and a half-century similar to what the Arabs and Persians are suffering (i.e. ethnic/religious internecine fighting and foreign intervention propping it up forever). They can't peacefully resolve their problems anymore since the smart and woke are much fewer than the head-in-sanders and anti-Euros. America however does have a fighting chance if the legal system can be respected again, if the government can purify itself, and if the various races can be somehow made into values-over-blood types.
However still, I am extremely skeptical about America averting civil war and therefore am sympathetic to the socialist Alt-Left (they aren't ALt-Right--we are, as individualists, capitalists, and Christians/moral atheists). because they understand fundamentally how unsustainable the current system is and how likely to the point inevitable how bloody ethnic cleansing wars in the image of the founding and fall of Yugoslavia with the scale of America and Europe is, and how terrible it'll be because our ancestors decided to make us inherit their conceited dream of White patronage of the world and the boomers their suicidal r-selected ambition of trying to assimilate the world into us at the cost of us existing.
Yet in spite of my conceding the inevitability of civil war, I do not support the Spencer types or the Alt-Left because I do not think the West is worth fighting for if the end-result is status quo ante bellum (like the Alt-Lite want in many ways) or Communism/Fascism (which is what the Left wants and will get if the Alt-Lite or Alt-Right aren't victorious).
Therefore my advice is to act is if the West is doomed and prepare accordingly. Some pockets of the West may remain integral, but are you willing to pick up a rifle to bring back the early 2000's or 2010's America/Europe or a dystopian dictatorship? I'm not. Forget that crap. I don't think our types have a chance in winning unless a Pinochet appears among the warlords, and if he does, he still has a difficult struggle ahead of him that necessitates the question "is America/Europe worth it? What has America/Europe done for me?"
And my answer is "worse than nothing, therefore forget you".
And my advice to those thinking similarly to me is to emigrate. Find a different country, one that has our desired ends more closely realized and/or has a shot at living prosperously for the next hundred years. A great example is Russia. I strongly recommend learning Russian and emigrating before they decide they've had enough Westies and build a wall. Another option might be some of the other Eastern European countries, or the Oriental countries if you're willing to sacrifice your race in entirety to assimilate into a different one.
Not easy decisions to consider let alone make, but I strongly consider ditching the mess because otherwise you'll be forced to fight (physically not verbally) for someone you probably would rather shoot than defend. I don't love modern America nor modern Europe. I love who they used to be and their ideal selves, but not who they are. They screwed up my life and generation and I am climbing an uphill battle just to fix that and make myself a respectable man. I don't intend to stick around once I am financially strong enough to get out. Russia is the new America; it's the land of opportunities and land of Christianity. It has its flaws, but they aren't anywhere as bad as the West's (which is anti-male, r-selected, pathologically altruistic, atheist, fascistic, communistic, self-entitled, welfare centric, warmongering, etc.).
Not to mention even without a civil war we will be outbred and outvoted, and once we are, we will be hounded and exterminated like the Jews. Learn from the Jews folks, they are the smartest people in the world for a reason!
I would much rather fight for Black Christians than White atheists; however I know how it goes over time, South Africa being a huge red flag. But I'd rather go extinct than live among a race of evil, immoral, degenerate people. Either we are Christian/moral atheists or we are not at all. That's my current attitude (as someone who values morality over race).
Again, I'm a far-sighted 19 year old basing his decisions and prophecies on the premise that things are only going to get worse--either within the next 50 years when my race is outvoted in its own country and becomes like the Afrikaners of South Africa, or like the Roman Empire a slowly rotting husk over 100-200 years. I am also a White male, which means I have a huge grudge against the older generations and the establishment and therefore want it gone not preserved or only slightly reformed. Therefore again I have a strong bias and therefore have to be take with a grain of salt.
But I have yet to hear any satisfactory arguments contradicting me. I dare anyone to try. I want someone to try. But until someone does I'm ready to abdicate my citizenship for a Russian one and let the Tsar do with me as he wills because I trust His mafia over my existing mafia. Also Russian people are quite nice compared to Americans.