Siegfried von Walheim

Statistically White Conservatives have the most children in America, just shy of Hispanics by a decimal point. I'm not worried about the future: lots of things could happen, including: a revolt of the young against the old (especially since people my age (20) and younger are statistically the most likely to be Conservative as the WWII generation as well as the most Rightist in general, ranging from social opinions--like drugs and tattoos--to political opinions); a Conservative outbreeding of Liberals (already happening at a 2:1 ratio); Fall of the Roman Empire (and thus the birthing of France, Germany, Spain, etc. but in America); Liberal Paradise Suddenly Working Out (probably because the Conservatives are running it--can't be sustained); Status Quo (if enough Trumps hit the White House, I'm pretty sure the Status Quo will live a few more decades); Other (maybe Godzilla will pitch in and scare humanity into temporary unity like he does with Japan lol). Ultimately the smart thing to do (I think) is live like an island early on and invite likeminded people to come on it over time so that, come what may, we are neither alone nor broke. And "inviting likeminded people" includes getting married and making lots of babies. I plan to have at least 5 and, if my future income can sustain it, up to 8. I'm an only child and my parents came from generations of 4-6 btw (although my dad has about 6-8 children, just not by my mother lol).

It's not "low" so much as pretty much everything FDR and appealing to the type FDR attracts has been talked to death. I frankly wish we could import some Far Left Communists or something just to spice up the intellectual diversity of the boards since I'm pretty sure 99% of everyone here is a Stefanist AnCap, making this essentially just a matter of debating fine details rather than the broad scope.

*FF Fanfare* I like this forum's interface a lot though (compared to GameFAQs at least) since I can easily quote people (and not have to delete the quote-within-a-quote-within-a-quoate-within...) and just by pressing "return" twice I can separate the text... However that's mostly me just being used to it. Not to mention I don't hang around many forums since they can be awful time wasters at times...

That's a hard one. If she set up the mess, then yeah I agree with you (heck I'd wonder why I fell in love with such a crazy girl lol hard not to imagine an action-movie-like chain of events) but if it was me or neither then it'd be a lot harder. If we had children then it wouldn't even be a question. If me or a third party caused the problem, I'd sacrifice myself. If she caused it, I'd take my children away from her and let her sacrifice herself. No children involved, then it's a matter of ownership (i.e. who dealt it takes it). Ultimately what matters is she isn't stupid enough to put our lives at risk to fulfill this hypothetical scenario, and that she's willing to sacrifice herself for me and our children as much as I am her and my children. I would never sacrifice myself for someone who either wouldn't do the same back or I don't consider more valuable than me (like my children or--hypothetically--Emperor Donald III of the Trump Dynasty).

No, no: I meant "passive" as "wait to be selected". Not "passive" as in "wait to be directed". That's to say I'm suggesting he does what he wills and sees what women appear to desire him the most--what women are giving the subtle cues that indicate an imaging of her and him together in the future. Unless he's an inherently passive man, I wouldn't recommend actually being passive with women. Just in attracting them. I have passively attracted women in my short life and while I'm definitely not a success story I can say it worked to gauge my level (which, at the time, ranged from "not good" early on to "pretty good but not what I wanted" by the end. Honestly I wish I was more active when I was younger since the last girl I attracted was actually a decent one, unlike the ones that preceded her). In fact if I had to act based only on my past experiences, I'd never pursue women since the best ones pursued me (although indirectly and subtly) while I tended to pursue women for the wrong reasons and of a bad kind. Besides: what I want and what most men want appear to be very different.

I have no experience and don't plan on getting a woman until I'm financially independent and owning my own house (either outright, through mortgage, or a tenet who happens to be capable of mortgaging but chooses not to for some reason) but I do have some ideas... How about through any great guys you know. Like if you know a successful guy in your field, how about his sister? Or your boss's daughter? They certainly come to mind. Alternatively, a more passive approach, is simply to do what you will and wait to be pursued. After all; a smart woman pursues the busy man, or at least the man that most clearly is demonstrating himself to be on the right path towards family and future. I would not recommend co-workers or anyone out of college. #1 because of potential rape or harassment accusations (they know who you are and can make your life miserable if they don't like you, perhaps after rejecting you or you rejecting them) and because they're not oriented towards being mothers. A working woman cannot be a mother--however if she has no debt (i.e. her work is something she can safely drop) she could just be pursuing what's effectively a hobby or "pre-marital project" (like maybe assisting in running a family business). Naturally a woman out of college is even worse because she most likely has a debt you will have to pay... Not only was she stupid (why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars if you're just going to get married?) but she costs you dearly just to be a maybe-functional wife. And that's assuming she doesn't consider your ability to pay off her debt attractive... Overall: you have to be very cautious with women. Act as if you're a woman from Victorian England: don't be alone in the same room with a single woman (follow the Mike Pence rule), don't be a slut, and of course be prepared to walk away within the first few minutes (if she's late for a date, leave immediately). This will both protect you and quicken your pace in finding the right woman for you. Aside from all this: if you have a particular hobby that involves playing with others (like a sport or martial art), you might find a decent woman that way. It worked for Stefan Molyneux (although he wasn't actively searching for a woman--and perhaps that's important).

Oy, that's my quote! Least you could do is quote my post so it registers as such!! You're welcome though, lol.

I disagree. My woman and children first? yes. Other women first? No. Other children? Not over mine, nor over myself nor my woman, but I definitely think children in general should be given priority as they are the future. However I don't think one gender should sacrifice itself for the other. I do, however, think a man should be willing to sacrifice himself for his woman and children and his woman should be willing to sacrifice herself for her man and children. Anything other than this and it's a raw deal, to say the least.

Hey lady I like me some feedback you know!! Thanks though; I'm glad I managed to help. I'd appreciate you letting me know how though since I sorta do this for a living...

Well, unlike the last guy, you actually have a dilemma. Either go do the legally required thing and spend the time learning what you must (I will be generous and assume you've looked up how you could learn the stuff without the college time and realized it's literally the only way) OR chase a different dream. If you're not a genius, and are really not confident about your ability to self-teach and do the exams, then I suggest you stick with the traditional route. However if neither are really appealing then maybe you ought to consider a different dream. I think all your options sound bad since they involve having to stick to the mainstream and depend on the good will of strangers, but you're not totally powerless and I'm sure if you push on, do the work, and kiss up to whomever you must, you'll get what you want eventually. However if you were me (and I'm a guy who likes to blaze his own trail, I'm 20 btw, and don't like the idea of sticking to the mainstream in a system I routinely hear bad things about from people I respect) I'd change course and pursue something else. OR, somehow, find a different way of doing it. Like if you wanted to be a teacher, I'd recommend opening up a YouTube channel... I'm sorry that I have limited knowledge about land surveying so I can't offer any suggestions. However you might be a bit flighty and perhaps out to stick with "natural science" until you learn to like it again. After all, something got you into it in the first place and I think it's a damn shame you spent all that time and money only to abandon it... I think, perhaps most of all, you ought to simply stick with your original "natural science" career (I "" it because I don't really know what "natural science" actually means compared to, say, biology or something. Also I'm scientifically illiterate).

I don't know what "speak from contempt" means, I only know how to speak honestly and forthrightly. If I am feeling contempt for you, it might help you to recognize that and ask "why". And the why is always one of 3 things: I think you're fucked up; you think I'm fucked up; or we're both fucked up in some way or another. In this scenario, I felt betrayed after exposing a little of myself as an anecdote and really despised the idea that I ought to be sensitive with you while you're insensitive to me. Therefore, a solution I'd be content with would be a mutual shaming of the Devil. You point out something about me or what I've done that you find bad, and I do the same with you, and we go from there. However I won't except being either the emotional tampon or the only one taking shit. Either we both take the shit, neither of us take the shit, or we don't talk. But after reading below, I think you chose "we both take the shit" and that's fine with me. I'm hardly perfect. I apologize for shortening the quotes in advance but I think i'm better off answering totally than piecemeal. 1: Looks matter. But not for the reasons you might think. Looks portray the internal character externally. Human beings naturally pick up on subtle cues that the body has to offer and make subconscious judgements accordingly. Of course there are people who are superficial and aren't that good at reading bodily cues, but that doesn't mean you or anyone should be willfully blind to physical cues of character. 2: Rejection is a filter for character. He who as many friends has none (I forget who said that, some Chinese guy--maybe Confucius). I think you already got it, but to make it clear: birds of a feather flock together. If you want to fly with good birds, you gotta be rejected by the bad birds. If you're rejected by the good birds (assuming they're good and you know they are), then that means you aren't a good bird. Perhaps you're a mixed bird and that's where you'd be most comfortable. After all, I know for sure I'm not good enough for the perfect woman because I'm not perfect. And, on the other end, I know I'm better than the worst conceivable woman because I'm not totally terrible without redemptive qualities. I'm somewhere between the extremes, aiming to be as good as can in the areas that I value and as good as I must in the areas I don't. 3: Not all Christian sects are equal. Or even all Christians or households for that matter. But I'm sure you got that by default. One reason why I love the Catholic Church even though I am not really religious is because they strive for consistency and truth while Protestants tend to interpret and encourage personalized interpretations rather than a single objective truth. That little difference is a very big deal to me since I want the truth and I recognize most people aren't capable--either due to time or ability--to grasp the truth of something as abstract and challenging as morality. I cannot grasp it firmly, how can people who are average or stupid? I prefer to rely on fallible but highly educated and wise men than my own whims, which are subject to change. Overall: I think you're right to seek individuality since being a conformist to others' essentially means not existing. There's nothing wrong with commonality and holding it in every now and then (like I don't expect anyone to be fully themselves with total strangers for example), but you gotta make sure that the group you're in is your group by your own will and not by you subjecting your will to others. That's the difference between a leader and a follow right there. Men are not wise. Men instinctively wished to be loved. A promiscuous man may very well be seeking, even if it's a false hop that's only subconscious, to be with the woman he's having a fling with and for her to love him and hug him and support him. Perhaps even more notably: most men naturally defer to women. So if a woman says (literally or implicitly) "You may fuck me", then the man naturally feels inclined to do so because it's like a mother rewarding her son and praising him for his good behavior. Men naturally wish to be praised by attractive women and have vary degrees of desire to be treated like a child by their woman. To a man, a woman that is very motherly, loving, affectionate, but also choosy and particular with whom she gives her affection and care, such a woman is the ideal. Only the worst warts could throw him off. Unfortunately most young adults are adult children playing with grown-up parts without real wisdom for what they're for nor why they want to play with them. It's not all a desire to procreate. It's also a desire to be loved, accepted, and validated as a man. Even though I know it's wiser for me to be a virgin till marriage, I still feel bad about it because occasionally I wonder if I ought to have sex with women (even in flings) just to make sure I'm lovable and desirable. There's a lot of pressure (where it comes from? I dunno. Maybe "society", maybe family, maybe friends, maybe instinct, maybe just their own heads, etc.) on men to have sex even without marriage explicitly tied to it. A man naturally feels that in order to be good he must win the approval of a woman. And approval means praise, love, and permission to enter. Men who are promiscuous are, I believe, men who wish to be loved and validated but are afraid of getting hurt. I've known a lot of slutty men, both my age and much older, and they all had bad relationships with their mothers and either an absent father, a beta father, or one that actively encouraged male promiscuity. Women are definitely not the only confused gender out there. Men are too. Men want to have sex because it's empirical validation for their existence. It says "you're a decent man. You're worth being with. I love you. Now you may enter..." I'm sure there's the 5% of are psychopaths, but I'm fairly sure there's also the confused majority who just don't know right from wrong and are aimlessly seeking validation and approval. Especially by a woman. To a man: a woman's word is worth a hundred mens'. You're wrong (about the part I bolded). Men want a woman who is motherly (feminine), women want a man who is fatherly (masculine). It's just that a lot of them don't know where to find it and probably had bad examples before them. Let me tell you the wisest thing a woman could ever do when she sees her man having a bad day, feeling upset, complaining, etc. It's simple: Hug him. That's it. A loving hug is pretty much all a man needs to feel better because it reminds him "what's really worthwhile": the love of his life, the mother of his children, and once he's had children the next thing that works like a charm is their own praise of their father as a provider, teacher, protector, and life-sized teddy bear (lol but true). I know women like to talk things out, but men don't always. Sometimes, we just want to lay down... relax, and feel loved. I think once you get that, you'll feel better about people and your sons. As long as you love them, you hug them (that's very important--the physical act of hugging, especially the head), and you praise them where they're good and chastise them where they're bad, you've got nothing to worry about. Next is just a matter of teaching them to find a good woman (if they really love you, they might just ask Dad since he got you). And to conclude: I'm as emotional as you are. I may be better at controlling it (most of the time lol) but I am not a stoic, wise elder. I'm 20 years old! Don't expect me to have the same temper and patience as your 30-something husband! Or you, even. However I think we've come to a good randevous since, frankly, I like the fact we gave each other our rawness and (in spite of the blip in the middle) came together to get a real extractable lesson out of it. Also, I used to be much more afraid of rejection, especially by elders. While I was always critical of seemingly random authority (heck I remember--when I was 8-- refusing to say "Yes?" when called on because I didn't see anything wrong with "What?". It seemed both arbitrary and unfair to change my language slightly to a teacher I barely knew lol. I never actually said "Yes?" to her even though I did so occasionally with others. While I used to be more conforming, I also had a rebellious streak lol. But I never broke any school rules etc. etc. I always followed them, especially if they seemed fair and logical to me, and hated those who got away with breaking them Maybe I should have become a policeman... lol).

Oy vey! If I was Jewish I'd be very ashamed to be represented by this cuck... Welp, a crazy Jew is the least of Iceland's problems. I think they're the ones with a lesbian Prime Minister...

I have absolutely no idea how we can get to an AnCap society. I think Feudalism is actually more progressive (as in actually progress) because it fuses private property and private ownership with governance (blurring the lines between the State and the Private, therefore Feudalism is the midpoint between the landless force-based state and the landed AnCap ideal) but I could be totally wrong. Maybe Feudalism is a terrible idea, or maybe it's the end in and of itself. It could be argued Feudalism is the most moral based on property rights and contractual obligations... I'd just how AnCap as an ideal to get to and work with what's current with the intent of slowly getting there generation by generation. Your friend probably supports the current system because he's either doing fine (i.e., he's content) in it or he doesn't know of a better system that has been both tried and proven in the past. His empirical experience is at odds with your abstractions. If he's interested in studying historical political systems, then I encourage you let him do his own homework and reach his own conclusions. Ultimately history is vast and complicated; it can teach a lot but it can be hard to listen. If he's not interested, I think it's sufficient that you share values and understand each other. It's a lot to ask someone to believe in (ultimately its a matter of faith more than reason) a system (or lack of a system) that has never successfully been implemented (on a large scale at least) especially when more present threats are abound. "How can I think of the Stars as the clouds rain down upon me?" is a very reasonable sentiment.

A bit off topic, but I'm curious: do smart people naturally find themselves interested in "higher beings", "how the Earth was made", or "purpose for life"? I don't mean to insult or flatter anyone, but as someone with a nice IQ I have had very little interest in any of these things. The first two will never have any affect on my life or how I live it while the latter I've always had an answer for: You/I make a purpose. I'm curious if curiosity about the abstract is a sign of intelligence, and perhaps super-intelligent people are even more interested. Or, quite the opposite, smart people don't really care but the super smart do. Or super smart don't but the normal smart do. Maybe it's just a personality/life thing. Maybe people with lots of time on their hands (they tend to be smart) think about this stuff, while people who always seem short of time don't. Or maybe there is no correlation. But I find this personally interesting just because I've never fit in with some kinds of smart people because they'd like to talk about abstractions like this while my main interests were either politics, ideologies, history, video games, or pretty women. Again, I don't intend to insult or flatter anyone. I'm just curious and this seems like the best place to ask.

I don't think America/Russia would benefit from importing the most cowardly 20% of Europeans... ...However Europe might benefit. I'd rather not play theoretical-God though, because neither you nor I can really be sure what'll happen so we might as well just accept the infinite possibilities and tend to our own gardens.

All this running away will result in the same end that befell the Amerindians when they continually sold out their descendants and hid out in the expansive West. Eventually the West ran out, and so did they. Europe's going to be fine. Sure, they might have some rough patches, maybe even a few wars, but they'll be fine. They've been fine for at least 5,000 years, I'm sure they'll be fine for another 5,000. You might not like it, but feudalism is what succeeded republicanism historically (in Europe). The Feudal Monarchy is progressive; the Republic is regressive. And while you might not have meant it literally, it's a possible future. More likely there will be petty dictatorships though. Once they've fallen, they may morph into feudal states however and return to law and order in doing so.

My intent was simple: to express anger and extreme contempt. I don't usually curse on the Internet (don't want to look like a big mouth and it usually just sabotages whatever else I might say) but I felt I ought to since I had to make it clear where I was coming from and why it's important for her to get how awful her misandry is because most men never raise their voices around women and so many women don't get the full truth due to men's inherent tendency to lie or minimize to women. But then again it was months ago. I was probably just pissed because I wanted to help but at the same time very much didn't want to help because I felt both betrayed and massively offended. However I figured I ought to say something because 2+ boys are at stake and mere offense is nothing compared to a childhood of having a man-hating mother. Perhaps I triggered her and so she ignored the rest of what I had to say. If that's the case then she really needs to woman up because it isn't about her; it's about her children.

Yes it is. It's to indicate exactly how disgusted I am/was with you after reading you reply and how any sane man would be after reading how virulently you, a mother of boys, hate men. You can't throw shit at a man and expect him not to flinch. You can apologize before saying it but that doesn't make a difference. It's honestly how you feel, and therefore I'm honestly expressing how I felt. You ought to expect it, actually. If I said horribly, untrue, and offensive things about women you'd be right to tell me to GFY even if I prefaced it with "I'm sorry but this is how I feel". I will be extra honest and let you know I was tempted to say absolutely nothing because I was extremely offended. However with 2+ boys at stake, I felt I had to say something because I could empathize with being a small and helpless creature in the hands of someone who internally despises me for being born with the wrong genitals. Of course you could focus on the more substantial parts of my reply but then I guess if this is the most significant part for you then frankly you need to woman up because my patience isn't infinite and you'd have to be extremely naive, or simply apathetic, to think you can describe men as shallow beasts and expect no emotional flares.

Considering how hot Basic Instinct is, I can't say I'm surprised there's a kind for the gender-reversed. Also the woman looks like... Well, you know... and I guess we have a pretty compelling case for actually having a death penalty (I can't believe the Ukraine of all countries doesn't execute people, especially murderous corpse-rapists!). It astounds me how most Europe doesn't actually have the death penalty... talk about cucked up. What got me is that his name is "Tkach" (pronounced "cock" lol, or "cahtch", like "cock" and "catch" put together) lol.

What exactly is "ego defenses"? Shame? Well, I can't say shame is necessarily a bad thing. For me at least, it's the stick to my carrot that gives me an extra push to be productive and make a decent man out of myself. After all, if the carrot's not seeming so tasty, it helps to have a stick be like "hey man, wanna be like those guys? No? Then keep trodding, eventually you'll get the carrot..." and I have a pretty defined carrot... To be confident, I think, one must be acting in accordance with his values and be productive in reaching his goals. I am most confident after a good day's work and least confident after a vacation. I tend to enjoy the leisure times most when I've worked the best (not necessarily hardest, as often if I push myself too hard or try to compensate quality with quantity, I'll simply be spending more time to achieve less) and I tend to appreciate my life the most when I compare it to how it used to be, especially for my ancestors. Obviously shooting your frontal lobes with drugs is a stupid and self-destructive idea. The real cure to depression, anxiety, and all that is to speak the truth, shame the Devil, spot the mountaintop, and make gradual process ascending it. Or, to put it another way, figure out what's wrong, declare it wrong, learn from it, find out what's right, figure our what you want to do (like an ambition or series of lifelong goals), and then proceed to do it.

Considering the political beliefs of the journalist, I'm skeptical of how truthful this report was. However, having said that, it is hardly surprising if a handful of billionaires really are afraid of the migrant crisis robbing them of everything they worked hard to gain. After all, all they have is money; not an army to protect themselves or enforce some sort of idealized social change. In super-extreme times, it's not the guys with money that thrive but the guys with swords and the commanders of them. But a small handful of rich folks, hedge fund managers at that, is hardly representative of "the rich" given how diverse the rich are compared to any other social or racial class. I can't imagine 2 billionaires having the same opinion on much of anything, even if they're willing to set it aside to work together. I can't blame the handful talked about for their worries though; if I were them, I'd be worried too. After all, if the Right doesn't sheriff up the West then they really are in danger of foreign and native looters and riotous militaries and militias. But, because there is such a strong pushback against the Left and a general trend towards their recession and (numeric) demise, I am not all that worried for the future as the chances of the world-ending or whatever are extremely low--provided my generation of the Right succeeds in pushing back the Left from their madness.

Work on it before your boys see themselves as broken girls. If I knew you personally, I'd just say "fuck you" (but definitely not literally) and stop knowing you. However, I don't know you personally and there are two boys on the line, so I have a bit more patience than I'd normally. I could easily make an emotionally fulled spite-fest about female hypergamy and characterize women as nothing more than eternal parasites and prostitutes before the hard working and laboring men, yet are too arrogant and vain to ever admit it and thus spite men for their own baseness. MGTOW and feminism are two sides of the same problem. How is male sexuality gross? Reading this, it makes me wonder how you see your husband considering how "gross" he is for being a man and how "gross" your kids are for being men-to-be. I can only guess your past, but I can easily predict your future if you don't change your mindset and impressions of men. Considering men make everything in society, from the roads to the clothes to the houses and computers, to the very scrubs and soaps that are used to keep it all clean, I highly suggest you rethink your incredibly sexist view of men and male sexuality. It's better you're honest, but I can't fathom how you could have a remotely healthy family dynamic present or future given this "dormant sexism". Maybe you have a past that makes you see men as mere beasts, but that's no excuse. You, and everyone really, relies on men to keep society together and on women to build the men. If you can't learn to appreciate men--deep down--and male sexuality then frankly you have no future as a mother or a wife. I can't imagine what traumas, intentional or subconscious, you are (or could be) inflicting on your sons. My solution at this point is very simple but ultimately up to you to figure the details out of: learn to appreciate men and male sexuality, or prepare to be a miserable old spinster. I suspect your distaste for men comes from being exposed to beta males and perhaps being a low quality woman with only a body to offer. I hope I'm wrong, but this highly offensive and sexist sentiment could only come from a dark place. I read your inner Eliot Roger below about female sexuality and you can basically reread everything I wrote above but switch the pronouns. The way I see it (and maybe it could alter your view): male sexuality is the seeds, female sexuality is the soil, and the next generation is the fruit, trees, and vegetation that makes the Earth beautiful. A man's sexuality is inherently loving because of his innate desire to invest himself into a woman and children; a woman's sexuality is inherently loving because of her innate desire to welcome and embrace a man into herself and then hold the children born of them. Water tends to seek its own level; aggressive men like to domesticate aggressive women; docile men like to be domesticated by docile women; assertive men like to seek companionship with assertive women. I am not saying all aggressive is good or bad, all docility is good or bad, or all assertiveness is good or bad, because all of it is necessary to build and sustain a society. Warriors protect the workers and farmers, workers build the world, and farmers feed the world, and them both feed and house the warriors in exchange for that protection. This is the relationship between the aggressive, the passive, and the assertive. At its best, a working team. At its worst, a feud. Don't make it a feud. Learn to respect the beauty of how we evolved and the flurry of emotions and sensations that come with sexuality. ...Perhaps all this will change your course, as I am frankly far more concerned for your sons than I am for you after reading this.

lol reading this comment stream and then watching the videos... LOL. It's almost like (might as well take off the kid gloves) a snobby British instructor purposely "not getting" why "the kids" find something funny.

My guess is that you're afraid of your boys, or future girls, becoming sluts as adults. Well, the best way to prevent that is with education and example. I am not a slut because I know what happens to sluts and how shitty their lives are. I have so many examples of what happens if I follow my dick that I just don't do that. You need to get the sexist idea out of your head that "male sexuality=inability to love" though. I'm sure there are male sluts like female sluts that don't love or don't need love to screw, but I know as a man that I emotionalize sex and can't help but feel love for someone I am sexually attracted to. And the best way to combat that is education and a desensitization to sexual stimuli. Easiest way is through regular fapping as males naturally have higher standards when they're exposed to the best glamour models on the internet and since most women don't have the bodies of glamour models, most women cannot make me feel like as vulnerable as I used to feel back when I was younger and more sensitive. I doubt it's all that different with girls. I think the Internet has helped a lot in terms of taming sexuality as instead of having actual sex we can now simulate sex and thus reduce the weakness that comes from having a strong sex drive.

Simple: what if the value sets between A and B are so great that they cannot avoid fighting each other? Like if Group A believes itself utterly perfect in values and just in seeking to conquer the world, but hasn't quite gotten around to doing it yet, while Group B is the NAP group that is highly pacifist. Either Group A will attack Group B when it's most convenient OR, violating the NAP (potentially), Group B could preemptively attack Group A and do whatever they must to destroy Group A to prevent Group A from trying to subjugate their neighbors and impose their "perfect" ideology. It could be argued Group B was acting in self-defense, but Group A wasn't actively threatening anybody. They just have as a blanket statement a fanaticism in their correctness and a desire to impose it on the world. However they didn't, at the time, have a workable army or plan and so were mostly keeping to themselves. It could be said a time to violate the NAP is when someone else is doing it and the people under that someone else cannot rise up on their own to reform. Our, more simply, "my neighbor's house is on fire! Do I break in to hose it down, or respect their privacy?". That may sound unreasonable but what if trying to blow out the fire would extend it to the NAP-guy's house, endangering his own family? See how this all connects to the real world? I'm not saying I disagree with the NAP, but I do think we ought to very wary and, as a society, hostile towards those that openly seek global domination and consider themselves so perfect as to be non-negotiable, as well as skeptical to those that think it's a good idea to intervene in the immorality of those who are geographically distant and culturally alien.