[Let's discuss transgenderism]

1 hour ago, JamiMacki said:

Let's dial back a bit and let me ask you this: For something to be biological, must is also be natural? Are these things synonymous? If I create a duck in a lab from scratch, is it not biologically a duck because it wasn't birthed naturally?
 

Have I made a mistake in assuming tyranny was off the table in this discussion? I suppose I should rephrase. What I meant to say was that you can't turn back the clock on culture in a free society. I've assumed our common cause was defending freedom from tyranny and oppression. In other words, your commitment to a free society should be of greater importance than your commitment to tradition, and if so, you must accept that what yesterday was deviant may become acceptable today. Talking about returning to a time when things were better and restoring tradition might seem quaint and appealing to some, namely white men, but for people like me and other minorities it's a threat. For lgbt, racial minorities, and women who value their personal liberty and equality, there is no time in western history we can look back on that's better than now.

Historically women were the dominant force in the West; who raised the men of war, men of labor, and men of creation? Who said yea or nay to breeding with them? Even in the Ottoman Empire women ruled for centuries under the so-called "Rule of the Women" that lasted from the death of Sultan Suleiman "the Great" to...just about the fall of the Sultanate, I think. 

And that won't ever change. Society is built and sustained by mothers. Bad mothers make a bad society; good mothers a good society. Men are important too, but less so because they generally don't raise their own children much nor are they usually the ones that choose the women. 

The main and practical argument I have against transgenderism is that it makes it impossible to build and sustain a family; no woman desires a false man; nor man a false women; and those that do cannot breed with them. Therefore a man who struggles with his identity must realize he is and always will be a man. He can make himself less of a man or more of a man but a man nonetheless. 

Culturally I am a fence sitter; on one hand I understand the slippery slope, on the other I understand in a Free Society these deviancies are naturally punished because they cannot breed. Adopting counts only if there is abuse since abuse victims tend to make the majority of LGBTs for some reason.

I think anyone who is against LGBT ought to know it is by suppressing LGBT that LGBT can genetically survive because they'd be compelled to "act normal", while if they act themselves they'd eventually run out.

Personally and morally I only care insofar as how it affects the children of today and the future as well as the culture of today and tomorrow. 

I think so long as a man doesn't violate the NAP or UPB, he can do whatever he wants to himself and with consenting adults. 

 I don't have anything against you, I don't mean to come off in any kind of negative way, I am simply stating what I believe and also my strong suggestion that you rethink what you are doing because practically speaking it is suicide. And also that I am annoyed by modern folks' underestimation of the historical power of women that used to be understood before feminism decided to white-wash it and pretend the patriarchy means anything other than "society ran by smart women who respect men".

ADDED: I am personally  interested in your experiences. On one hand I see them as a warning of what not to do, while on the other they might provide practical solutions to those that have crossed the Rubicon. 

I wouldn't be so confident that cultural attitudes will remain in stasis (or more precisely develop in the same pattern), nor would I call it "turning back the clock" should reactionary precepts become dominant again since technically speaking nothing new is under the Sun (culturally) since the Roman Empire had a similar thing go on albeit in slow motion. 

The best thing that can happen is that people recognize the past and make history instead of repeating it. I think the best thing for transfolks is to recognize the anti-evolutionary situation they're in and try to become healthy. Failing that, recognize the abnormality and transience of their situation and help those that appear to be going their path to go the better path of self-knowledge, therapy, and growth. 

To be clear, as I do not wish to be misunderstood as a bigot or whatever, I see you as having a mental disorder not as being evil or damned. You may have crossed the Rubicon but you can still do good for yourself and others' should you desire to (nor am I even sure I know what is best. Frankly I don't care enough to consider too hard but I do care enough to warn transfolk against imploding themselves like sheep off a cliff).

[Why Bad Boy?]

9 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Post a link? I don't see anyone by that username in your activity

*Achoo*

I self-demoted to Count based on a claim I actually have a very weak claim to.

9 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

I'm assuming you don't mean physical control. So, in what way do you control women? As in, using authority to offer some form of reward - or lack of punishment - in exchange for sex?

He likes to feel gratification through compliments, looks of admiration, and I think senses of trust and need. He's basically being an attractive woman who seduces men by acting out the role she detects as them either missing and desiring or having and wanting more of. For example, acting like a true Western man to girls raised by seemingly true Western men. 

9 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

You mentioned to @Siegfried von Walheim that you believe it is a genetic trait, as it runs in your family. Are you of a certain famous ethnic tribe that shall not be named, known to have a pattern for engaging in such pursuits?

He's half Mongolian, half Hungarian, with some German elements to it.

[Why Bad Boy?]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

True evil does not look like count dracula. True evil does not lie outright, rather buries a pinch of lie in a mountain of truth, and with time, the lie spoils the entire truth.

*Ahem* Hitler. Stalin. Lenin. Mao. They don't exactly look like saints and when one listens to them, one can hear the deceit (at least when one knows the language).

However there is truth to that. Hitler, for example, created the myth of Jewish war against the Germans by adding just a few lies to the true fact that the Jews were/are the dominant force in money politics and entertainment (in the West). Just needed to make it seem like the Jews are totally evil and beyond saving to make the Germans hate them enough for a self-fulfilling prophecy to occur; the Jews needed to defend themselves and since the wealthiest among them are quite well connected, they were able to bring in the A-team of Western nations to bring down the Third Empire. 

I guess I described an example of your intent.  

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I am a catholic, so I try to leave the decyphering of intent to God. But I don't really know. All I know is that it is evolutionarily advantageous for women.

Yes. Also advantageous for women to be with a man who can detect manipulation and call it out. Frankly I wouldn't worry so much about it since you're not interested in random women, but the really good ones.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Yes, the respect for free will definitely requires humility. However, even the Devil respects human free will, but only up until they hand over their free will of their own free will. This is what I do. I like reading the Life of Saints, because they are the perfect example of the way to respect human dignity. 

Is that a book or...? I'd be interested in reading that. Better yet; hearing that.

It never ceases to amaze me how progressive the Church has been throughout history. Or how wise.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I recognise your assessment as true of my father. He has been wronged so many times by stupid and evil people, women in particular. Sometimes my mother describes him as a woman-hater. I don't think that far is true, but he does indeed expose his scars quite often. As for me, I don't think it is true.

I think it's a little true, at least. 

I mean, why is control so delicious? What happens if you surrender trying to control others' and live honestly and freely? I think you might like that more.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

1. I must admit, sometimes my faith falters. Still, I have seen very good women in my life, so there is no doubt in my mind that they exist. One particular girl comes to mind who is so good that she scares me. I haven't taken a shot at her because she was a classmate of my brother's. Every girl I ever missed haunts me forever.

If she and you are meant for each other, you'll surely meet again. In fact, aren't you most attracted to the girls that are so good they scare you? The harder they are to get, the better they are to keep because only you will be able to keep them and therefore so long as you maintain your part of the marital bargain you have nothing to fear.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Yeah, as I said, the lady saints are really inspiring. To that account, I always feel an extraordinary amount of shame whenever I pray the Hail Mary.

If that's the case your chin should be up because you have proof that virtuous women exist, and therefore all you have to worry about is yourself! I think the solution is simply to surrender trying to control others' ("Just say no.", as Nancy Reagan says very wisely and succinctly) and be yourself and only yourself. I think you'll feel a lot more secure and self-confident once you start setting honest signals which could attract the real white doves. 

So, to make it actionable, I suggest you stop worrying about women and simply have faith that so long as you are virtuous and attentive you will find the right one, and instead focus on making yourself into a true man. 

How's that sound for a prescription?

[Superiority/Inferiority?]

19 minutes ago, ShindouHikaru said:

You didn't say what? You didn't say, "Note: he copied and pasted a conversation......."? Confused. Are you sure that he copied pasta? Because he did suggest further that I was a bot. 

The last thing you've got quoted in your above post has my name in the quote bar instead of his. I don't want anyone to assume I've said what he said.

ADDED: To be precise, the quote bar in your post directly above the one I made complaining about it. It'll say my name instead of Philociraptor's.

He might be baiting but I know he copied pasta because I read that conversation some weeks ago. 

Of course either way I think you're wasting your time with him. If he's just taking a dump and leaving it there; ignore him. If he actually is responding to you with arguments; then you've got something.

P.S. I love Hikaru-no-Go <3

[Why Bad Boy?]

45 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Pretty straightforward with women. Always goes back to the father. If I know her father personally, that is a huge advantage. If I don't, the paternal relationship is always glaringly visible on women. You can tell by the way they dress, talk, look, etc. Anyway, I always aim to match their idea of the perfect dad. The ones who have good fathers always aim for traditional christian qualities, such as stability, wisdom, courage, etc. My luck, so to speak, is that such qualities are extremely rare in today's west, especially among guys my age, so there is hardly any competition. This is where the mystery of evolution kicks in, and here is where the good girl differs no longer from the bad girl. The girl I have picked for myself will want to do anything in order to keep me around, just as a healthy man would do almost anything to keep around the most beautiful woman.

I think I understand. I could probably do it myself but I always feel an immense fear after lying to someone. I hate to say I could teach someone how to be evil, but I suppose I could. However I am thankful I am naturally bad at being evil because...I dunno, maybe it's evolution or maybe it's my culture. Lying has always been hard for me, even when I succeed.

Quote

2. I think women have a much easier time manipulating men. All they have to do is put out. But yes, as I said, we stole their strategy, which is to morph into whatever the other individual desires, and then leashing them to the lie. For women though, it is an evolutionarily hardwired strategy.

Yeah. I don't necessarily think it's bad though since good actions of bad intent are still good actions; it's just that we'd also like some good intent to be there too, right?

Quote

Definitely something similar. I remember being very small, looking out the apartment window onto the street, wanting to determine where people on the sidewalks should be allowed to walk. But this is as far as I can recall of anything that has to do with control. And again, I only want to control women. Frankly, I think it is genetic for me, since the tendency runs in the family.

I hate to admit it but I've always wanted to control large numbers of men and make them do my ideological bidding. I still do, which is why I am respectful of those that are actually good at resisting the temptations of power and humble of myself. I have only been interested in women since puberty since before that I considered women to be lesser, annoying, and weaker men. 

Now I think I'm much more respectful of the species because I realize more why things are the way they are and how they work. I listened to a recent podcast where Stef asked "what has Europe brought to the world in the last 100 years?" and I'm not so cynical as to say nothing. From medicine to technology, Europe has been the world's leader this past century even if our morals have waned. 

I wonder if the secret to having a lesser desire for control is humility; the respect for the strengths of others' and the weakness of the self. I find the more impressed I am by the greats and surprisingly impressed by the smalls (i.e. the nameless businessmen and workers of history) the less desire I have to control since I have better faith in people, which is why I am an AnCap since I think that is where humanity ( or at least the Eurasians) will flourish! Monarchism might be the best way there since it denies the will of the mob and supports the will of the few, which is what everyone must endeavor to be the best few rather than the worst few.

Quote

Sorry, I meant to say that the social status of our family is quality. We always only hang around other quality families. Not to say they are all perfect, but they definitely strive.

An important differentiation. 

Quote

I'm only guessing what your question is. You can reveal yourself bit by bit, or very suddenly. I prefer the gradual process. Showing signs of psychopathy, of lust for control, of emotional coldness. This is still part of the game though. I want them to feel confused. Also, there is some sick pleasure one finds in showing evil to the innocent.

I hate to say I know what you mean. I think it's revenge; we're angry that we've been "led" to believe the virtue of X and therefore desire to mentally overwhelm them. I think the solution is both humility and honesty with the self. Perhaps you should make peace with yourself (as opposed to jihad) and figure out how best you can serve your future family and tribe (not racial tribe but ethical tribe).

Quote

I don't think I am abstracting. I simply need an abstract frame in which I can arrange the real stuff.
Those are the questions I have been asking.

Good.

Quote

1. You have a problem because you will have daughters. 

My daughters will have me and their mother as examples. I will teach them as you've taught me; they'll learn. And besides, I know they would never "surrender themselves" (sexually, emotionally, etc.) because I'll warn them that that's a sign of manipulation by the bad boy. Perhaps if they experience a bad boy (without sex of course) they'll learn best how to block them forever and that would make their descendants all the stronger. 

I'm not terribly worried because I think they'll be most attracted to guys like me; therefore the trick is to be the best guy I can be.

Quote

2. Well put, nothing to add.

I have read that sexual reward hormones, endorphines or whatever, clear from the body after two years. I can definitely feel that they have, and that helps a lot. But this only means that my desire is not corporal, but emotional. So maybe it is not genetic, idk. All I can say is that control, or power is no doubt very addictive, and I have already tried it, so I can sympathise with leftists a bit.

I think the trick is to humble the self.

Quote

Supposing such a woman exists... One has to have seen a badboy to know a badboy, I think.

And that'd be a good thing, wouldn't it? One example is Stef's wife; he talks about her now and then (especially in older podcasts when he became a father to when his daughter was growing into toddler-hood) and from what I can tell she's a stellar example.

The trick is to find a similar kind of woman while she's young enough to support a big family. Sadly she and Stef were late and barely able to have one child.

Quote

The difference between player and badboy is that the player is no threat to good women, but the badboy is. More often than not, a badboy wears a suit and a tie instead of a leather jacket. The good ones at least. But anyway, yes I agree, I should stop.

I'm going to keep using the words interchangeably. I don't think the distinction matters when they're both on the same spectrum.

I think you need to be humbled, as well as have faith in good women. Faith that good women exist, and faith that good women will know and recognize you based on your actions. If you stop being a bad boy, while continuing to improve yourself financially and morally, you'll eventually attract a truly good woman. You'll know her when I see her, I have faith in that. 

Perhaps as examples you should research the great women of history. Saint Olga of Kiev, Wang Yi of Han China, Margaret Thatcher, and Saint Isabella de Castillo come to mind. They aren't all perfect, but they do emphasize certain desirable strengths that recognizing the existence of them could inspire faith in the existence of good women.

After all; if good men exist, surely good women do. Just don't lower your standard of good men; by definition good men can smell bad girls and avoid them. Therefore good men can never be tricked by bad women because they have moral and mental shields against them as well as wisdom. Likewise good women to men.

 

ADDED: Easy example is the lady who posted "Good Advice For Young Women". I don't know much about her, but I do know she wants to improve herself and figure out how to evolve. She's a perfect proof that good women (or at least women seeking to become good) exist, like how good men (or men seeking to become good) exist. 

[Eugenic]

On 11/5/2017 at 8:48 AM, GatoVillano said:

If you look at FBI statistics, over 64% of rape accusations are false. Women are not even required to provide evidence in court to have a man thrown in jail. We are talking about a situation where someone is not innocent until proven guilty; where reasonable doubt doesnt apply; and where identity politic and mob rule is the norm. Under these circumstances, you believe that the death penalty is just?

Just when proven to be true. I agree the courts have become too unreliable and therefore it'd be way too easy to execute/condemn/etc. the wrong person, therefore I can only argue in the abstract that if X is proven to be truly evil in action that X should be killed. However it is way to easy to frame X for something X didn't do and the courts are too lazy or apathetic to care, therefore I'm tempted to argue for the abolition of the current court system in favor of a new one. How that new one would shape, I don't know. I think the main problem is the culture since I figure once the culture is fixed the courts will be too. However the courts affect the culture and it might be easier to sack bad judges and bad cops and replace them with good judges and cops than to try to fix the culture first.

Quote

Also, who would enforce this law? The government? And you dont believe that the next administration wont use this law to sterilize people who dont have the ''right'' political opinions? If so, you do not know the left.

I already brought up this point.

Quote

There is also the question of natural rights. A person has the right to procreate. A person has the right to his physical integrity. If we are going to throw these rights out the window, we might as well start having slaves again, murder people we dont like, steal what we want, rape for procreation. Because, morality would become a subjective thing that we would apply only when it is convenient. 

Morality is objective by definition. The hard part is determining what is moral. I have only my whims to go by as I haven't read UPB in depth to be convinced of its arguments and the Church generally defers to "because God said so" with those who don't I haven't had the time to research their arguments. 

As to what's immoral I can easily argue, what's moral is what's difficult. I think we know instinctively what's fair and moral since we all have our own orientations, however I can't answer beyond  a certain point why X is moral/immoral to someone without a moral orientation of some kind or another. Perhaps I am simply too ignorant on the subject; perhaps there are no answers and it truly is a matter of faith. 

I don't believe in "rights" since the word has become synonymous with entitlement. I believe in the NAP and UPB to the best I understand them. Bad people violate the NAP when they become bad parents, therefore there is a preventative course that could be taken (prevent them from having kids) but the problem practically is that it'd be impossible to legitimately enforce (except under the best case scenario) and morally it condemns the child for the parents' actions rather then let them make their own choices.

Screwing isn't a right. If I want to screw, I have to convince a woman to have sex with me. 

Quote

And I'll end with this. If our goal is to have a free society and we, for some reason, had to be selective and pick the right people to occupy this society, then it would make much more sense to execute the people who are pro-sterilization then to sterilize the idiots. Because, the idiots do not infringe on other people's natural rights, therefore, the resulting society would be more free.

Idiots infringe on other people when they are given any kind of political power and are much more likely to abuse their children and cause trouble. I can fully understand the argument for all kinds of biblical punishments against the stupid, the problem however is always "who determines who is stupid" and morally "by condemning the stupid in advance we rob them of the free will to act and suffer the consequences". See Venezuela or Detroit for more on that. Unfortunately with the State and with the banishment/murder of the smart/good, they've condemned themselves. Unlike the Orient or Eastern Europe where consequences are more equitable (I think anyway. Perhaps they're severely imbalanced as well but differently). 

Don't speed read my arguments. You clearly misunderstood me since we share most of the same conclusions though through different roads. 

I hate stupid people but I also hate evil smart people. I am not so arrogant as to suggest anyone has the power to effectively differentiate the good from the bad and impartially pass judgments on them based on my ethical or aesthetic whims; I understand this is the foundation for all kinds of tyranny and would result in a whole lot of problems. Therefore my personal moral solution is to let bad people suffer for their badness on their own while protecting and informing the good/neutrals as nature has a way of sorting things out which seems fair though harsh. 

[Superiority/Inferiority?]

23 hours ago, ShindouHikaru said:

As far as this topic is concerned, your post is the only hateful one I've seen. For the individuals focusing on the reality of group IQ differences in this forum, I have yet to sense an inkling of "hate", "intolerance" or "spite". You wouldn't happen to be psychologically projecting, would you? And do forgive my insolent tone. I'm simply doing it to reflect the mirror of spite, hate and intolerance on your side ^.^

Note: He copied and pasted a conversation from other people. I remember reading the stuff verbatim from someone else arguing with another someone else. He said he at least somewhat agrees but trying to argue against what he copy and pasted is kinda...well, you're arguing against the wrong person. Not that you're at all wrong, just that you misunderstood I think what was meant.

23 hours ago, ShindouHikaru said:

You're rather arrogant for a simpleton McArthur Wheeler the Third. It may be best if you didn't stick around. And once more, do forgive my insolent tone and vulgarities. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate  

Edit the above quote. I didn't say that. 

I think the occasional shitposter is actually amusing since it's like the bad guy in a WWE thingy coming out to get thrashed by the heroes.

[Why Bad Boy?]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Fair inquiry. It is actually something that women like to employ when they ensnare men. The badboy is the one that has learned this technique and uses it as a countertactic against them. First, one finds out where the "subject" is from. This is extremely easy. Then one has to learn what they want. These two steps must be taken whilst laying low so that there won't be conflicts of facades later on. As you know, 80% of communication is nonverbal, therefore one relays extremely subtle signals that communicate what the subject wants to see. When you go to a store looking for a red shirt, you will notice the red shirt, all while everyone else may not take notice. What quality women want to see is much harder to portray compared to others, and that is exactly why I like it. Now, this does not mean I am constantly lying, because I actually do have some of the qualities they are looking for. The issue is not there. The sin is when I start pulling the string and making them do what I want, making them feel what I want, and making them think what I want. The worst part is that they think they are the ones who want all that. This is what makes me a badboy.

How do you determine the desired qualities and then begin using them as a bait to manipulate women into doing things?

Reversing the genders for a moment, is it like: first a woman notices a guy comes from an abusive single mom household and desires a stable, compassionate woman; so she acts caring ("tell me about yourself"; "How do you feel about that") and stable ("don't worry about that--I've got it"; "No worries; I understand") to make the guy desire her and then, assuming her goal is to make him give her money, speak as if she struggles with money and work and wishes someone could help her? 

How is it exactly? I am interested in at least as a novelist since I could find it useful. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

The analogy of being drunk is actually pretty accurate. One may not have drunk for a year, but if they still crave it, there is a problem. And I crave it a lot. So much so that I have to completely avoid women my age to avoid trouble. 

Maybe the problem is "why do you crave it?" If it's control, why do you want control?

Personally I wanted control because my life as a child was hectic and ran by incompetent and selfish people, I wanted control so that I could run it (be it a household, a nation, or a family) right. It's both a projection of the elderly around me's faults on the world as well as the arrogance that I knew the answers and how best to run people.

Perhaps there's something similar going on with you.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

My family is high quality, at least our nuclear family. We are of Roman Catholic, middle class, intellectual-entrepeneur stock. My parents never got divorced, nobody drinks, nobody does drugs, and we work on our moral standing. I was born into the quality ranks.

They can't be high quality. They beat and verbally abused you. Which is anti-Christian as well as ghetto/ape-level humanity. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

You are arguing my point. Parents are not the only influence in a child's life. A good girl can (and does) decide to fall for a badboy very often despite being from a quality household. And that is our problem here,

Well, if I was armed and reared correctly I wouldn't need to managed as a teenager and young adult. Likewise arm my children correctly and then I am no longer needed.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

He does give himself away after a while. Not even accidentally. I, for instance, have given myself away either to put an end to the game, or to see their faces when they learn the truth. 

I'd be interested in how that works...

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I'll send you the link if I can find it. 

0.0

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

1. That is important as well. And I appreciate your effort. I think I have largely understood how the mechanism works, though there are some questions remaining. Saying "evolution" is a good answer, but not sufficient for me. In order to break my cycle completely, and not pass it on to my childen, I have to learn more.

I think you're abstracting from the difficult zone to the safe zone. Something I occasionally do, but I think you might be doing it even more so since you think there is value in studying why monkeys through their poop.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

2. There is nothing to DO. Or at least I cannot do anything right now, since I don't have enough information. I am already doing what you are suggesting anyway.

I think you only need two bits of information: "Why do good girls (seemingly) fall for players?" "Why do I want to play?"

I think the first is a matter of you mis-identifying bad/stupid/bad-judge girls for good, and the latter a lack of control during a hectic childhood.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

3. No, WE have a problem to solve as a species. My part is in figuring out why things are the way they are.

I don't have a problem. Any girl dumb enough or vulnerable enough to fall for a player is nothing I want to touch. 

Your problem is that you both like it (I think because you want to feel safe maybe) and dislike it (because you know it's a lie; these women don't actually like you, merely your projection. Also I imagine it dampens your faith in the species as well as the genders because as a man you naturally want to believe other bipedal hominids got your back and that there is a fine fertile female with a brain out there somewhere).

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

It is an addiction. Of course it's hard. I would be lying if I claimed otherwise. And it is also a great hinderance and an energy drain in my life.

I can't sympathize; I've never been addicted to something. All I can do is try to shed some light and perhaps quench your desires.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

1. A lot happened. I grew up when I was 12. Nothing sexual, thank God, but a lot of neglect, emotional and physical abuse from both parents. It is still affecting me today, no doubt. Though they have been making up for it. We were homeschooled for a couple years, my father began spending more time with us, my mother got off birth control. The effort was pretty obvious.

This is what I was referring to above.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Control. There is the problem. I love manipulating people, which means I don't fully respect human free will. And since I am also very good at it, it is a big problem. What makes it a gigantic problem is that there are many like me without a moral compass. And the women are the ones who turn in into a problem that will be the end of us, because they love us.
Personally, I just want to be normal at last. I am tired of feeling guilty, I am tired of being torn in two.

I think the best kind of woman is the kind with clear-eyes and intelligence. She'd see you for what you are and what you're doing; you'd love her for it. She'd probably reject you since she probably wouldn't be able to trust you, and then you'd be the one whose heart is being pulled like a wolf with strings binding him to the white dove. 

Perhaps our best fit is similar in that regard; can smell bull crap, is intelligent, and also is compassionate towards those she likes and loves. 

However I think to find the woman you can't mislead (and therefore feel safe with), you have to stop being a player. 

[Superiority/Inferiority?]

7 minutes ago, ShindouHikaru said:

Wait a minute, you can't be a master of IQ or attractiveness. These are things you're born with. Genetic lottery =/= mastery. No wonder this statement looked weird to me. Sure you can master entertainment but the other 2...

Mastery: possession or display of great skill or technique

Well, I meant it in the "being the best" sense, although I purposely exaggerated when I said Russians are the masters of physical beauty and the Japanese of entertainment because of my own preferences.

If IQ is my ruler for measuring racial superiority/inferiority, then it is most definitely either the Jews, the Singaporeans, or that other city-state.

[Why Bad Boy?]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Ok, I think I have written about this before, but I will try again. 
I know people very well, especially girls. I know exactly what each of them want, and I know I can feign those qualities. And I am best at portraying such qualities that good girls are looking for. And most of the time, I play a better goodguy than the actual goodguys. Here is the problem though: I am still a badboy.

I guess the easiest way to confirm this is for you to explain to me how that works. I have never met anyone that could actually fool me into believing they are one thing when they are actually another. I figure human quality is something sensed more than anything since it is virtually impossible to maintain a false facade for too long. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I never claimed that I don't have moral agency in the matter.

I never claimed you didn't.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

You have misunderstood something. It is not that they are attracted to me and that's it. I always go far enough, just far enough to break their heart.
The only women who avoid me are those who already have good men. But I avoid them too, so there is no case there. BUT if you still insist that good women avoid me, then there is no problem here in your mind, and this topic is closed.

No there is still a problem: you're doing it and it's fundamentally self-destructive. I am not arguing for the girls but for you; I care about you (more than a stranger; less than a friend).

If you are not a drunk calling into AA but a totally self-controlled player, then that contradicts what I recall some pages back about not being able to help or restrain yourself...

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

No, I have mathematically zero low quality people around me. Sometimes I get a few badgirls approach me, but those interactions last about 2 minutes, and are always in work setting.

Either you're the mythical beast that can infiltrate the ranks of the high quality, or you are surrounded by wolves in sheep's clothing. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Seems like you are removing moral responsibility from the children again. One can be a good parent, yet have a child who makes bad decisions. Just as one can be a bad parent and have their child making good decisions. Proof are you.

I am not. However I do believe it impossible for a good parent to raise a bad child; the latter I believe is true if  I count personal reforms because it wasn't my parents who saved me from the dark path I was going; it was a therapist, the internet, and Stefpai.

Of course I don't think the latter is true 100% of the time, I just haven't found the times it is. Like Stefpai saved himself via literature of Objectivism and Philosophy (and probably other things). That wasn't his parents' raising.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

What if I can look like a good guy? You seem to think everyone has a keen eye for people. Also, getting ripped off after signing a contract does not necessarily make you stupid. It may mean the other person is a very good conman and fled to Algeria. Just a possibility.

I guess but I only see it in fiction and hear it from clearly deranged women. I am inclined to believe the perfect sociopath doesn't exist--he'd give himself away after a while. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I have spoken to him once, but the process of getting there was awfully tedious. And since there is a 6 hour time difference, I was absolutely exhausted by the time I got on the line and couldn't discuss much. It's simply not worth attempting with what I have at the moment.

????

I wanna hear that. I kinda wanna know what you sound like... 0.0

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

There is a lot to be said about my father, as it is his genes that give me such tendencies. But even if we suppose it's not genetic, he abused me a lot, so there is a lot there as well.

Yeah, but I can't seem to get anywhere so I've largely given up on the "why" (someone better at this than me must try) and am instead focusing now on actionable stuff.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Sure, don't buy into it. Of course I can help myself. I can do basically nothing, which was my strategy for the past year or so. You don't have to tell me not to make a hydrogen bomb, while all I am doing is asking you how the hydrogen bomb works.

If you're telling me you just want to know why PUA tactics work, then why the hell are you dedicating a few hours a week for a month to conversing about your childhood??? 

I'd be far more interested in disarming the hydrogen bomb and becoming something like a man, and if that includes how you got into bomb making in the first place then so be it, than simply discussing this in the abstract. The abstractions are almost pointless.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

All I want is to know why thing are the way they are with me.
I CAN live my life avoiding problems. Even if I play a few times here and there, it is absolutely not the end of the world, since hardly anyone gets hurt. The issue is my tendency. If I had homosexual tendencies, I would be just as curious as to why I do.

Not being a PUA IS avoiding problems in the same sense as avoiding terminal illness and dick-pencil-sharpeners (for the soul if not the actual penis).

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Stop calling me cracker. I don't know what it means, and that is not my name.

You don't? Basically it's the White equivalent to "nigger" and is meant to invoke the same image: someone who is dominated by their base impulses, a beast (particularly a dumb one since the big N used to actually refer to stupid people in general before it became racial-ized)

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't dick around, as I have already told you. I work, I study, and I only make friends with quality people and girls who are at least 5 years older than myself.

Then you don't have a problem to solve?

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

2. You are doing a good job at getting my wheels turning, but you keep assuming stuff. Which is something I find Mr.Molyeux doing quite often, and it's pretty annoying. Whatever you may have gotten right, I always confirm. It is in my interest to get to the bottom of this after all.

I can't compare myself to Stefpai since when he tries to make connections and perform his awesome psychological exorcism it actually works 99% of the time while 99% of what I have been doing is so far the equivalent to swinging around a sword trying to hit somebody with a blindfold on me and without much experience in swordsmanship. 

If I have actually hit something, do let me know since so far I think I've pretty much hit a lot of wind and trees but no body.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

3. That is the plan. It is hard as fck, but so far I'm doing good. That said, I have to figure out what this thing is within those five years, and then solve it too. One can't be an emotionally abusive arse in a relationship.

What's hard? If you can avoid dicking around then it's not hard, right? Is it hard to resist being a sociopath or is it hard doing the other parts (i.e. aiming for that ambition and making it happen)? I'd assume both is true, although as far as I remember your ambition is to become a college professor and attempt to redpill the mass of European academia, which I think you'll have a hard time doing if you act against your values (i.e. being a playboy is very contrary to Christian values).

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

 

My parents are extremely powerful in their will. Their methods may vary, sometimes being peaceful or forceful, but they like to impose their will on others as well. Both my parents used to hit me, they stopped when I was around 9. 
Your guess however definitely does not apply to my mother, rather my father. I guess my mother had a few words to say about him once in a while, but I wouldn't call it complaining. She was good at taking moral responsibility for her decision of choosing him. He was not though.

Both have been very good parents since their spiritual awakenings around 7 years ago, and they have acknowledged their parenting mistakes; just to be fair. 

I could ask questions like "what exactly happened" but I don't know what Stef would do here. I think he'd shrug and move on since if what you say is true then presumably they spent the remaining years trying to make it up to you and your siblings. 

To sum up: do you actually have a problem? If you're saying you simply have a skill set, then there is no problem. If this is all meant to be theoretical and about some abstract concept of the alpha dog or whatever then this is a waste of time. Where's the meat of the matter? What can I hack into?

[Wise choices for young women?]

1 hour ago, River said:

Hello, Siegfried. 

Kon'ichiwa!

Quote

Very worthy points you've made, thank you very much! Regarding point two about honesty - what are some ways you have learned to trust yourself and your ability to discern the good folks from the bad? There have been many circumstances in my life where I have passively accepted people into my world b/c I needed friendship. Sometimes I think that if I were completely honest with myself and others, I might be alot lonelier. Maybe this is a touch of neuroticism, but it seems rather difficult to develop really good friendships.

Instinct. Really, I don't do very much to discern people since my actions naturally filter out people I might not like and attract those I might. The key is to act in accordance with both my beliefs and objective morality. 

However, to discern whether someone is good or bad as a shorthand, I'd recommend simple tests of empathy (do they make you wait? Do they apologize for things begrudgingly and/or make false apologies often? Are their actions inconsistent with their words? Do they get defensive easily? Do they seem to know themselves and why they make mistakes or project them onto others?) and of character (do they believe morals are subjective? Do they consider themselves entitled to X? Would they tell you a truth that might "hurt" you or lie to cover it up? Does lying come easily for them?). I think these are easily testable, and I'd recommend not dropping people who fail them immediately since they might be like you and not aware they had these problems (or that they were problems), but I wouldn't spend more than a week trying to reach out to people who fail these tests since you've only a short time to bag an alpha. An important thing, I think, is to have good friends before having any kind of boyfriend since they can act as a second (third, fourth, etc.) pair of eyes and perhaps protect you from making mistakes. Likewise you can help them, thereby demonstrating reliability and compassion, both of which are essential for attracting true alphas (reminder: guys with moral clarity, dedication to becoming fathers and breadwinners, self-knowledge, etc.)

I used to be lonely (when I was younger and a Socialist), however that all more or less ended when I started seeing a therapist, getting away from Leftism, and becoming an individual instead of... well, Stefpai's mother might be a good example of what I might have become if I didn't break off the Leftist/totalitarian/paranoid bandwagon that has infested the modern public school system on the East Coast.

A key factor in my no longer being lonely is my separation from false and fair-weather friends and inward seeking of value. I don't want to be the "smart guy", the "handsome guy", or "most likely to be successful guy" by vote of others; I want to be all that by own actions. I've become much less socially needy (i.e. needing of warm bodies) as a result of focusing on my career and bettering myself. I don't have many friends anymore but I can't say I miss them; if anything I feel as if I've made room for new friends who'd be compatible with whom I'm becoming (or more precisely making myself into): a successful man, both financially and familial. 

Quote

Regarding step five - any reason why you suggest Roman Catholic over others?

Mainly because it attempts most strongly to be objective with how its source of morality as compared to being more subjective and local like the various Protestant churches.

...Also because I came from a Roman Catholic background and therefore wish(ed) to discover more about my cultural and ethical roots. Suffice it to say, I have found it spiritually and morally satisfying. 

I can't say I've learned of much difference between the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox Churches since we're pretty much identical except in whether there should one Patriarch (the Pope) or many (the various Orthodox Patriarchs). In practice I consider this more a matter of practical philosophy (i.e. should we have one guy in charge or many?) rather than of morality. 

The strength of the Roman Catholic Church is mainly in its longevity and its strive for rationality; this has provided the Church with the best arguments for God etc. etc. and given us a moral fiber I think the Protestants lack. 

However I do not consider belief in God particularly important, but rather the moral lessons and historic depth the main thing to focus. "Why be good?" as compared to "be good or else". 

I know only a little of the other denominations, though I do know there's a lot of creepy crap going on with Jehovah's Witness and, at least until recently, the Mormons. With the latter I'd note their founder is a man who claimed visions through a hat and became a polygamist. Kinda like Mohammad minus the bloodshed. 

Quote

I always found the Catholic Worker Movement a little extreme, is it at all representative of the church's beliefs?

F*************************************************K NO. 

I only did some research about them just now (since I never heard of them before) but they have about as much representation of the Church's beliefs as the Socialist Party or the Communists does with American or Christian history/thought.

Which is to say some Roman Catholics are Socialists (like the anti-Pope), but they are the exception not the norm. Some of the strongest voices for the Free Market came from the Church, with philosophy, reason, and objectivity being the primary things most historical Catholic priests have been pursuing since the progenitor of the Church Himself. 

Quote

I appreciate that you brought up this point at all, because I find it the most challenging. My parents were very easy on me growing up, tolerating a lot of my mistakes. Public school was a mess and I learned nothing about making proper choices that will ensure a dignified life. Any tips for getting over some resentment about the people/institutions that failed to tell you about how you ought to live? 

Yeah: You don't. You cut out the people that failed you (unless they're selling life and limb to make up), admonish the institutions, and promise yourself and your future husband and children that you will not repeat their misdeeds, and instead strive towards becoming a Peaceful Parent of the Stefanist variety. 

Quote

Thank you for putting all this together, much appreciated. 

You're welcome. All of what I suggest is a personalized culmination of what I've managed to learn from Stefpai. I recommend combing his words and works about the matter for yourself since I cannot claim to be fully sure of my suggestions as I have yet to fully enact them.

Also keep in mind I am 19 with minimal romantic experience. I have some work experience and am confident in what I'm doing, however I would be cautious to take my advice since I haven't successfully demonstrated the lot of it in my own life yet. Especially as far as friends and romance since I've largely focused myself onto my work and am avoiding any kind of romantic or friendly involvement since I don't consider myself good enough or ready for anything long term until I am making six-figures.

EDIT:

This ought to go without saying but, since it's above, don't date guys who drink or do any kinds of drugs; they're losers. Unless it's mandatory for a business conference or whatever I'd treat any drinking of alcohol or taking of drugs as a deal-breaker by itself.

[To join the army, or not to join the army; that is the question]

9 hours ago, _Amadeus_ said:

I used to be hyped about defending the homeland and fighting the bad guys; quite inevitably, considering I live in a country where militarism and patriotism are being infused into your brain since age 0. But since becoming familiar with philosophy, morals, and the way the world works (partly through Stefan), I slowly went from lovin' it to being disgusted by the notion of going to die in some war I'm not responsible for under the influence of shallow propaganda lines about THE MOTHERLAND. So for almost a year the path had been clear: evade the army, live my life the way I want, and laugh about the cattle that took the bait at any opportunity. But now, a few weeks before the enlistment (or evasion) day, I got struck by the idea of joining the herd.

Even today, as I'm being torn between the two options, the nationalism talks remain out of the equation. Do I love Israel? Yes, in a way. I love (some of) the people, I love the traditions that make me feel at home, I love the warmness any stranger here would exhibit, I love the jokes that only Israelis would understand. But god, I'm light years away from loving the government and its artificial forced nationalism.

Well, if you really do love Israel (which is more than I can say for America--I envy you in a way)--which is to say, Israeli culture, Israeli people, the religion, etc.--then you ought to do as you are mandated since, like your father says below, it'll make you mentally (and physically) tougher since you'll be forced to become a soldier without any ability to escape; the experience will undoubtedly be one of the hardest in your life. It could make you much more firm, stern, and persistent (necessary for becoming any kind of successful). It could also make you psychotic (if you take it the wrong way and try to dodge the whole thing and fail doing so) since nobody likes being forced to do something when they hate who/what they're doing it for...

...Which is why I asked if you love the Fatherland (or Motherland if that what you call it). If you do; do it. The Motherland is not the government, even if the government wants to co-opt it. I have no love for modern America nor modern American cultural values (especially the east and west coast values of perpetual youth, child neglect, laziness, drugs, promiscuity, etc.). Therefore if I were drafted...well I'd be damn well tempted to defect (which is so bad a whole division's worth of troops defects annually). And that's why I'd never fight; I don't value America (as it stands). If you value Israel, then you are in a much better place than I am to find the will to stand up to the many millions of barbarians seeking to plunder the silver city on the hill...

Quote

Even if I end up dying in a war, I don't want to be remembered as "a brave soldier who sacrificed his life for the nation". That's not who I am, and those are not the values I'd die for.

Death rate (unless led by incompetent commanders) has historically always been like 1-10%. I wouldn't worry too much about it. 

Quote

So why am I filled with doubt still? Because of selfish reasons. I can't decide which option will make me a better and happier person, and which will accelerate my rotting.

It will if you value Israel and want to be fundamentally challenged.

Quote

As I wrote above, to me, nationalism goes through one ear and out the other at the same second. As a child I used to be "poisoned" as we say here—almost obsessed with the army—and proud of my country. Then I met philosophy, and the idea of serving politicians gradually lost its attractiveness to me. I swear, thinking is such a disadvantage when it comes to going through military service. If I were POISONED, I wouldn't let doubts about morality and long-term benefits disturb my motivation.

But if you actually value Israel, then it isn't just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It's real.

Quote

I guess there are 3 main concerns in the equation aside from ideology: health, experiences, and finance. My mom tells me not to do it because I'm physically unfit and the risk is high. My dad tells me to do it because 'I gotta experience different things in life'. My brother (who's currently a soldier, though not combat) tells me to save myself this waste of time and from any interaction with that retarded system. My sister says if she were I, she'd try it, and that I'm not so productive on my free time anyway. My heart tells me to do it, my body tells me not to, and my brain is confused as fuck.

...I'd ignore anyone who is exempted from the draft or combat (I know women are also expected to fight but I doubt they recieve the same treatment nor responsibilities as men). I don't know what kind of man your dad is. Would you like to be like him when you grow up? If yes, then follow his advice. If not, then discount it. Although I think he's right. It's not common for a millennial to know what struggling is (even a welfare-raised one).

Quote

As for finance, starting to work as a waiter now, and possibly making a good bitcoin investment sounds quite attractive. I don't have any desire for higher education right now and I don't know if I'll ever go this way. I'm passionate about classical music and I want to compose and play the piano, whether professionally or not. I do have musical talent which I'd developed until the end of elementary school, and then dropped it (played several wind instruments and excelled at them compared to the rest of the school). I'm nowhere near studying for an MBA or something, though, it'll take several years to develop the needed skills for that. BUT, it's important to remember that in order to achieve financial success there are traits you need to have, such as persistence, discipline, mental toughness, stress resistance and so on. Especially in the entrepreneurship sphere, which I am into (but haven't done anything worth mentioning to step in it—I truly lack those traits!). Keeping in mind that the army trains you in these areas, perhaps, in the long run, serving would be the financially wiser choice.

Would be willing to spend the rest of your life in front of a piano or a wind instrument? If yes, then you've found your means of making money. The next step is to test whether anyone would pay you (significantly more than minimum wage) and if not, what to do to get there.

Quote

Some billionaire whose name I forgot said that whenever he needs to make an important decision, he asks himself: "When I am 80 years old and I look back at my life, will I be happy I decided to do it? Will I regret not doing it?" And often, it is what we didn't do that we regret the most.

The Art of the Deal by Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America (I think. I remember reading something like that).

Quote

I don't know. I sure as hell would regret becoming a cripple, but I would also regret rejecting this opportunity and then just continuing to rot.

Anyhow, I'm now going to sleep and when I wake up I should decide. This is the last day I've got. This day is history.

The chances of becoming a cripple or dying are low. Unless the IDF has a bad history... I doubt you'll lose life or limb even in active combat. 

Therefore, if you love Israel and want to be hardened, I recommend serving. If not, I recommend emigrating to Russia. 

Either way you need to work on your passion and make money off it (like piano if that is in fact your lifelong aspiration).

[Superiority/Inferiority?]

3 hours ago, ShindouHikaru said:

How exactly can you prove these two things? 

Russian attractiveness: Use Yandex and Russians will appear more often in search results, also models like Nastya Zhidkova and Ariadna Majewska come to mind (the latter is Polish, but close).

Japanese Entertainment: Video games. Especially ones like Persona, Nobunaga's Ambition, Final Fantasy, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean, Disgaea, Dark Souls, Dynasty Warriors, Harvest Moon, Ogre Battle, Dark Cloud, etc. etc.

 

[What is the Ugly?]

From what I understand you are subjectively determining that which is free is beautiful; and from there beauty can be objectively measured based on how free someone or something is. 

I suppose beauty is objective if based on something measurable. Freedom is arguably measurable, if freedom is defined as the ability to do things. 

Of course being able to do things has a certain responsibility inherent to it; if I am a King, I have certain freedoms allowed to me either by my constituency (be they noblemen whose power is based on their landholdings or wealth, or like the Polish Kingdom wherein every noble was lawfully equal in their say of whether the King may do X or Y or Z) or by my vassals loyalty in carrying out my orders (like theoretically against the noblemen or other restrainers of political power). 

If I abuse it I am likely to be overthrown and lose that freedom I once had; if I am responsible I may be entrusted with more power and therefore either have greater potential to abuse or greater potential to do good. Like say by abolishing the tax system and making the monarchy a publicly funded charity which is responsible for governance similar to Stef's theorized D.R.O.'s and C.D.A.s or at least by greatly reducing the taxes, and thereby in both cases sparking another golden age (perhaps at the protest of those who do not realize low tax= moar money for everyone in the long run). 

I would not hold freedom as my standard for beauty; rather I would hold being morally correct and consistent as my standard for beauty. As a Roman Catholic and an AnCap, I am in most favor of those who use their powers (be they King or free citizen or parent) responsibly and correctly based on principles. I may not be erotically attracted to Stefpai but I do consider him "beautiful" by the standard provided. 

Of course a woman (who doesn't have obvious physical ugliness) who is also moral and responsible is highly attractive to me, so theoretically if Stefpai were a woman he'd be the thing I'd kill for because he's a pretty great guy. Too bad he's a guy...

... However, speaking physically, I think beauty has some objective value simply because the cock is always right (I think) when determining women's fertility and reproductive capabilities. I'm sure 'ginas are always right too since most hot guys (though usually bad) would have great traits for surviving in the jungle (but not a modern society or civilization).

So unless one orients one's sexuality (perception of beauty) to be in accord with morality, beauty isn't a helpful marker since it could be good or bad depending on a litany of things.

[Understanding Germans]

13 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. This is part of what I don't understand about Germans. I don't get how they can be so productive in some sense, yet completely destructive in others.
4. Good point. A military is authoritarian by design. There cannot be a non-authoritarian military. Same goes for a state that is run by the military.

Well, a mercenary or militia band is a non-authoritarian military since they're formed voluntarily. Of course most non-guerrilla groups have the same basic man-in-hat shouts, man-with-rife does format. But in the cases of mercenaries and militias, they're voluntary (until they start forcing people to join them or whatever but I'm speaking about them in principle not necessarily in practice in a hectic situation). 

Quote

1. Calling Belgians French is far worse than calling Austrians Germans.

 

AUSTRIANS ARE GERMANS!!! German is the big umbrella that encompasses all the German-sounding and German-speaking (plus genes and all that) peoples of the world, which includes Volga Germans, German minorities in America and South America, "Austrians" (Eastern-Realm-ers), and of course the imprecisely defined country in Central Europe.

...Just wanted to call you out on that.

Quote

2. Fair inquiry. All this relates to the migrant crisis in essence, which is something that completely baffles everyone and not only me. But the outcome of the last Federal Elections has only confirmed that I know nothing about Germans. Americans are pretty straightforward. They recognise the problem, they identify the solution, and they run with it. Whereas all that I see of Germany is that they are sitting in the muck without much effort made to getting out.
Hopefully this addresses your questions.

   ...

Poland in 2001: Hey, let's go left!             Hungary in 2006: Shall we try left?              Germany in 2009: How about left?    Germany today: How about left?
Poland in 2005: Literally anything else...   Hungary in 2010: Not a word of this again.   Germany in 2013: How about left?   (Disorder probably genetic by now)
Poland today: What "left"?                      Hungary today: Soros?... why you asking me? 

Isn't it enough to say Germans (In Germany at least) are currently suicidal and easily cowed into voting for whomever they perceive as the moral/martial authority? 

EDIT and ADDED: I think AnCap will be build-able once three key principles have become firmly rooted into at least 10% of the populace: Peaceful Parenting; Libertarianism (i.e. pro-Free Market , Small Government, and Isolationism); and either U.P.B. or Roman Catholicism. 

I don't think it matters whether it is a monarchy or a republic; once a sizable portion of the population is firm and dedicated enough in the pursuit of these three things it will, either though financial power (like the Jews in founding Israel), geographic power (like the Americans founding the U.S.A.), or through simply working/politicking itself into political power, establish an Ancapistan which will necessarily be governed by D.R.O.'s (reminder: free market police) and protected by C.D.A.'s (reminder: mercenaries comprised of the local populace) until the rest of the nation is "converted" or "naturalized" into the system of freedom. 

I think a monarchy is more like achieve these goals since it could be a long-term plan of a founding King or Kaiser to prepare a populace through a multi-generational process or at the very least through its aristocracy, to whom AnCap should most appeal,  and the fact that monarchies are not mob-ruled and far more likely to build back up and sustain a moral fiber and dedication from the populace, which is absolutely necessary for anarchy to come into existence without being quickly demolished by power-seekers.

[What is the Ugly?]

The fact that every example of beauty vs. ugly can be described either way by someone or something explicitly implies beauty is subjective. 

Like warmongers love seeing lots of weaponry being used up in an empty dessert and the country he's selling to losing lots because it means more of their weapons will be bought and used in a potentially endless cycle. 

However to those who value peace and hate the machinations of the anti-human, it is very ugly.

Of course beauty and ugly do have some objectivity insofar all beautiful people conform to some degree with the Golden Ratio and many beautiful buildings conform to either the Silver Ratio or the Golden Ratio (the former being common in the Orient). 

However I do not think the topic particularly insightful since it can be easily summed up as "anything can be pretty/ugly to someone or something".

 

[Superiority/Inferiority?]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

I like to think of apple trees, if you grow an apple tree from seed from a commercial apple, it has a high chance of going back to something like a crab apple tree. The commercial apple is obviously better for people to eat, though the crab apples are more numerous and less strain on the tree, can be more widely eaten by animals or used to make jam. Objectively(consciously from shear weight of number) the crab apple could be said to be more successful in passing on its genes, with or without human intervention and grafting from more commercially viable scion apple wood, however to even be able to conceive of success in an Objective way the "I" relative or absolute to the world the phenomena of consciousness is required. 

Basically the apples we eat as humans taste better but aren't as easy to make or feed into domestic animals like crab apple trees. Meaning the one that's superior is the one that's best fit for the consumer. Right?

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Maintaining a higher IQ imo would be dependent on a few things. 1) Brute force processing power, the downside being larger brain, larger skull, require larger hips.

Dats some nice traits to have y'know. Dem wide hips in particular...

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Interesting as you can contrast this difference between Norwegians and Swedes. Norwegians have broader shoulders and hips due to the demands of the terrain, where as Swedes are more slender. Swedes are also more Entrepreneurial (IKEA, Volvo, Husqvarna and SAAB).  

Are Norwegians smarter than Swedes? IQ wise? I think they're about the same. Though if Swedes actually are more entrepreneurial and slender, I don't assume they correlate, though I do assume intelligence and entrepreneurial-ness does. Of course whether it's "objectively" smarter to risk the family farm in starting a business or not is hard to say; presumably the smarter folks would be better able to weigh the chances of success as well as carry themselves to success.

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

2) Fragmenting the individuals psyche relative to a group(leftists and the dissolution of Ego consciousness) thereby offloading processing power. However, also the sense of personal identity and any individual success. I believe there are various methods of allowing fragmentation occur in order to increase IQ. 

I think the aristocracy might be an interesting way to fragment the better individuals from the group. Although they becomes groups themselves and mellow out after a while...Making it kind of like a rollarcoaster that goes up and down within a certain window.

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Were Neanderthals superior to Homo-sapiens? They had larger brain capacity, better cold resistance, were stronger, superior eyesight, superior tools earlier on. Yet became extinct or interbred to extinction with homo-sapiens. One theory I remember hearing was that homo-sapiens were more social and thus better able to adapt as a group. Go team.......

Well, it is a sign of higher IQ to be able to organize a group and be able to make best use of the group's members. I wouldn't call that collectivism since I'd figure collectivism would be "each man of a given class (think vocation, or in the video game sense o the word) is disposable"  versus "each man of a given class has a particular thing they're best at doing".

An interesting opening of an idea but without answers. 

My assumption is that the smartest peoples have both a strong sense of group as well as individual. Like an army that treats its soldiers as interchangeable doesn't fare as well as an army that has each person do what they do best, and maximize any special talents (like being able to forecast the weather, exploit terrain, spy on the enemy, etc.).

[Superiority/Inferiority?]

@ofd Not at all what I was getting at. Rather whether X race can be argued as superior or inferior. 

I think the short answer is "yes", and depending on which metric I use (as well as whether I value one end or the other) is who is superior or inferior to whom or what.

Like Singaporeans are the masters of IQ while Russians are the masters of attractiveness and Japanese are the masters of entertainment. Now the last two things I know are objectively provable!

Although on the issue of adaption, the idea that all races are equal can be substantiated if the metric being used is geographic suitability, since most (or all living) races are fit for their given lands though some are more flexible then others (at least when helped by technology). 

[Sauerkraut and Kartoffeln]

The fun theory that Stefan Molynuex and Peter Molyneux are secretly brothers spirals in my mind...

I mean, Peter made the rather fun Fable games which were my introduction to modern WRPGs!

And Stefpai made a lot of arguments and shows that introduced me to philosophy!

Hard to say which Molyneux is more impactful...

Hmmm...

(Just kidding, Stefpai ;-D )

[To join the army, or not to join the army; that is the question]

My answer is simple: join the army as is mandated if  you love Israel, the Jewish religion, and wish to fight anyone who'd dare provoke the Jewish people and the Israeli State.

If you're like me and are very uncaring for one's own country due to personal and moral reasons, then begin planning to emigrate to someplace that is closet to what you believe in morally and will allow you to live by your morals legally. 

I can tell you right off the bat the military won't fix any psychological problems you have (chances are they'll exploit them for their own gain and make you dependent upon Mama Armiya). You may value the martial discipline (if Isreal has it), or you might totally reject it. I'm sure it'll make you a man though, since at the very least it'll force you to stand up for yourself and not be able to hide or run. Doing what you are mandated to do might actually help you in terms of pain resistance and tolerance for failure.

If you don't want to join the army for it's 3 year thing, then I recommend doing what you can legally to avoid it or emigrate. Don't waste time learning things that aren't economically productive since the whole point of being a man is to one day have a family. The sooner you're ready to do that, the better (FYI I am 19, and I don't see myself as being blessed with time to screw around--I got to be self-sufficient by 21, middle class by 25. Then I can look to marriage and all that. I suggest you see yourself in the same light; as someone short of time and with a general plan to proper manhood by 25).

The key to not being lazy is to fundamentally enjoy and take pride in what you are doing. I love and take pride in writing novels. I was very pleased recently when my mother read my big novel that I plan to publish and so far very much love the novel, it's characters, be interested in the plot, and understand the subtler themes behind it. 

If you think I have any wisdom or want to share more about the practical aspects on becoming a self-sufficient man (or woman? I realize now you haven't explicitly said you were a man, although I assume you are) then please email me at [email protected]. 

Look inward for a passion, especially a passion that corresponds to a talent, and then learn to love that passionate talent and forge that into a skill. It helps if it something you've been doing since you were little (I was writing novels since middle school since school bored me to tears and I had a lot of notebooks to fill, giving me ample practice and peer feedback).

I think once you find your passion, you can start charting the necessary steps towards achieving it. I think you should avoid the army unless you love Israel, the Jewish nation, and the Jewish religion. If you don't love Israel then do what you can to avoid it. I would never hold a rifle for the current American government, since I do not consider our government just nor our wars moral. However if, under alternate circumstances (like America protecting Europe from the migrant crisis and not fighting other countries' wars and elongating them etc.) then I would join willingly. 

[Why Bad Boy?]

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

1. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are mistaking me for Don Juan again.

If you are saying you have animal magnetism I simply don't believe you. Otherwise... well, I suppose you'd either have an undiscovered STD or be the test subject of many sexologists.

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.

A good girl isn't hard to figure out. She's someone who is both wise and of good behavior, as well as possessing a strong sense of right and wrong, plus empathy and compassion. It's easy to tell if someone isn't a good girl because she's lacking these traits.

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

As for my friends, they are good, and I am not up to debating that.

If you are seriously the object of lust of every woman since the age of 14, I don't know what to say other than "so what?" It takes your consent for anything to go anywhere. 

I also don't understand how being hot and being attractive to women makes the women horny for you necessarily bad. I get erections all the time for bad women but I don't pursue them... 

...And I am sure the case is true when a good woman/girl sees you gets wet and instinctively avoids you. 

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

3. You are missing my point. There are certain things in life that no words can replace as teachers. And it is hard to imagine a girl being wise without experiencing those things. The things I mean are the following: Birth, death, hunger, thirst, poverty, plenty, work, boredom, love, hate...

4. It is not about sex, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. 

I never said it was. I said you're clearly someone with a huge complex and having a mental civil war. I'm sure lots of people sense that and that leads to being surrounded by low quality people (which includes bad girls, which by extention includes "good girls" who are actually bad girls but come off as good to you. I wouldn't trust my ability to discern good girls from bad if I had a tendency to assume X girl is good when she does some "unforeseeable" evil some point later) who want something from ypu.

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

5. You don't know that. Either way, they are already familiar with my type, that is true.

If their daughters are into you (in your current state), then they failed as mothers most likely because they married older versions of you. 

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

6. You have to define trash girl to me better. And you cannot do that by assuming that only trash girls are attracted to badboys, because if that were so simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The entire point is that they are not trash girls.

It really is that simple. Good girls by definition are only attracted to good guys (and can separate them from bad guys--I'm not going to try defining varying levels of bad guys since I frankly consider it a waste of time). 

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

7. You suddenly went waaaay off this time. I don't think I am ready to discuss this with him. 

Considering the magic he's worked in the past as well as the kinds of people he's helped (which include truly pitiful souls) I think you're being awfully cowardly.

Given I haven't had a show with him (yet) but my excuse is that I have no privacy--all my neighbors would hear me.

You mentioned your father was like you; perhaps that means something. I am inclined to throw in the towel on theories since I'm much more inclined towards practical and actionable steps at this point.

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

8. Well, the congregation happened this week, and I am not sure whether I want to be proud of myself. This was the first time I played in over a year, and I was far too successful in the bad sense. I can't not play. Even if I am not playing, I am still playing passively. 

For Christ's sake I don't buy that crap at all. Either you're basically like my dad (oh man, I just can't help myself...) in which case you're beyond saving, or you're delusional (perhaps as the result of your childhood, seclusion in a church perhaps, or something else entirely). 

Be a man and stop screwing around. It's that simple. All this really comes down to self-control and self-control is REALLY EASY since it involves YOU controlling YOURSELF. The brain in the body bag moves the levers; not the body itself independent the brain!

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

The good news is that I had a very lengthy discussion with my mother about it, and she gave a few important answers. My father is definitely the one whom I take after, as he is the one who simply walks into a room of strangers and has everyone doing exactly what he wants in minutes. One thing in which I differ is that I only aim at good girls. With everyone else I am absolutely normal.

You don't. You aim for bad girls that seem good. You aim for sociopaths. Stop doing that.

On 10/27/2017 at 9:21 AM, Mishi2 said:

Another issue is that I am not exactly convinced that it is immoral, though in my conscience I know it is. That is so because most of the time it leads to nothing. I get what I want, (which again, is not sex nor praise), and I move on. 

You said it was praise some pages ago cracker...

And you know it is immoral to dick around and waste yourself. You have a whole progeny to think about. One wrong move and you may as well shoot your semen one at a time. 

I give up on trying to figure out why you are the way you are (even though I know it's important) since either I am simply too ignorant of psychology or you don't know yourself well enough to confirm or deny my theories (or both). 

My simple solution: stop screwing around and actually make something of yourself. Once your're able to financially support a family of 5, then you can start thinking about women and who to marry. At that point IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE as noting whether she has compassion, empathy, and wisdom. Because that's what good women are: kind, compassionate, empathetic, wise, smart, and morally clear. Basically Stefpai with a 'gina, breasts, and a butt. 

[Wise choices for young women?]

1 minute ago, Mishi2 said:

Hi, River

I really want to save you some time by recommending Catholic Answers on youtube or catholic.com for anything relating to christianity.
You will find your answer there. They host a call-in show as well.

You will find some christians here on FDR, but people here remain mostly unconvinced about religion.

Tell us when you managed to call Mr.Molyneux!

@River I have a post above waiting moderation. I'm directing this to Mishi...

I've been watching Catholic Answers lately; I am endlessly embarrassed about my ignorance of my own religion and heritage.

Thank you for suggesting it some months ago! 

[Understanding Germans]

As a German who is a 4th generation immigrant (also known as a naturalized American), based on what I know of my family history, I can certainly piece together vaguely why my noble ancestors from Walheim abandoned their decaying county for the land that recognized property rights and civil liberties above all else. 

I think Germany is due for another civil war. Unfortunately my cousins have a history of being as thick-headed and simple-minded as the average caveman; he'd rather be burned by the fire he invented then try to tame it. Perhaps once the German ethnicities have gotten their act together and reformed like the Russian ethnicities did, I can look across the ocean and see my ancestral home as something true rather than something fabricated.

I don't have much more to say of the situation other than my opinions are prone to change. At one point I was a Communist; another a Fascist; then something in between; then a Libertarian; then... I guess I stopped following groups and instead embraced philosophy and Roman Catholicism to help me find answers to hard questions. My answer individually is to gtfo of Germany and wait for it to inevitably spiral out of control then move back in once the fires have stopped burning. Unless you, a cousin German, truly value Germany, then Germany is not worth fighting for. It was founded on force; let it end by force; and be re-founded by principle and live by principle like America has largely until the present day; where Yugoslavian-style ethnic conflict appears to be a path we're walking down--however we can still avoid or at least mitigate it, though personally I can't say I value my nation or it's current culture as much as I do my historical ethnic nation of South Germany or the cultural sphere of Roman Catholicism and Stefan-inspired-and-conceptualized AnCap and Philosophy, which isn't contingent on the continued existence of the American Republic. 

Conversation with you and learning from you has largely transformed my political preferences towards monarchism. Although I consider AnCap the ideal, I believe monarchism to be practically the best way to get there (as it respects the rights of land owners and fosters long-term planning and keeping relative to mob rule and short-term planning/living) combined with a personal commitment to growth and peaceful parenting. 

[Wise choices for young women?]

As a younger man who is essentially practicing this guideline for himself, I will attempt to make a simple list for young women that may or may not be doable depending on whether or not my knowledge of the world and being a woman is remotely sufficient. 

1: Recognize what your talents and weaknesses are; if you're great socially but tend to be susceptible sexually or emotionally to dangerous men/adventurous girlfriends, then consider going out with a friend you can trust to watch your back and pull you out of danger. Perhaps your social skills can compensate for what this friend is lacking. Discovering what you're good at and what you're weak on is fundamental to humility, since the whole point of being humble is to recognize one's own stengths and weaknesses as well as the strengths and weaknesses of others'.

2: This may be more true for men than women, or easier for men than women, but I'll recommend it anyway: be straightforward and honest. Speak your mind and hang out only with people you fundamentally respect. Don't talk to people you don't care about or consider low quality. Talk to people who are honest, direct, and also considerate. The last point can be hard to tell from others at first; I recommend simply asking existing friends and acquaintances for favors and gaging their reactions. If they're happy to be of help, then be helpful for them and you've got a solid proof for empathy and consideration (not perfect but a start). If they do it grudgingly, consider them work partners only. If they flat out refuse or be totally unreasonable, cross them off. 

3: Work with what you like. As a woman, work is fundamentally a temporary thing since your real career is being a wife and mother. I don't know what your finances or skill set are; if you've got a marketable skill, then use it to make enough money to live comfortably but not so much that you can be the bread winner (because you'll wind up being the foundation materially for your future family instead of your man--and that's a problem because pregnant women tend not to be great workers and working mothers tend to make bad mothers. Your man needs to the be the bread winner if you want even a decent family). In exchange you have free time to focus on yourself (mainly your strengths and weaknesses; what they are, how to work with them, and how to improve/mitigate them. 

4: Turn on your man radar and look for an alpha (defined as being a guy with ambitions who is making reasonable progress towards achieving them, isn't afraid to speak frankly to a pretty woman, and is capable of becoming a good, compassionate, and wise father). This might be harder said than done as you have to become an alpha woman yourself. Arguably an alpha woman is a woman who is straightforward; honest; intelligent (or at least wise); considerate; empathetic; motherly; and brave (especially brave in the face of disapproval and conflict, but not so much as to go actively seeking for it). 

5: Figure out what's right and wrong. If you don't know, considering the Roman Catholic Church or UPB (or both) as a starting point. Argue with yourself why X is wrong and why Y is right. Keep doing it until you have a very clear sense of right and wrong. 

If you do all this you should start off overwhelmed but becoming progressively happier and happier until you're as happy and morally strong as Stefpai. Man (and I assume Woman too) is naturally numb and/or pained when he isn't doing what he instinctively knows he should be doing; improving himself, his character, and his life. Figure yourself out, be honest and open (but not with bad and dangerous people obviously--they don't deserve it), work in a field that is fulfilling and brings pleasure (with the ultimate goal of pretty much retiring it all at 20-something and becoming a full time mom and wife), locate an alpha (guy who is actively self-improving and working to build a family and has a clear sense of right and wrong as well as directness and honesty), and perhaps most importantly: have a sturdy foundation for what's right and wrong. 

Do all this and see yourself making your life better than perhaps you could have even dreamed.

[Philosophically interesting games]

Ogre Battle: Person of Lordly Caliber (made in 1999 I think for the N64); Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together (made for the SNES, PS1, and some other contemporary systems in 1995 and 2000); Valkyrie Profile (1998 or 2000--forget the year of release--for the PS1); and pretty much every Harvest Moon and Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Nobunaga's Ambition game. And Persona. Pretty much 1-5 (especially 3 and 4) are all solid psychological and philosophical games. Metal Gear Solid (I only played V: Phantom Pain but I think the others might also be deep). 

Ogre Battle was a game I played quite a bit growing up, and although it takes place in a world themed somewhat around the Balkans and the interference of foreign powers in dictating the life of the region, it is a very Japanese game thematically. While playing the game, the player is tasked with taking towns, winning battles, and eventually overthrowing the vassal-state of the Holy Lodis Empire in the name of independence and civil liberty. One very subtle thing about the game is it's "Chaos Gauge", which essentially measures whether the player is a heartless warmonger or anyway-the-wind-blows-type and deaf to the very subtle existence of this hidden mechanic (which is only revealed at the ending). Basically to be good is to stand up against the mob mentality of the Revolutionary Army and to focus on liberating the towns by sending men of a similar character and culture to them (represented by an alignment gauge which measures "Law-Neutral-Chaotic" on a spectrum--with the first essentially being conformist with the last being rebellious, with both good and bad traits to both) as compared to sending anyone and ignoring the resistance and conflicts between the army and the populace.

It also touches more abstract themes like the corrupting of the soul via war and power or vanity, as well as more earthly themes like hierarchical systems based on birth or race as well as more practical themes like foreign empires who believe themselves incorruptible and just colonizing and meddling politically with weaker nations, as well as the cynicism of those who have lived through these machinations contrasted with the heroism of those willing to stop it. 

Tactics Ogre is similarly themed but with a greater focus on personal choice affecting the storyline. It is premised on the ethnic conflict of three very similar races ("Walsta", "Gargastani", and "Bacrumese"--loosely based on the Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats) and how that war is continued and sustained by two foreign superpowers: the Holy Lodis Empire (the same one in the previously mentioned game--the events taking place around the same time) and the Kingdom of Zenobia (which was the Kingdom re-founded by the player in the very original and less philosophically interesting but still fun Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen). The Lodis Empire and Zenobia both claim a desire to end the war but appear to have very selfish and cynical reasons for not simply storming in and taking charge (which they easily could) or getting the F out (since they're not helping anyway). Also themed is the strength of those with religious (clearly Christian but not obviously stated) idealism against the cynicism of "realism", and the idea that to sacrifice one's morals to achieve an end never actually works out and always backfires. 

As the young Leader of the Walsta Liberation Army, under the Duke Ronway, you might be tasked with committing war crimes in the name of "the ideal" and "peace"... And of course, committing those crimes will backfire. While standing up will almost certainly mean a temporary excommunication from one's own ethnic group. Right and wrong is clear to those with Christian (which is the correct ethics to hold for victory in the game's story) but hard for those without them (which makes the game a very fun and interesting moral challenge that is unlikely to be won the first time). 

Not to mention the many endings based around whether you the player can successfully unite the 3 races, eject the foreign powers, and manage to keep them from killing each or assassinating you after doing so. 

Valkyrie Profile is themed around recruiting fallen warriors for the army of Asgard in the endless war against the Vanir up until the End of the World (Ragnorok). Seemingly simple at first--recruit fallen warriors, explore dungeons and exorcise evil spirits--it becomes very deep once you realize that your whole identity is shaped by the will of Odin and his clan for the sake of his own power and glory over mankind (Midgard). Actually freeing yourself from your fate as a de facto slave of Odin, and that you were actually once a mortal woman, is something hinted at by the opening cutscene and some remarks the end of the game, but is otherwise easily missed on a first playthrough. 

Not to mention each recruited fallen warrior has his/her own backstory which often has moral conundrums of their own; like a mercenary who enjoys battle but also wishes to provide for his weak and sickly brother; a samurai who is committed to fighting evil and curing his sister's blindness but fails to recognize his own weakness and selfishness; a soldier who blindly fights for his warlord until eventually he refuses to fight against the father of a peasant he killed shamelessly; a mage who experiments on the dead to further his own magical power; a mermaid who loves a sailor even; a university student who is a bit too adventurous... 

Quite a lot in one.

Harvest Moon simply involves building up a farm and a family, but I find it to be a very spiritually and morally satisfying game since it involves grit and planning as well as empathy and care (for both the cute livestock as well as the fellow villagers). 

Romance of the Three Kingdoms (1-13, though I recommend 8,10,13, and 4 the most) and Nobunaga's Ambition all involve a dramatic retelling of history in which the player plays the role of either a warlord or a vassal on a quest to unite the country, however the dramatic interactions and religious-moral themes between the more famous characters is certainly quite deep and satisfying--especially playing them as a kid growing up.

The Persona series is essentially a psychological thriller series with lots of fun RPG elements. 3-5 involve being a high schooler (in Japan of course) with varying conditions; 3 involves being a lonely orphan meeting some rather colorful characters and their own interesting backgrounds; 4 involves being a city kid moving in with his country uncle policeman, who is sadly a widower, and also the father of a little and lonely girl; 5 involves being falsely accused of assault and having a bad criminal rep (as a result of trying to save a woman from rape by a politician) and going through a high school year as an outcast (compared to being somewhat popular in 4 and anything from non-entity to Romeo in 3). 

They all involve characters of varying backgrounds helping each other overcome a vital character flaw and defeat a big immoral bad (which itself is themed on whatever the game is themed; from cynicism and depression (3); isolation and anxiety (4); or unjust authority (5). can't say much about the older games since I haven't played them yet) and grow themselves. Overall I'd say they're all interesting games with good moral lessons for kids (except 5 in some areas).