Siegfried von Walheim

The first thing that comes to my mind is how awfully deterministic this idea that God dictates our actions, and how suggestive that is of the morality of God, and therefore there is a substantial burden of proof on your part to establish that God essentially is the dictator of human action, and therefore human beings are mere puppet of God's mental whims. Besides the truth value, I find this idea to be both extreme dangerous and toxic. If I believed everyone's actions were the dictate of God, then I would never assign responsibility to others nor myself, for we are all objects of God's imagination, and therefore the only bad guy is God for making human existence so needlessly complicated rather than an eternal orgy of happiness. If I believed this, I must not take living very seriously, for what am I but a fish in a tank? A puppet on a stage? Why should I bother to affect reality if my actions and the actions of others are predetermined? I may as well just mindlessly "live" and "let live". I don't know if this is your intention, but from what I understand of this theory, human action is entirely driven by the whims of an outsider and therefore determinism.

"The world is an unfair and unjust place; we are ruled by the whims of tyrants and power-seekers. Sometimes our tyrant is a decent man seeking to protect us from other tyrants; other times he’s a lunatic hell-bent on destroying his own Kingdom. Either way, man exists in spite of the Kingdom, not because of it.” -Ernst Drucker,

NOTE: I am not a father, nor am I a father to be. I am far from becoming a father let along a husband or boyfriend, I'm too busy building he nest to seek life for the nest. This question is both for me in advance as well as for me as a novelist trying to impart the principles of peaceful parenting and self-knowledge onto the general reader. Childhood trauma, as is known, is the root cause of most dysfunction and generally results in a very repetitive cycle across generations. What I am interested in is how someone in these scenarios is likely to turn out (both in terms of character traits as well as life choices after childhood) and what is most likely to be the time when they (because I am crafting characters who revolt against the cycle and endeavor to make their children into something opposed to their own history) pursue self-knowledge, and what they ought to do at that point. Below is a list of various traumatizing circumstances, some more common than others, and what I am looking for is not how someone with all these problems but rather any one of these problems individually (any exception to this request I'll point out explicitly). 1: Malnurishment/Food deprived childhood: I am also curious as to how much this would affect a boy and girl's body given how dieting as a child correlates with height and body mass. 2: Regular beatings by authority: Including both parents, caretakers of orphanages, civil authority, etc. 3: Regular fights with peers: From a child's point of view especially. 4:Molestation: For both boys and girls. 5: Viewing someone else be molested by an elder. 6: Gang violence in both neighborhood and among young children. Think '20-'30s Italian mobster kind of gangs, not modern gangs, although the distinction may or may not be significant. 7: Verbal abuse by hypocritical authority. 7.5: EXTREME physical abuse from authority: think chains and restraints, as well as medieval punishments such as hanging from within a gibbet (a metal cage that restricts all bodily movement). 8: Physical abuse by hypocritical authority. This is somewhat distinct from arbitrary beatings, but I don't know by how much. 9: Negligence from/by elders and authorities. 10: Childhood in isolation from any kind of caretaker or guardian. 11: A rather specific childhood in which a princess grows up without family, for they committed suicide/were killed in fighting during a very big WWII-style monumental war. This may be distinct from number 10 because the character is wealthy enough to not be deprived of basic resources, but deprived of human contact let alone affection, up until the age of 12, where positive human contact (through a friend) is only for half a year until the age of 18, when total isolation resumes. What kind of person would she be? What would it take for her to pursue self-knowledge and what would likely happen if she doesn't? 12: A childhood which combines numbers 1,2,3,5,6,7,7.5, and 8. This character was raised in an orphanage and abused very severely growing up, while surrounded by hundreds of other abused orphans in an environment best described as Jew in a Concentration Camp during the Holocaust, with emaciated bodies and abusive elder orphans aplenty. What kind of life would someone growing in this hell likely have, what kind of traits would they exhibit, and what is the most likely time for this character to pursue self-knowledge and reformation? I understand these questions are mostly hypothetical and therefore unimportant compared to real issues faced by real people, however, I want to be able help those who have suffered some of these abuses by demonstrating important characters with these scars overcoming them and reforming, as well as those not doing so as a counter-example. I would appreciate any advice I can get, both as a novelist, and a future father and husband.

Be careful with "I feel like"s, as they tend to be false and dishonest in nature. However since this is about you and not your abusers, I will assume you are honest since it is also a common way of speaking, however you should note the words you use because they can and will influence how you think. She is like a deadbeat drug addict; she will never recover and all attempts by you to try to see her recover, or even hope she recovers, is her sucking the life energy from you like the vampire she is. Don't enable her bad behavior with your attention. I assume you see the analogy I'm talking about; she's a drug addict. She will say anything to get your attention and forgiveness so that her conscience can be put at ease. She doesn't care a damn for you. Her actions have made that very clear. Well, you're not your mother. You are someone wise enough to realize how terribly she was brought up, and is brave enough to confront the tragedy, and virtuous enough to feel the criminality of your mother's actions in your heart. You're the daughter; you cannot be hypocritical nor at fault, for you are 80% the result of their genes and parenting. Whatever failures you think you have, are their fault fundamentally. Now I'm not saying be a determinist and copy them, I'm saying be aware that the moral high ground is yours as the victim of relentless abuse. We do not say rape victims are at fault for being "too sexy" or whatever. Note the pattern I'm trying to emphasize: 1: She abuses you. 2: You reach out to her. 3: She says she'll change. 4: You check in. 5: She abuses you. 6: You reach out to her. 7: She says she'll change. 8: You check in again. 9: She abuses you... ...See how this'll never end?

EDIT: Disclaimer: While I have some very strong thoughts about the situation, keep in mind I do not know the whole story nor am I a professional psychologist. Take what I see with a grain or bag of salt as you see fit. I think you should give up on them completely. Your mother physically abused you on a regular basis and didn't care, while your father is a deadbeat who didn't care enough to get involved. Words are sweet, but actions are bitters. Actions are all we can base people on, for if their words do not match their actions then they are liars and manipulators unworthy of investment, and are in fact very destructive parasites. The fact that you have to be the de facto mom of the relationship and try to repair it, rather than your actual mother or father doing anything, is telling enough. You should get away from them as soon as possible. If you have already moved out from your family of origin's home, then you should stay out and never return, all the while swearing and endeavoring to never repeat the horrible crimes they committed as fully grown adults with three helpless and dependent children!

Off-hand? Yeah, I'd say everything from Greece to Archangel is Slavic, and would group Finland and Estonia with the Scandinavians, based mainly on the commonalities of their languages. gene pool, and history. Hungarians; what would the descendants of the Huns with Asian-styled names consider themselves ethnically closer to, then? Germans who've they've been allied with/a vassal to for centuries, or Russians with whom their blood and language is closer? If Russian was my standard for Slav, then I suppose a country like Bohemia or Hungary would be "on the fringe", and most likely ethnically mixed with its "out group" neighbors, however I don't know if they're so different as to be given a different race name. Magyars are Magyars, but they're White and either Slavic, or a forced marriage of Germans and Slavs. One question: what exactly are Moldovans? I know the country exists in the shadow of the Ukraine, but...is it even really an ethnicity? It looks like it ought to be absorbed by the Ukraine like Austria and old Prussia. I've heard a few different reasons as to why Slavs don't consider X countries to be Slavs, and while I can't say about the Balkan States Islamic population, I will say that Russia's Muslims are mostly from the Kazan Khanate, which has been a Muslim-majority state since...well, since they first got taken over. They've been a constant part of the Russian Empire since its founding, and from what I understand, are unlike the Arabian Muslims in their Whiteness and Russian nationalistic identity, and Slavic blood. Most of those countries lie between the war zones of the future, I wouldn't expect them to be spared, although I'm sure the Poles and Magyars will have it easier than the Germans, say, given their greater sanity. If you mean "I have to find out if that is really true by trying it", yeah, I agree. But in your case specifically, actions have spoken louder than words. Marriage is always series to the K-selected; marriage is only as serious as it is legally or fiscally binding to the r-selected. Since the rabbits are going to be rabbits regardless of what we do (and if left alone, they'd die off like all rabbits do), we should not amend or force laws upon a general populace where the good people people will be disproportionately affected by it. Not to mention, history has shown that laws and enforcement is hugely ineffective. Wife/husband beating used to be far more common back when divorce was illegal. Now it's mainly just common among the rabbits. The possibility of divorce makes the marriage participants active to keep their marriage, and the K-selected man's ability to realize how important marriage is ensures he'll pick well. Christian teachings also help greatly here. I think those that divorce and remarry, especially when children are involved, ought to be ostracized but the option should remain because it is part of what keeps couples dedicated to making a marriage good rather than letting it entropy, and the threat of ostracism helps in part to make rabbits behave better, as the K-selected will behave well either way. I think I get the picture, and you aren't far wrong as to what my long-long term goal is beyond myself lol.

"In every age; In every place; The deeds of Man; Remains the same" -Second Opening, Legend of the Galactic Heroes "A good autocracy is superior to a good democracy; a bad democracy is superior to a bad autocracy" "If the defense of our homeland and self-sacrifice are as necessary as you say, before you tell other people to 'do this and that', how about you actually do it yourselves? What is the most cowardly and shameful thing in human conduct? It is when people with power, and people who flatter them hide in safe places and extol war, force patriotism and self-sacrifice on others, then send them to the battlefield to die. For the sake of peace in the universe, before we continue this fruitless war with the Empire, must not we first start by exterminating such evil parasites?" -Yang Wenli, Legend of the Galactic Heroes. "People may need societies, but they do not necessarily need 'nations'." -Yang Wenli, Legend of the Galactic Heroes. "An army is a tool for violence, and there are two kinds of violence... Violence to control and oppress, and violence as a means of liberation. You know what we call a national army is fundamentally the former example. It is a pity, but history does not lie. When those in power confront popular opposition, there are not many examples of the army siding with the people. Far from it, in the past in country after country, the army itself evolved into a power structure and came to control the people with violence." -Yang Wenli, Legend of the Galactic Heroes. "Someone who cannot hate something cannot love something, either." -Yang Wenli, Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

Wait wat. Oh...aren't delis Jewish? And law degrees...hmmm... I see what you did there. Lol.

Yep. Helps to be packing in those kinds of bergs too. You are a halfy, and you do act awfully invested in the Slavic race for a disengaged halfy. If the Slavs fail, then bloody internecine war in Europe is imminent. The Turks are going one way or another; I'd rather it be nice and easy, walls of men against walls of men in a remote field, but I think it'll be mostly in the streets and be a multi-way fight against reactionaries, nationalists, Leftists, fascists, blacks, whites, etc. Only Russia, and a few others I think, are likely to be spared the horrors of the future. "Dad: Fuck you boi. Son: Sorry sorry. I pay top dollar next time". I suppose you could say a conversation like this lets you know how little your parents care for you, but I think you already have that information. Seek professional help if aren't already; you have some serious shit that you actually have to pay your father of all people, like a prostitute, to do so much as talk with you. If you don't think this is fucked up beyond all repair, then you really need bro help before you attract some real predators. Divorce alone isn't the problem; it's recklessly getting married; feminist poison; dicknapping; etc. All that piles up to divorce. The threat of divorce is part of what keeps husband and wife vying for each other's favor, assuming it isn't because they already desire each other so much that they want to do whatever they can to keep each other. It takes two to keep a marriage going, and the option of divorce can be helpful as a means of preventing marital laziness. Of course I'd argue "don't marry someone who'll be a slob as soon as you swear your vows", but idiots and the autistic will have a hard time recognizing the slobs from the active. What, so like a generational goal? In which case I'm definitely a Habsburg as far as my goals go. I'd argue it's good to have long term goals, but I'd also argue it's pretentious to assume the problems of today will exist 100 years from now, unless it's a very basic thing like national security and food production. Therefore while doctors may be needed today, there may be too many tomorrow. However beyond the idea that it's supposed to be forever, I can't imagine any examples of a "mission". I would argue the Habsburg mission is one that could be followed forever, since it's essentially nepotism to the highest degree plus Jewish-like inter-family promotion and elevation (assuming that isn't covered in "nepotism"). I'd add making Peaceful Parenting and all the good stuff Stef teaches as part of it as well, since I know that'd put my descendants at least a standard deviation above the normies. 1: What are my strengths? 2: What are my weaknesses/limitations? 3: How do X people make me feel? (I.e. friends and family) 4: How active/lazy am I without self-directing? 5: What are my goals in life? 6: Why do I have those goals? 7: What would I think/feel if I accomplished only some or part of these goals? 8: How was I raised? 9: Why are my parents the way they are? 10: What can I do to improve based on my parents? 11: What are my politics? 12: Why do I believe in these political ideals? 13: Does any of my current beliefs/prejudices hold out against standard Socratic reasoning, or basic criticism in general? Could I argue against myself and still be able to hold water?* *I'd argue this one may be better done with others', ideally someone like a good relative or tough-minded therapist, or Stefpai himself, since it's easy for us to fool ourselves and believe our existing or pre-existing beliefs are worthwhile/correct. These are just the first 13 things that come to mind in the long and short journey of getting to know who I am, and what that means in transforming my life based on what I know about myself and those around me, and my limitations that invite the predators around me.

Yeah, that makes sense and is my position. My main point of confusion was criticizing the OP for posting here, since in terms of fishing for good support, I'd say here would be one of the first places I'd go to beyond those close to me, given the people here (or at least the people who give advice) generally make good arguments and are worth listening to. Heck the reason why I'm asking this is because @Wuzzums broached the idea that it's idiotic to post such a thing to strangers on the internet, and since he has a certain level of...trust? Basically if he says something I'm inclined to listen, not blindly but definitely with open ears.

Generally speaking, you're right. However FDR is the most likely place to find people in a situation similar to the one he described, therefore making it a good idea to share here and ask for advice.

Good point, I never thought about it like that. However doesn't the Self-Knowledge section exist for the specific purpose of individuals turning to the internet (specifically FDR) for support, and isn't there an element of trustworthiness attached to FDR regulars that isn't there elsewhere? Now I'm wondering, if it is idiotic to trust the word of complete strangers (*mind you, blind trust is idiotic but green guys on FDR have established themselves by the community as being reliable and generally trustworthy, though they're still strangers) than what is the purpose of the "Self Help" sections of this forum?

Slavery has also been a part of human history since before the New Testament, that doesn't mean it's worth preserving or experiencing. Of course. However it also pays to have a gun. If you can't keep one for legal reasons, then don't obviously. I just wonder how you can get into a "real" fight without actively looking for one. I got into a few fights in elementary and middle school, some where I lost teeth. I wouldn't say they've made me harder as a man, in fact I'd say they made me weaker and more fearful. I got lucky in High School because I was big enough to intimidate would-be challengers. And that's why I, as an American, don't want to enlist to kill the very Slavs who've historically fought Turks in our defense. For you especially, this point is the most important. I don't want people looking for guidance to read this and think it's the smart/moral thing to do. If I'm not busy working, I'm resting from work. I could spare the time, but I'd have to first get a bible than find a way to balance study with work and recovery. I did read a 200 page children's bible back when I was a small child, and still remember the lessons in it. At least a few of them. Which I'd argue is the same as getting away from parents. The threat of divorce is part of what keeps husband and wife faithful and in good order. If a man, say, knew his wife could never divorce him than what's the stop him from growing fat and lazy? Likewise what's to stop the woman from becoming fat and abusive? The threat of divorce as a last resort is part of what keeps a marriage strong, although obviously without a bunch of other things it is not enough. Leonardo da Vinci himself died regretting how little he did in his life, despite the fact he accomplished more in more fields than most people ever have. We must find fulfillment in the journey, among other things, or else we'll never be fulfilled. Man is designed to keep doing more things, not resting upon achieving his first thing. I wouldn't say they're vague at all. In fact they're the most important, especially Know Thyself, as it is critical to being a functional and productive human being. The other three are also necessary for both getting a good woman (as well as male friends) and building (and sustaining) a career. I can't condense more than what I am replying to. If you write 50 lines, I will most likely write another 50 plus quote the last 50. If you want my replies to be smaller, than you must write less yourself. I will not ignore or gloss over lines I consider important to respond to.

How? Do you plan on becoming a crusader or united-Christian-front activist? Or...?

This is quite the post. While I agree with some parts I have to challenge you on some others. I think this alone is sufficient. Alcohol-based ceremonies aren't worth keeping; nothing that is bonding is true if it requires inebriation. Stef's Truth About Sex video is all you need to know as to why I fully agree with this sentiment. I'd argue it'd be better to do this in something like boxing, where the environment is controlled and the practice is for mutual benefit than petty disputes. If you're getting into fights you are straying from the path that ensures the survival and prosperity of your progeny, excluding war of course since when war really happens most of us will have no choice. Once I became red pilled, this was almost impossible for me. The academic work itself was mindlessly easy, however the psychological breakdown I was experiencing made it excruciatingly painful. I tried some things I'm not proud of to escape it, needless to say therapy was a literal life savor. For most I'd say "keep your head down and keep marching". It'll soon be over, and none of that will matter afterwards. Unless you go to the College Concentration Camp of course... Whatever you do, don't enlist. Unless of course you think running the risk of shooting White Christians in the name of the Late Roman Hellhole is worth it... If you have good parents I'd suggest asking them for advice (assuming you don't already know what to do from them) and rely on them as necessary to quicken the building of your own financial and career foundation. Unless you're naturally r-selected, in which case you can't rely on anyone lest you become immobile. If you're a K though it's an effective way of paying for College (which I only recommend if your chosen career requires the paper) or as a slush fund. If you're K-selected, skip this. Why waste time with this bullshit if you already know deep down how terrible it is. If you're r-selected, or inclined that way, then I guess it's a good way of tasering your temptations. I did work unpaid labor as my first job, unfortunately it was a scam. I do not recommend working for anyone who isn't willing to pay you at least minimum wage. I speak from the perspective of a poor person, if you're wealthier than welfare than I'd say it's not a bad idea but if you're poor, don't do anything unless it'll contribute to your own financial elevation out of the ghetto. This was how I became a novelist. Yep. That's the first goal you should make as someone joining the labor force or graduating the concentration camp to do certified professional work. Creative professionals might have a harder time of it early on, I'll see how it goes. I might have to drag my mother with me since I need someone to take care of whateverr property I buy/rent. Good idea. ...This is not how you do it. If you have to pay for your parents to have a serious conversation with you, they aren't your parents. Or they may as well not be. And if you can't reach a breakthrough when you need it most, you won't ever be able to. You have to let go and accept them as they are and swear to be a better father for your own children. Otherwise you're opening up an exploitable hole to be raped by predators. Definitely helps to break out of the bubble. Bro I'm way ahead of you. Although my "good clothes" are my own clothes, and I don't much so...yeah. Lucked out. Ehh...on one hand it may help, on another hand you might want to defer this until you're able to devote time for it regularly. Speaking from a poor person starting from rock bottom or welfare level. I'd argue this is the same as "Become Independent of Parents". Mostly agree. I'd recommend pursuing Stef's advice video "How to meet a nice girl..." for more on that. I prefer the Habsburg route to survival and supremacy myself, but having as many children as you can afford is a good idea since they'll all benefit from each others' company, and become more self-sufficient from having each others' support. A family that is strong is one built of the Stefanist Way of Peaceful Parenting and UPB. I'd wait on teaching them Christianity outside of the morals and lessons until they're old enough to choose on their own to become Christians. At all costs, do this! Better still; don't marry a bad woman. You don't have to worry about divorce if you're like Stef and marry a good woman. See his "How to meet a nice girl..." and other videos for more. If you have to consider divorce; you fucked up. At the very least wait until your youngest child no longer needs deadbeats like the deadbeat and ho considering divorce. You won't. At least as far as self-esteem goes. Man is naturally inclined to give himself new missions to achieve. The end-goal of every man's existence should be the creation of a big and prosperous family based on the principles of UPB and NAP. Everything else is but a stepping stone in building a dynasty. A few step I'd like to add: Know Yourself: By this I mean actively pursue self knowledge; "Why am I wanting to do this? How would I know when I've achieved this? What do I want in life? Why do I want that? What can I do to achieve that from X?" DON'T DO DRUGS: Need I say more? Treat Men and Women Alike: If you're speaking to a woman you'd never speak to if she didn't have a nice ass or big boobs, you shouldn't be speaking to her. As Stef says "imagine if she were an Elderly Asian Gentleman". Don't treat women like children; you cannot marry a child and children aren't going to make good parents for more children. Treat women exactly as you would your guy friends, this way you can filter out the gold diggers, whores, and Feminazis while aiming for the true women who can build and maintain families, as well as be loyal and good spouses. Don't Waste Time With Bullshit: Or more precisely, don't engage with people who aren't giving you anything. Spiritually, intellectually, etc. Don't engage with deadbeats, idiots, lazy deadbeats, sluts, etc. Just don't. Also, don't waste time doing a 46 hour per week job below minimum wage like I did. Being desperate for a job doesn't mean selling yourself (for free) to slavery. Instead focus exclusively on what you plan on for a career. I want to be an author, therefore I spend 30-40 hours a week doing just that. Once I'm done I'll be sure to show off to you guys... ;-) Disclaimer: I'm not saying "don't have fun" or whatever. Just filter out the terrible people and terrible hobbies (like drugs or sex), as well as the dead-end jobs and Concentration Camp College. If you want to be an entrepreneur, be an entrepreneur. Don't waste time. Get started now. ============ What do you think of my additions?

Without a lot to go on, I'll throw some darts and see if anything sticks. First off; how did you get an IQ test? Perhaps you really are an idiot and are being mislead to think you're intelligent. I highly doubt this because stupid people are seldom self-aware, and if you think you're a self-aware stupid person, one of those things most likely isn't true. Second: what was measured in he IQ test, exactly? I can't recall the proper names, but I know that the ability to learn new things is only a third of what is calculated in most standard tests. The other two major measures are "ability to learn a new concept based on knowledge of existing stuff, i.e., the ability to learn more of something you know a little of) and verbal acuity. If you truly aren't good at learning new things, then perhaps you compensate with the ability of being better and learning more in-depth versions of old things, or are very verbally acute. This is possible; Einstein only had an IQ of around 140-something, because he was extremely high (180+) in one area (can't recall but a quick study of his IQ may answer this specifically) and very low (like, a retarded 80) verbal acuity, or something like that. Third: You have low self-esteem, and therefore self-sabotage. Perhaps you were treated poorly by your parents, either through neglect or outright abuse. Perhaps you have/had bad peers in your circle who often put you down, thereby retarding your actual ability due to low self-regard. This is what I think is most likely, in which case I'd recommend doing some personal digging followed by therapy. Short that, call the Stefpai for an interview on the Call-in-Show, or if you're unable, describe something here and maybe we can help with anecdotes or studies.

I know. My mother got freaked out and took him seriously, I watched some videos on his channel and quickly found out it was hilarious satire. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Antifa actually thought like that, though.

Political beliefs are not trivial; they represent most of everything that matters in people. What you describe is a vampire debating whether or not to feast on your blood. Here is a guy who is engaged to an SJW that hates everything that he is: Podcast 3650: Help! I'm Dating a Social Justice Warrior! Question two, about 30 minutes in.

I eagerly await it, given how much we've spoken. I don't know much about how and what exactly happened in the fall of the South Slavic Nation (how's that for a translation of Yugoslavia?), but I know it was bloody and essentially a matter of most of everyone wanting to be independent with a few people wanting dominance, followed by repetitive desires for revenge. This desire, I think, carries on to this day and is especially dangerous. Just consider how the Turkish population is 80 million strong, when the divided Balkans (curious: are the Greeks considered Slavs at all?) has a combined population of roughly 50 million. Unless our Slavic cousins are worth at ten Turks each, or are led by great and able men, or have a great and able man in reserve, the Turks are likely to overpower the Balkans and truly revive the Ottoman Empire should war engulf Europe between the ethnicites and cultures. It frustrates me that the Slavs cannot see each other as brothers of the same blood like my German ancestors could after the Prussians beat the crap out of the Austrians. When we Germans united, we became the strongest power in Europe save in oceanic power, which the English retained, and were able to equal the combined might of the Anglo-French and the Russians, not to mention ably curb stomp our neighbors and annex the lesser nations between us. Although the causes for both World Wars were terrible, and my cousins in Germany would have lost even if they won, it was still a testament to the almighty power of the united German race. If the Slavs, who outnumber us by double and are made of similar quality stuff that we are, were to unite, they could become the masters of Eurasia and be the great superpower to equal the former greatness of the united Anglosphere. Neither Arabs nor Africans could even hope to match your might, and the Chinese would be our only true rivals. The world would be divided in three, effectively. And if the Slavs had the sentiment common to Western Whites of being same enough to be one big family, then most of the White races would then also unite, and become something truly special. I do not consider our ability to call other ethnities friends a weakness, but rather something to be mishandled. After all our able to be fraternal with other White races meant that America could become a truly great country in the late 19th century, in spite of the White-Black divide. If we had gone the more Libertarian path than the Communist path, we could have become something so great no one alive today would be able to even remotely comprehend it. I, myself, am a bit of an except to the Western rule of being able to call other people "brother" without being genetically close. I grew up in a Multikult and therefore recognized from an early age the sharp differences between the races and ethnic groups. I generally respected and admired the East Asians, feared and kept myself on guard against the Blacks and Arabs, whilst having disdain for native Whites and a sense of fellowship with foreign Whites (who I got along with. Most of my acquaintances spoke either a Slavic accent or an Asian one). I had problems I hadn't worked out, so sadly I wasn't able to make anything long-lasting (I had a self-destructive tendency to destroy friendships that lasted longer than certain point). You say "they". Was she female? Given my first crushes were both Ukrainians, I can't say I don't relate... ...Although my shyness saved me, since they were both crazy.

A bit off topic, but are you a psychologist or sociologist? Adding these things together, I can't imagine a better breakdown of the Left, aside perhaps a more depth reason as to why someone would have these individual characteristics. Not all these traits are necessary for one to become a Leftist--I used to be a Communist when I was in early High School (I'll state I am 19 to give you a better idea of me)--, as I was far from deterministic (though I was highly inclined to rob others of personal responsibility, and had the awful tendency to assign to myself more responsibility than I actually had) and did not, at the time, fear anything beyond myself. My biggest preoccupation was securing a guaranteed safety net and becoming a Far Left political leader, which in itself was due to my desire for power which I wanted because I felt powerless in my own life and upbringing. I have also had a tendency to pursue "the extremes"; I was never a "moderate" Lefitst: I desired a totalitarian dictatorship with the idea it would create a long-lasting utopia and a self-correcting system. When I converted to NatSoc (arguably another form of Leftism) I went full-throttle into the conspiracy theory, at least at first. When I left the Left and joined the Right as a "blank-slate White Nationalist", I was far more skeptical of ideologies as well as my own personal susceptibility to the drama and allure of "edgy" and "utopian" dogma; in particular how easily I fell for Socialism, and when I learned of the Islamic Invasion in 2015, NatSoc. It was not until I heard from Stef that I started criticizing these ideologies in depth and more especially, criticizing myself and my motivations and why I have them. If there wasn't an internet, I'm fairly certain I'd have been easy prey for the warmongers and power-seekers, for I don't think I would have "fixed myself" without the indirect intervention of Stefpai. Rightism has its own characteristics, although I haven't tried to establish a list of general traits a Rightist might have, which are distinguished and in many ways positive compared to the Left. Easy examples being individualism and a sense of Free Will, which is important for any real personal and societal development. I'm curious as to for what purpose you have compiled this list of traits common to the Left. Is it a "Know mine enemy" sort of thing? Perhaps it's academic or purely intellectual? Is it personally important? Or are you an activist of some kind?

I'm curious, what do you guys think is going to happen in the next couple decades? I put up a poll to give out a few general theories based on whatever I could think of, and I'm curious as to what you guys' think about it all.

Is this guy for real. "I Joined Antifa"

Lol.... Often times the best refutation to an established idea is a meme describing why a principle sucks by stating that it also validates/praises cuckoldry.

Actually, I'm curious; why were you looking for this? Food for thought? For personal discussion? Academic/job related?

Quite simply, you have to disregard the low IQ and suicidal around you as "already dead" or worse (enemies) and focus solely on your own progeny, ensure they are in the best possible place to (at the very least) survive, if not (at best) dominate. As a young man who just turned 19, it is my lifelong goal to make good money as an author, marry a fine woman, and make fine babies and raise them into being far superior than their predecessors. It is impossible to know everything that is current at ones; "life" comes at us fast, surprises aplenty. Perhaps I am not joking when I often say "my son will be the first Kaiser of the Holy American Empire". Perhaps he'll be the NatCap ruler who'll eventually shrink the State into nothingness, leaving an AnCap foundation. I have never tolerated the stupid or the dogmatic; I've only ever made friends with those whom I could argue and sharpen myself with. I don't have many friends (somewhat naturally, as I'm a bit of a workaholic who mainly socializes in forums like this) as a result, but that doesn't bother me because I know once I've made myself into a good man I'll be like a beacon for other good men. Nicholas Fuentes, the 18 year old head and founder of Right Side Radio and recent guest on the Stefpai Network, is a great example of the kind of guy I aim to befriend both personally and professionally. Lol, even though I grew up in what you describe as the typical Western style, I'm much closer to what you describe the Serbians as for I frequently discuss politics and religion, even with my mother. Very interesting. Perhaps I should consider congregating with the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Europeans once I have the time, since in my experience the Slavs are far more...grounded, then my fellow Germans and Anglo-Irish in the American East Coast. I live in the same bubble, compounded with the very real threat of foreign invaders and native savages combining to create the typical Multikult mess. Incidentally growing up in this environment is what made me turned off to it, a contrast I find interesting compared to how the Leftists claim that we "wayciss Far Rightists" are ignorant and secluded from "diversity". Growing up in the swamp has made me very acute to the problems presented by the swamp; what I find hard to believe internally is the existence of White Sub-urbia and the legendary white-picket-fence and unlocked doors community. It is my main goal at the moment to save the money I'm making writing for the explicit purpose of getting out of this potential war zone in favor of the White communities said to have low crime and high cohesion. Oh I'm very used to reading quickly; it's just when the game is more action-oriented it's hard to "appreciate" or "feel" the sporadic text, unless it's something like Dynasty or Samurai Warriors which I am very easily able to enjoy the Japanese of. I found the original Japanese Dragon Ball the best, although I was initially exposed to the dubbing (which is charming on occasion, though it pales compared to the raw Japanese-ness of the original). Kaichou-War Maid-sama is an anime I very much enjoyed not too long ago in Japanese with English subtitles; I found it to be surprisingly deep as well as comedic. Interesting. I'm not a Slav, therefore it really isn't my business, but if I were a Slav, I'd argue Russia is the "center" like Austria was the center of the Germans. I understand it's far more disparate a race given how some Russians have Mongolian and Turkish blood in them, but the percentage is minuscule and dwindling, not to mention it is the biggest and strongest of the Slavic nations, however I'd argue more for a Pan-Slavic union over one ethnicity totally dominating the other Slavic ethnic groups; it's much easier for fraternity to be a thing when Ivan in Moscow leaves Sergei in Warsaw and Anton in Budapest alone. I am knowledgeable about the tragic and heroic history of the Slavs, who were both enslaved and broke the enslavement of the Turks and (interestingly) Mongolians. It seems like a pattern for the hardened Slavs to be the ones to save the Europeans from their own in-fighting. Lol, all that's cute and funny. Too bad my race is too P.C. and cucked to have friendly (or not friendly) jives at its own ethnic sub-sets, as I find when groups pick on each other regularly and comfortably they tend to get along better than if they were imposed from on high to shake hands or else. Simple: look at people's reactions when they hear politics. The white guy looking distressed at the possibility of war with Syria or Trump failing to build the Wall, etc. etc. is subtly signalling he's a red pilled guy. Meanwhile the guy who looks carefree is probably a sheeple and the guy who's downright mad and says anti-White stuff, well he's obviously a Leftist. I think the best way to find like minded individuals is to consider what people like us would be doing; namely we'd be frequenting forums like FDR and focusing both on our careers and building a good future for our children. Reaching out here is a good idea, and in personal affairs, you'll most likely bump into quality folk so long as you are living a quality and productive life. Avoid bars, nightclubs, and other dens of degeneracy for the best results. I can't describe how in detail to know if a guy is "in" or "out", as I find that to be largely subliminal and frankly a skill we either have or we don't. I never had a hard time identifying like-minded individuals and avoiding the dangerous; my senses would tell me without words. If you think you can trust your heart and your senses, do so. They are naturally attuned to seek the familiar and like-minded, just make sure you're a good guy first so that you don't attract the wrong company. As a consumer who bought the Game of the Year Edition, I'd argue it is a good as it could ever have been. Now mind you I'd have liked it if we could see more and bigger families, as well as in depth meta-historical libraries and meet close friends and family of the major leaders, but who can say for certain that'd make a better game world. I enjoyed most of the DLCs, though I'd say I prefer them as DLCs than main stuff since (Lonesome Road in particular) they're harder to role-play (or more precisely, mentally imagine to fill the voids, i.e. emergent story telling) and give the player a more defined role whereas the main game was as sandbox-y as can be expected for a semi-modern open world game. I'd argue the "holes" here and there make for an ironic boon because we can imagine what the answers are and make up stories to explain XY or Z, and that I think makes for effective marketing and popularizing since if, for example, the maker was a Leftist we'd find his rational as to why things are the way they are flawed if not downright wrong, and vice versa. That and I enjoy not having everything answered since it gives me creative freedom. I'd say I felt the gravitas of the game as well. When I first played, I fell for both Mr. House and Caesar. I knew I'd replay the game later to do the other, but it being my first play through I couldn't just flip a coin and stick with. Eventually I decided to join the Legion (this was long before I found FDR and became an AnCap/NatCap by the way, I think I was still a Communist or perhaps growing out of that and becoming a blank-slate Nationalist) and was very happy to keep the Caesar alive and make myself his heir. I considered the NCR doomed to collapse under its own weight, both as a Republic and as a people, whereas the Legion (or really Neo Roma) had something going for it that I knew could become a new nation-state. However from a more recent perspective, I realize they're all attractive in their own way, but I'd argue the Independent route is the most player-creative-friendly since I can easily imagine setting up my own nation based in New Vegas and being the NatCap King of Nevada, as well as being the ruler-less state-less vacuum for AnCap to move in. History is only somewhat predictable; we can never know if the man in the red cape will be the next Augustus or the next Stalin. However we can do what we can to ensure we survive and thrive under either conditions, and if absolutely cannot survive under certain conditions, we can fight in every way available to us in an effort to avert it. I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic, I'd say I'm generally cautious and treat current events like an on-going movie series, at least until I can have a more direct impact on it like Stef or Cernovich. I'd argue the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was more the system than a lack of vision, for it was created to be obedient to a supreme ruler who failed to have a child to succeed him, not even counting the economic and social failures of the Union as a whole. It could have lasted far longer if Tsar Joseph I had actually established a long-lasting dynasty than a mere playground for his own inequities. History likes to toss in men of great ability and integrity like dice; some places get luckier than others, and when they get lucky, then sometimes get really lucky. I'd argue the reason why the Holy Roman Empire lasted a thousand years was because of repetitive luck in their favor as well as the self-preservationist Habsburg Dynasty rather than a supremely successful system, as the system itself was very fragmented and weak, but the Habsburg Kaisers wielded the awesome might of Austria as well as had the help of their branch families, making the Empire far stronger than it would have been without the well-connected and well-united clan. America and Europe, I believe, will survive one way or another. it'll get rough and bloody, I'm sure, but the aftermath will be our races' survival and the downfall of our invaders and looters. As they say, hard times create hard men, and hardened men create soft times...we just have to make the men of the soft times wiser than they would otherwise be by both promulgating Peaceful Parenting and plating ourselves into positions of power in the new ethnostates bound to arise from the ashes. This all being said, there are many possible roads that can lead to this outcome; perhaps America will be like the Ukraine and have its opposition party seize control of the government, instigating a civil war that devolves into ethnic cleansing and ideological warfare. Perhaps the end of all that carnage is a self-sustainable system that we can live in; or one we can only live in if we're its equivalent to aristocrats. I suggest thinking like the Jews historically have; close, but distant. We Whites are in many ways the new Jews insofar as we're constantly being scapegoated and threatened with (if not actively persecuted with) ethnic cleanses and legal oppression, etc. We have to be flexible and not too emotionally attached to our nations, which on their current course seem poised to put us in concentration camps. We must instead keep our noses sensitive and by ready to flee if necessary, and if we can, stand our ground and assist the factions of the future most favorable to our longevity. Perhaps I am over-thinking it and being too fearful, however I'd rather be wrong and foolish than right and enslaved. The Jews are a very inspiring testament to ethnic and cultural survival, and taking a few pages from their handbook is in the best interest of not just Whites in general but the smart and AnCap Whites in particular.