Siegfried von Walheim

The main problem with polygamy, just speaking practically, is something like this: Assuming 1 Man 3 Women, then either the 3 women need to have really low self-esteem (and therefore become unlovable since they aren't virtuous as a result of selling out virtue for male access) or the 1 Man is so great he's worth 3 decent women, in which case how can he really enjoy the company of women who are only a third his own value (as a person--however this'd be measured I don't know for sure). Now with polyamory it simply can't work. The children will be scarred and the parents will have minimal care for them since they're more interested in cheap orgasms than great cataclysmic ones capable of only being experienced by those truly in love (and in raising children of course). Morally; both are disgusting but not evil (unless there is children involved) since both involve either 1 or some low number of persons aiming low or a group settling for a piece of a pie rather than a whole (and as a man I find women willing to settle for pieces somewhat of a turn-off, unless it's a piece of god in which case it's somewhat understandable but I can't see myself doing the same in the reverse). Polygamy is a bit more complicated since if the sex is kept discreet and the partners involved are faithful to each other with each other, and they are all somehow able to raise lovingly children that isn't theirs (which presumably means only 1 man can be the father of the children since I don't think it is possible or mentally healthy for a man to raise another man's children while women have evolved somewhat to raise other women's children, although I'm sure it'd still be a challenge both mentally and spiritually), then, if all these high standards can be met, it could maybe work as a 7 out of 10 (1 being Hitler's childhood and 10 being Stef's daughter's childhood) at best. Of course as far as the West is concerned, either is another blow against the family (with polygamy only being possible when there are far fewer males than females perhaps as the result of a terrible war or plague), though I doubt the West can take much more without vomiting and going into emergency room.

I was typing up a reply. Here is an excerpt. Does this make logical sense? I am saying that X can be objectively measure, but whether or not it is of any value is subjective, and therefore X is subjective. Is X subjective? Like I might not value the theory of relativity (because I am entirely ignorant of it) yet I'm sure (?) it can be measured. If it can be measured and clearly defined, it's objective, right? It's the value part only that's subjective, right?

I realize my ignorance of science, and perhaps of debating, when you expose how simple it is to actually define science and...well, the list of things that were talked about that I deleted to shorten my post. The first definition I would have given is "the study of reality", however I think that is more general than science since before the 19th century there were "natural philosophers" that functionally did what scientists did. Or they didn't. Honestly I know little of science and had little patience for learning back when I was in public school. However it also means I can't define science from pseudo-science except by differentiating them based on whether the theory holds ground in reality (or more particularly the conclusion if I cannot understand the premise), which would make it "science", or not, which would make it "pseudo-science" I suppose I'll need to study Buddhism more, since from what I know it's a hierarchical system in which a bunch of enlightened rule eight or so tiers below it and view the world as a struggle and attempt to forge themselves like metal into something strong, usually by just killing their ability to feel pain. Also I would figure Confucianism would have more hold of China, and Shintoism or Japan, than Buddhism, which I suppose might only be true for Ancient China and post-Edo Japan respectively. If superior is defined as better, and inferior as worse; then if your metric for defining the quality of a race is by it's aggregate IQ, then by definition having a higher average IQ makes a race superior to one that's lower. However I'd argue X races are superior based on having a greater culture and tendency towards libertarianism and cultural nationalism rather than ethnic nationalism. Breaking it down to people; assuming all else is equal, guy X being better at piano than guy Y makes him superior unless piano skills aren't the thing of guy Z. Superiority and inferiority are subjective unless measured relative to something. Which might make it still subjective given whether or not A is valued makes all the difference of whether or not it's "objective" or "subjective". Although if I defined piano skills as the metric for human superiority/inferiority, then it would be objectively provable that John is superior to Johan because John has mad-piano-skillz and rocks the crowds while Johan can't differentiate a piano from a pancake or a toilet and repels crowds. Or John is superior to Jacob because he gets slightly more of an income for his piano playing than Jacob (should I use income of piano playing to determine superiority of piano playing, which itself is my example's standard of superiority/inferiority). Or, to be more concise, superiority at something is objectively provable given a standard, and if a bunch of people are statistically higher on average than another, then that people is superior to the other people so long as what's being measured is of value to the measurer or judger. Which therefore makes superiority/inferiority subjective. Yet also objective... I think this warrants a separate discussion. Therefore my argument is that... Races (and people in general) can be defined as superior/inferior relative to a given standard, which itself is relatively valued based on the preferences of the judge. Like Jews could be called the master race if IQ is the standard because they're the highest (I think), and similarly so are the Singaporeans and Hong-Kongese (I think--this or another city). However this is all only if IQ is the metric by which races can be measured. It all depends on the metric as well as what on the metric is subjectively defined as optimal, from there an objective measure can be made. NOTE TO MODERATOR: I might have pressed quote a few too many times. Will submit now to see what it looks like and then adjust accordingly. (Please delete this sentence before releasing)

EDIT*: I thought of the question as I was answering--not a smart thing to do, as my starting position contradicts my ending one. I [Don't*] think it can be morally excused to sterilize those who commit heinous crimes and have horrible guaranteed genetic disorders, but the problem is less in the morality but the practicality; who tests people, who sterilizes people, and who decides whether someone is "defective" or "healthy"? Chances are it'd backfire horribly. If a government handles it...well, need I say more? If a private organization handles it, then unless a government moves it and makes it de facto government-handled, then people can choose voluntarily to sterilize themselves. But then people can already do that. Sterilization for committing heinous crimes like child abuse, rape, or worse is only plausible if the crime itself isn't considered bad enough to warrant the death penalty. And while petty criminals and people with an IQ below 90 or 80 could be argued as potential candidates, due to high likelihood of becoming criminals, it falls under the same category as "who decides/handles it". Not to mention it's awfully deterministic. Anyone can live morally if they choose to, and if the means in which low IQ and bad people can do bad (welfare, government favoritism, etc.) are removed, then chances are the problem solve itself since people who live immorally in a free society won't be able to sustain their breeding habits or those unfortunate to be born of them. And if it's really bad (child abuse and the like) then that's what the D.R.O.'s are theoretically for. Therefore, the argument for sterilization, can only be pragmatically sustained if one could argue for some kind of benevolent super-state--which is extremely unlikely to happen let alone last--to rule over the populace. As for the moral argument...I can't say for sure. On one hand I think those born of low IQ and/or criminal families are pretty much guaranteed a crappy childhood and a photo-copying of their past; while on the other hand if that were totally true then I might as well cease to exist since my background is one where, in most cases, the vicious cycle of child abuse and degeneracy repeats. I suppose I'm against sterilization because it punishes the children for the crimes of their parents. If the parent did something horrible, there are other means of punishment. The child can, if raised under better circumstances and/or makes use of free will, become something far better than that which proceeded him. And if he/she doesn't, then he/she can suffer accordingly for his/her crimes. And in a free society probably be selected out of genetic existence without the need for any force whatsoever.

I've got more above but adding a meme at the end delayed the moderation process by another day. I didn't notice this part... I think you'll do fine so long as you scare yourself enough. If you're afraid of being predatory then I'm sure you won't be, so long as the fear comes from not wanting to harm or do evil rather than merely fear of consequences... ...Although fear of consequences could work functionally, I can't imagine being able to sleep at night if all I lived on was fear of consequences rather than fear of immorality.

I've got the literary world (in particular fiction and realistic epic fiction) in my sights!! Once "I" am out there, I'll be more than happy to highlight "I" and begin the cultural war in the literary world. Disclaimer: "I" is not me myself or I but rather an author who wishes to remain anonymous. I am just sharing his/her existence and once he/she is out there I will be happy to give the web address on where the good books are being sold.

Most likely a cvil war. Whether it lasts a couple weeks or a couple decades or somewhere in between depends on how badly the government is handling itself and how hot and angry the various Spanish peoples in the provinces are. I'd extrapolate this prediction to include pretty much every non-Russian Western country. Heck if you're an American like myself, the safest thing to do is go Mid-West near Colorado or Utah because anywhere else is bound to be deadly once the crap hits the fan and Civil War II comes along. If you're an American and wealthy or European, I'd recommend spending a decade immigrating to Russia since they seem poised towards survival and prosperity as well as ethnic brotherliness rather than ethnic conflicts.

Girl gives signal; dog plays tricks and stick a fern up his anus; girl is pleased. Girl praises dog. Girl grants sexual access. Dog wags his tail and says "now youse soiled B-B-itch!!!" I can't think of anything to ask, other than tell at this point. How you think/feel has far more in common with abuse victims and abusers than the general world (which includes abuse victims), and oppositional to me in many ways. I know I'm not hot stuff, but I still would rather be the one giving the signals and determining Yea or Nay rather than the puppy that attentively seeks to please women "for revenge". Of course my track record of admirers is mostly Indians, a few Orientals, and an Arab. None of which were exactly 7's or above in any spectrum. But then I was in High School and a fanatical Communist... CRACKER!!! Good girl= BY DEFINITION seeks and smells GOOD GUYS!! Otherwise she's either stupid AF or not really into good guys and is therefore a slut!! Come on! I said this a million times now! (maybe I didn't but I am going to). Cracker: Good men= By definition attracted to and smells for other good men. You have admitted to being bad, therefore all your friends are either idiots or not good. Except any therapists or clergymen you might know since it's their job to reach out. Cracker. See above. Cracker. Lesser women swarm your dick like metal on a magnet. Come on...you know a woman's gotta be worth something if she isn't into you. Mine's an 8, but any number above a 0 is a tragedy. I don't know what I'm failing to convince you of. ANY GOOD DADDY IS TEACHING HIS KIDS THE WORLD BEFORE SENDING THEM INTO THE WORLD. If he doesn't he's just some coward or sadist who doesn't give a crap about his kids. I know. You're attracting the pond scum and repelling the fine fertile female goddesses who smell you and smell swamp gas. The reason is because they instinctively smell who you are; someone who is internally conflicted and waging a war against himself. High quality girls don't waste time with guys unless they think one small push is all that's needed to set them right. And even then I'd wonder since she could probably just bang and marry the reincarnation of Donald Trump Jr. or Stefpai because those are the kinds of guys high quality has the hots for. Any girl that wants to have sex with you (in your current state) is a girl who is by definition cheap trash and has to be banished with all kinds of crosses and sutras until you manage to overcome the demon within and make peace with the part of yourself that you hate. Once you stop your jihad, you'll finally get to square one on the long road of becoming a decent man. ADDED: That P.S. is a direct reference to how Stefpai said that's how his wife would react. And probably did in front of him in some context or another. The point is that quality women smell deceit and falsehood like how wolves smell rabbits and want them as dinner rather than as baby makers--that honor's reserved for fellow K-selected wolves. Because the moms had sex with older versions of you. Because they're low quality just like their daughters. Because their husband/daddy IS YOU! Well, that's still way the Great Khan is the epitome of human thunderstorms. I think you have to figure out why you have this addiction to being every trash girl's poodle (because your seeking affirmation and praises is far more similar to a parade dog than a lion or a wolf seeking to build a clan/family) and make peace with the "Bad Boy" within--understand why he evolved to be a foundational part of you and how he served your survival in childhood. Perhaps your parents neglected or didn't praise you enough and therefore praise by bad girls makes you feel better. Perhaps you're like that crazy Russian girl in that one call in show who slept with guys in exchange for the cuddles she never got as a kid! Perhaps this time I've struck a cord with you. If I haven't, it's back to the drawing board. Please petition Stefpai to appear on his show. If you want answers, Punished "Philosopher" Snake is the way to go.

Because Hitler isn't known for being a traceable ancestor to 6% of the Asian population. Genghis Khan's seed really made it into quite a lot of flower beds!

Why do you enjoy pleasing women so much? It sounds less like you're a bad boy but rather a naughty dog. Simple: by resisting temptation and making something productive instead of mere momentary pleasure. But I assume in hindsight you already get that. The thing I'm trying to do is locate the origins of your sadism so that you can no longer feel pleasure in "defrauding high quality women". I also suspect it might be merely a combination of cynicism and misogyny. If you're used to seeing "nice guys finish last" and "seemingly good girls dump good guy for bad guys", then it's not hard to see why you'd want "revenge". I think you'll stop wanting revenge once you fundamentally get that there is no such thing as randomness; the "good guys being dumped for bad guys" are either not good (but merely appearing good to you) or they're incredibly stupid/irresponsible and being led by their candle sticks. Likewise the "good girls who cheat" aren't good; they're either clitorises reacting to whatever wind might blow them in their direction, or resource-seeking penis-climbers trying to bag whatever they can before eventually cashing in on a beta. Then you must realize good guys and good girls--though rare--exist. If you'd make the mighty effort to commit to becoming a good guy, and do the things necessary to become a good guy, you'd realize at least that good guys exist. Since good girls are by definition attracted to good guys, you'd see more of them too. Cracker; if you want the perfect woman, become the perfect man. Otherwise be willing to settle on certain aspects. I am of course aiming for perfect (honest, intelligent, forthright, rational, has a strong sense of right and wrong, fine fertile female), but I'd be willing to compromise on some of these if the others compensate. Like a woman who is plain and shy but rational, honest, and intelligent could possibly evolve into someone who has strong convictions, be philosophical, and forthright. Also any good Daddy makes sure his daughters (and sons) are street/man/world savvy. Otherwise he is by definition NOT a good Daddy! Just because a child loves his parents doesn't mean he's right. Of course if a child hates his parents, he's always right. P.S. : You know a girl is at least part-way quality if she laughs at any handsome PUA's attempts at gaming her.

If you were born with a penis, you are male regardless of how much you want otherwise. Similar for girls to guys. I think transgenderism results from the huge sexism against men (in particular) and the unhistorical expectations towards women (to be like men and do manly things). Personally, I wanted to be a girl when I was a boy. Girls had it so much easier than boys and were treated like goddesses while boys were treated like shits-that-don't-deserve-to-exist. This was the feeling I got from attending public school all my life. Many young boys (elementary school age) stated out loud they wished they were girls and wanted to be girls, and one even attempted to make himself a girl by attempting to pop out his own testicles! I think if even 1% of males in public schools feel this way, then surely .0!% will actually act upon it and go through surgery and hormone treatments to make themselves as girly as possible to make being a girl as real as possible. However that does not change one's gender. Even if all the parts of the car were taken out and replaced with parts of a boat, the car is still a car (especially in human's case since brain transplants are still impossible and I doubt it's possible to have functional sexual parts made/changed). Therefore I think the best cure to gender dysphoria is therapy. Sit down, talk with a reliable guy, confess your past and your innermost pains, and then attempt to recognize what caused the pain and find some lessons to work with from there for healing. Gender surgery because life as an X is hard is like shooting oneself in the head because life with a constant migraine or anxiety is hard; a very permanent solution to an otherwise temporary problem.

I don't think it is possible to peacefully partition America. The ethnic groups in America, unlike in Russia (unless one counts the Germans whom lived there for centuries till being persecuted and displaced during/after WWII) or Bohemia, are living amongst each other in various densely concentrated packs all across the continent. If we were to partition the Fatherland into smaller parts, how would we do that and who would live there? Blacks have the highest concentration along the East Coast, Los Angeles, and the South. Does that mean all these places ought to be seceded as "Blackia"? With the "Hispanics" (if we're going to pretend they're one big race) would they have the whole American Southwest (California except Los Angeles to Texas)? Okay. Then what about all the White and Asian folks? Do Asians (Orientals to revive the word) get San Francisco and that's it? Do Whites pack up their bags and move out to the sparsely inhabited Mid-West? I doubt the peoples being displaced will move without a fight. Unless an overwhelming central force is directing this, I think this attempt at new Apartheid will result only in a massive civil war that divides the country along ethnic lines (for non-Whites) and ethical/ideological lines (for Whites and some non-Whites who are of a kind) and chances are the Fascists or the Communists will be the victors since I doubt any kind of Right-wing school like Capitalism or Christendom will win out. The only way to avoid civil war is to enforce the law equally and damn anyone that gets in the way. Once the nation's faith in the law is restored, I am fairly certain the worst has been averted. Then we'd have to fight the slow and creeping decay that all Democratic Republics naturally follow (due to their nature of favoring the lowest common denominator's whims over any intelligent or moral few's). Therefore I recommend we either pack up our bags and go Galt by immigrating to Russia, South Korea, and similarly stable/safe countries or build up our bunkers and try to become Duke Nukem Solid Snakes capable of being of actual help to whatever radical group happens to be the least bad in the upcoming civil war. I'd rather not see my grandchildren slaughtered by Communists or used as pawns by a vainglorious power-seeker. Unless we get some well-meaning individual intent on establishing a Christian Monarchy, then the country is pretty much doomed due to its flawed design. It's like trying to make Communism or Fascism work. It never will. Therefore, go Galt and lend your/our talents/skills to countries with a bright future like Russia, Japan, South Korea, etc. etc.

As a 19 year old novelist who is both working magic and discovering quickly that the mainstream route is suicide, that's pretty much my goal (to make my money, or in my case my product, work for me) and my long term goal (is to eventually be making a passive income off my works so I can actually be a father to my future children). Luckily any poor kid with creative talent and a willingness to dedicate regular time to making regular progress, and also access to the internet through which to study things like philosophy and Christianity as well of course for possible self-publishing and self-marketing (and studying all that and whether A B or C is best to do or not to do), can make a good living as a creative professional of some kind or another. The trick, as far as I can tell, is actually being able to accurately gauge my own competency and also being able to discern good advice from bad advice (in terms of what to do with a finished product). Writing is something I've been doing as a hobby since I was bored to tears in middle school, and considered making it professional when one of my classmates became practically addicted to what I was writing at the time in early High School. Of course I changed a whole lot since then--which I'm sure is for better personally, and I would assume for my professional work as well but I might be wrong--and am cautiously optimistic about my long term prospects. I am very glad the internet (and Stefpai in particular) saved me from taking the magnum bullet of college and possibly becoming a Democratic political talking head who does the Devil's own work, or shell-shocked at the age of 26 about how in spite of all the debt I've accrued I knew virtually nothing of practical value.

This is a surprisingly interesting topic... I don't think I have to argue why fapping (I may as well make it general) isn't immoral nor is it moral. Above posts have made that case. On the other hand it is interesting to explain why it is actually good for young people (males especially) as a protection of sorts against bad women (or bad guys in the case of women--but as a man I'll be focused on our perspective. Perhaps it's different for women or actually very similar--I don't know). What I remember from that interview was that guys like myself who regularly fap to increasingly high standard and occasionally bizarre stuff have a much higher threshold for being aroused and magnetic to the general fertile female population. While in a steady relationship that is going to mean less sex, it also means having to judge a woman by her actions and her personality more than her sexuality and whether or not she'll put out on demand. By fapping our way into the holo deck (that thing in Star Trek, I can't recall in much detail, but basically lets its users fantasize in real time whatever they want) we are much less likely to be dick-napped by bad women and much more likely to be disgusted by them. On the contrary since we are much harder to arouse by the common woman, we can instead base our romantic relationships on values and personality instead of on sex (which frankly is impossible to not base a relationship at least unintentionally on because men naturally desire to blow loads of semen on women they think are hot, and when desperate; anything remotely female). Therefore I figure by making harder for us to become hard, we protect ourselves from bad women and make it possible to judge women in general the same way we judge men: by their actions, their personality, and their values (as well as whether their actions are in accordance to their spoken values, etc. etc.). P.S. I can't say I know much about the porn industry, I never watch porn since the stuff is always crap and unappealing compared to better acted movie/show sex scenes and best of all; hentai, which is generally perfectly acted and much more emotionally involved and stimulating. I'm curious if anyone else thinks similarly and whether or not my theory "Fap Away the Harpy" has any practical or real world affects (that are positive). P.S.S. Japan's low birth rate isn't necessarily a problem: they don't have to out breed a low IQ "minority" (like Europeans and Americans do) and they live on a highly defensible archipelago (which the English have taken great advantage of throughout history). Once their old folks die off and their economy de-socializes, I'm sure things will pick back up and they will have another golden age. Heck, I'm tempted to say they have at least a "silver age" given their practically non-existent crime rate, amazing culture, and first world living standards. Russia is more or less a similar country in these aspects and one I think ought to be looked up to.

Values are subjective. I base this on the fact that peoples all across the world and throughout history have had conflicting values. Jesus valued all life and desired to save it while Genghis Khan valued only those that could put up a fight. Christianity values individualism (at least in its core, I can't say about the offshoots and sects) over collectivism while Islam values the collective and the constant war against oneself over the individual and peace. Democrats value power in the now over power in the future as well as collectivism while Republicans (supposedly, given the number of Rinos) value Christendom and individualism over collectivism and socialism. Since not all people can be right (because everyone has a value that is polar to someone else's), values must be subjective. Morality is what is objective (otherwise it is merely preference), though the hard part is defining what is moral and right without simply going by gut instinct. Answering the quote: most people value their blood over "genetic superiority" (I put in quotes because it is in of itself a subjective value)--meaning even a genius would most likely value his average intellect son over a genius boy of a similar age.

I don't have to look far to find EXTREMELY hot and fertile women like Uldouz Wallace who exemplify "better wrapped up than unwrapped"--I think if anything the wrapping itself can be an r-selection vs. K-selection signal. Women like Wallace would have a hard time not attracting men simply because...well, bing/google/yandex her to see why. Appearance-wise I'd argue K-selection isn't easily found because women who aren't downright ugly (like obese or with a monstrous face) are always at least a little attractive regardless of what they wear. Factor in kinks and some guys value hose, blouse, and pencil skirt over tight tube dresses or skimpy shorts and crop tops. Maybe those kinks have a "selection" value--perhaps being attracted to "classy" styles like the blouse + long/pencil skirt combo is more K while the crop top and shorts is more r. Or, they're all fundamentally r because they only give an appearance which implies personality rather than demonstrates it. However, contradicting myself, I think K-r can be reasonably discerned visually. Perhaps a K-selected woman is, in appearance, someone who cares about what they look like to ensure they appear well-put and self-disciplined but not so much that they are basically boner magnets. However again, there are limits. A woman who doesn't care at all about appearance would most likely lack self-discipline (by being fat for example) and would most likely have all sorts of negative traits by association (neurotic, possessive, etc.) while a woman who cares too much (to the point where they look sculpted and carved out to be boner magnets) could be too vain, superficial, and perhaps downright stating visually that their mating strategy is to trap a man with their hotness and then rape him of what he's worth when she can't seduce him any more. Therefore I think K-selection is a balance of the two extremes; neither ugly (unless by genetic misfortune, such as an ugly face or bow-leggedness etc. etc.), nor insanely hot but rather a "right" amount of hot which requires a fair amount of self-discipline and implies both a willingness to please a man physically (but not so much that that's all she's worth) while still having time to spare to invest in more intellectual and spiritual pursuits, and/or practical stuff like housekeeping, cooking, or whatever professional thing she's doing. Basically a K-selected appearance would be the girl who wears stylish clothes that aren't too provocative but attractive enough to please a fiance and signal self-confidence and a self-love. ...Yet again though, I'm not too sure. Beauty is much more important to a woman than a man after all. And lots of traits, both good and bad, are signaled by an excess or shortage of beauty. And natural beauty is tricky in its own right since having a lot of it might be r because Daddy preferred the hottie but also K because Daddy might be a millionaire businessman. I think you're over-reading hairiness versus hairlessness. If anything having too much hair is r selected because rabbits will screw anything while wolves will only mate with the best. I think it far more often for high quality (resource-wise) men to mate with high quality (character + body) women than with lesser (only body or only character) women and for high quality women to select other high quality men rather than settle for less. However character trumps beauty and the power of beauty can corrupt and lead to men/women being more r-selected than they otherwise would be, making the signal itself being not much to go on. No/less hair can be good since it's more attractive and therefore implies a better gene (k-selected) pool, but it can also be the luck of the genetic lottery that a pair of rabbits managed to pop out a hot she-wolf instead of another plain rabbit. Or I'm way off and still in grade school as far as beauty and selection goes. I just think that top-tier alphas (body + character) would pursue other top-tier alphas rather than settle for only body or only character. I'd rather look good and be good at the same time. Of course I prefer character over body, but that doesn't mean I'm going to select against beauty if all else is equal (although admittedly all else is seldom equal unless one happens to be a lucky or self-made top tier alpha).

Wow. Thank God, Stefpai, and the other great YouTubers and activists of this age that I dodged the magnum bullet of college! Also thank God my particular genetic lottery winning is in something that doesn't need to pass the gatekeepers of success thanks to the internet. As someone who is probably the most junior here (and ironically shares the same of the OP spelled differently), PLEASE spread this word and post as FAR out as possible! I can only speak for my neck of the woods, but as a rule, if the internet or free-ish market can side-step the traditional route in any way, DO IT! No need to take forty lashes for nothing.

Before I go any further: I made a second post which was modded out of existence. It recognized there was a post of yours I missed ("Siegfried...Your posts are coming in very late") and basically I'm thinking you're not assigning moral responsibility to your parents because you excused both of them in that post. Email me if you want quicker answers. Ask them straightforward questions and wait to see if they give straightforward answers. Also, notice how vain they are. My generation wasn't taught how to date; just how to mate. I can't say I'm surprised that girls are as clueless as guys. I'll definitely be catching up in the call-in-shows. I just finished the Menendez and Weinstein ones last night. Can't say I felt any differently. The thing was, I really distrusted women in general and had no friends. I started slacking in sexual standards once I started becoming humbler, and lost the desire to white knight once I realized why I was white knighting... ...Then I had a black knight problem. Which was fixed when I realized good girls, like good guys, do in fact exist. It's REALLY hard to believe sometimes, but they do. I've heard guys really have no power of picking up girls and in reality it is always the girls that choose to bang the guys. May be true, may be apocryphal. Either way, I'm starting to think maybe you have a need to feel powerful and in control while in environments you have no control in. Like dating: you can only control yourself and give yourself the illusion of controlling your date. I understand. That gift runs in my family too. Perhaps we should become Kings...I mean, being a good judge of character is really all that's needed. ...Until I discover I'm not so good as I think I am. Better make sure that doesn't happen by keeping my eyes open. Then it was his wick. Or you simply didn't know him well enough. Or both. Not saying she's blameless, just only half the fault. It's easy once you know. It's a mystery while still in the Leftist Modernity Matrix of Eternal Hedonism and Long-winded Acronyms (LMMEHL)

All right. Can you think of ANYTHING in your past that would cause you to like defiling quality women? I doubt it's simply because you're half-Mongolian or whatever. (Not saying you said or think that--I just can't help but get an image of Genghis Khan asking why he likes conquering the world so much...) Not what I meant. I meant if men in general wouldn't bang low quality women, half the war would be over. Then you will find hundreds of men braver than you merely speaking into a microphone without a face on his Call-in-Shows. I get it--it's awkward, and very vulnerable. However that's not really any different than here--except you keep abstracting away from yourself. I don't think understanding abstractions will get you any closer to self-knowledge. If it did, wouldn't you already know by now? You're right. Except I doubt he's a good man. Either he's secretly disturbed in some way, or he has bad judgement and therefore married with his wick as a tick. Alphas: JUST LIKE DADDY (assuming I live my life as I intend to and maintain my self-discipline and desire to evolve instead of what most guys my age do--clock out or live with the expectation of dying tomorrow) Bad boys; they dodge personal questions, attempt to portray themselves in ways bigger than they really are, they care too much about their self-image, they shy away from the truth and deep, meaningful discussions, they manipulate and act like they're something special, etc. etc. It's really easy to point out bad boys and other low-lives. It's hard to find and attract the high quality. I can't say I'm "high quality", but I do believe I'm "high quality in progress" which beats half the male population by far. Simple: by showing examples. If enough women were to demonstrate what it means to choose right versus choosing wrong, and popularize it via the internet or (hypothetically) the MSM, then women all across the world would be changing their behaviors overnight. If you want that to happen, you must start with yourself. Become a high quality male, find a high quality female, live happily and fruitfully, and them BAM. A perfect example of what it means to do good and live good and how that's far superior and preferable to being bad. The hard part is actually doing it. And I know you know that--hence why you're trying to open up and get someone to dig our your inner poop and replace it with gold. All I can ask, that might set you on the right direction, is: WHEN and HOW did you discover your fetish for debasing "high quality" women? Perhaps the key is when you first discovered your kink for being b-b-bad to the b-b-bone...

Nope. As a console peasant my entrance to Japanese history was Samurai Warriors at the age of 7-8 and eventually the Nobunaga's Ambition series by Kou Shibusawa. That particular example I remembered from Nobunaga's Ambition Rise to Power, in an event scene where Nobunaga, after clearing the way, enters the Capital with the wannabe Shogun Yoshiaki Ashikaga. I strongly recommend Nobunaga's Ambition Sphere of Influence to anyone wanting to play something that combines history with expand, exploit, and diplomacy gameplay. A "bad boy" is generally any "rake" (i.e. a hot good for nothing) with a wick. What you're describing is far more personal. I assume the reason is because you either want to get revenge against bad women by "debasing high quality women" or want to "step over" your father. \ I think trying to find out why the "manipulator" gene exists is like trying to find why the "killer" gene exists; it's case by case. Therefore instead of trying to abstract it, I recommend you zoom the camera back onto yourself so we can make this more productive instead of merely theoretical abstraction. Basically. I think you're not really "living" unless you have some greater goal and a willingness to live for it. I think you not having much of a motivation to live without Christ or a grand ambition is tied to why you manipulate women. I think you either fear women because of something involving your father, or want to get revenge because of something involving your mother. I'd appreciate if you opened up more on this account since I can't tell if my shovel is hitting metal or gravel. That Sabaton song "the Last Stand" comes to mind... Well, the Kaiser was quite dependent on his commanders who, from what I remember, did their own thing while the courtiers poisoned the commanders' reputations in an effort to prevent any rebellions by, say, Generalissimo Wallenstein. It goes both ways: don't fuck tramps, and you do half the work! Instead, breed like crazy with super fine high quality females. Unless you yourself happen to be low quality, in which case you need Self Knowledge, therapy (either by a religious professional or a secular one or both), and mindset reformation. Perhaps Stefpai might be interested in having you on his Call-in-Show... Short answer: there was more going on than you knew or either of those two were letting you know. Men and women may be irrational, but we aren't totally random and crazy. If they were truly good and stable, there wouldn't be any adultery or whatever. Nothing comes from a void...remember, you can only know yourself and your future children 100%. You could also learn about your future wife 100% too--if you pay attention and are sensitive to the signs people emit subconsciously. Not saying that's easy or obvious; but I think it can be learned with wisdom.

All I can say: very interesting. Reminds me of how when Nobunaga Oda marched on Kyoto, because the city itself was a war-weary wreck, he explicitly forbade any kind of harassment be it rape or theft, and the punishment for any lawbreaker was death on sight. Perhaps it's a perversion of "aggressiveness". Theoretically aggressiveness can be bad via "banditry" or "modern day gangster" while it can be good via "hard-nosed entrepreneur" or "Stefan Molynuex". Not to mention, it isn't all women who get the wets for the bandits. Nor all men who get the hards for the tramps. Each race and culture has a different ratio of K's to r's and my assumption as to why no race is 100% K and 100% r is that everyone has at least some predisposition to r/K selection, genetic mutation, and of course the Free Will which determines what might be "awakened" from an otherwise dormant gene. Like if a K dad beats his son, the son might have some repressed r genes awakened. However a son born of an r family isn't "doomed" to always be an r--he can evolve beyond that. Like Stefan Molyneux who otherwise would have made an interesting gangsta-rapper (ever see him in a beanie with sunglasses? Lol). And I reverse that with the mindset Stefpai introduced me to: The Universe only matters BECAUSE we exist!!! Who cares if the existence of one man is merely but a memory compared to the age of the universe?? Either we wait ourselves to death and be content with what little we started, or we dare to risk, dare to live, and make something of ourselves so that at least our descendants can remember us! --To paraphrase Nobunaga Oda, who faced the possibility of either marching to his death or being starved to death in his castle when he was being invaded by the Imagawa Clan. Guess what: Neither happened. He rolled the dice and made one of history's most daring surprise attacks and successfully killed Yoshimoto Imagawa and drove out the massive enemy army, eventually leading to Nobunaga becoming the de facto Supreme Ruler of Japan until his assassination at the age of 49, shortly before his birthday. And now every Japanese knows him, 500 years later. Not to mention Ieyasu Tokugawa who'd eventually end the Warring States Period and bring about 3-400 years of peace. The Tokugawa Clan, and even Nobunaga's direct descendants, remain alive and active in the world today. I personally can't stand the "man is so small" viewpoint of the world, when clearly man has the potential to be so great and magnificent. I'd rather, to make it personal, fail in my dreams of becoming a financially successful author than never have made the attempt. If I succeed, I become minorly famous and wealthy enough to support a large family. If I fail, then it would be no different from if I had simply waited to death, except with the bonus of a much stronger and more productive character. The last part certainly makes sense. Bandits are the new Soldiers, Deadbeats the new Heroes. It's like the Late Roman Empire: we either got to shape up or get beaten by outsiders into shape. Therefore we must do what we can to wake people up and make the plane landing as soft as possible rather than a hard crash.

Where do you learn all this stuff? I mean, I know most of this stuff from collecting a whole of lot things here and there. I'm interested in where you learn about the way soldiers/nobles historically lived/behaved. My assumption is it has to do with the R/K thing. The Badboy is the Bandit, not the Soldier. When the soldiers are fighting in the fields, weren't there bandits hitting the supply lines, plaguing the villages, and, more broadly including criminals in general, living in the now and not really caring for tomorrow? Genetically the advantage is merely in numbers. One man can impregnate hundreds of women per year, although children born of such conception rarely lived to adulthood, enough would live for it to be viable for genetic reproduction and survival. That last thing: what do you mean you learned "[I learned] there was no point in living early on"? May be something relevant to it you hadn't thought about.

I am tempted to agree with you. However I think the older the contract, the less validity it has since all contracts are meant to be (or at least have to be in order to be fair and relevant) re-addressed and re-made on some regular basis. The American constitution was made to be thrown out after 20 years, and was originally intended to be continuously changing and evolving to suit the demands of the educated and landed peoples, with the assumption of course that those same peoples would retain their WASP and Christian values. However I think the Catalans greatly lose from seceding in the long run, since I think it'd be better for them to get over their minor ethnic differences from the Catillians and instead evolve with them as fellow Spaniards and follow ideals and values over mere blood ties.

Hey man, I'm just some 19 year old guy on the internet. Also @Mishi2, I failed to put this in the post above, but I think I got ahead of myself: I'd appreciate it if you answered these few questions since they'd help me and others help you shovel your mound. 1: What exactly is your relationship with your father? Specifically your opinion of him and your big memories of him. 2: Same question but with your mother. 3: Same question but with your siblings. 4: Do you feel/think your dual-ethnic background might be a complicating matter in terms of the way you see people from both Hungarian (or White in general) and Mongolian (or "Oriental" in general) racial groups? Like maybe you look down on them, or are more attached to them, or some mix of both? 5:What theories do you have about yourself already? You might already be close to the truth of the matter, and I think it'd help everyone if you laid down some facts for reference and/or your own trail to truth. @Everybody Else: Please add pertinent questions of your own if you think they're warranted or could be helpful. I am after all just a new man on the internet.

'Erro! EDIT: Evil misclick=anger clouds my judgement. At least my response will be more succinct. I know he has had two particular call-in-shows that come to mind. Number 1: a PUA who had massive social anxiety as a kid, around women especially, and Stef dug out that his mom divorced his dad and took him to the cleaners for everything he spent decades working for. Pretty clear why the PUA enjoyed manipulating women and avoided commitment. Number 2: a married Spanish or Arabian man (sounded something along those lines) who had "compulsive affairs" and considered his wife like a nun relative to the whores he defiled. His considered his dad a "weak man" and feared his mother, leading him to be like his mom towards his wife who was like his dad, and similarly had affairs like his mom. I think you think of your father as a weak or lesser man, especially in regards to his family life. Therefore you seek to be greater than him as an "alpha" male. Likewise you are arrogant in regards to world and see people as merely robots, without recognizing your own robotic tendencies. Warband is fun for the battles and conquests, not the post-unification. Either way you are getting dopamine hits from being with women and being like a favorite puppy of their's, for some reason. I can't say for sure but I think the place you want to focus on is your father and your father's relationship with his wife, his kids, and you in particular. Dopamine hits and all that. Whether you pursue cheep trash, femme fatales with rings, or damsels in castles, it's all for dopamine. The question is why do you seek the dopamine in the first place? Chances are it's because you don't get it on your own, and it's like taking drugs to elevate yourself to what for most people is normal, and when you "crash", you realize how painful it is to be merely a body bag without anything to be particularly proud of and have to be fruitful in a seemingly barren world. I get that. I didn't understand why I had such a low opinion of myself even though I'm relatively handsome, very intelligent, very studious, wise beyond my years, possessed of great self-discipline, and a writer of millions of words until I realized why it's "never enough"--it's because, I think, I don't (or didn't) value other people. I failed to follow the Christian principle of humility: recognition of both my strengths and limitations, as well as the strengths and limitations of others', as well as assigning to myself the same moral agency and responsibility I assigned to others--no more, no less. When I was a Communist I had high standards for others and low for myself; as a Fascist I had high for myself and low for others; now as a Truth Seeker and Logic-Facts-Arguments-And-Reasoning Lover I am coming close to balancing my standards and making good on my values versus simply holding or preaching them. I recognize myself as a highly talented young man, in spite of his tough upbringing, who has the potential to really do good for himself, his future family, his future friends, and the world at large, so long as he does what he considers necessary to become the man he wants to be: a reliable, honest, wise, six-figures, middle-class, father, husband, and champion of his own values and virtues and somebody who continues to grow rather than shrink, as well as brings new life into the world and imparts upon them the lessons learned through both wiser men and women as well as experience.