Siegfried von Walheim

How old are you?

I've changed my stance somewhat since to be in favor of the Japanese style of monarchy that was going on under the Tokugawa Shogunate. See that for details. I have not done any research of modern monarchies (especially third-world ones) however I know enough of European and Asian monarchies to know that what you say is only true for some countries in some times and totally untrue for other countries and other times. And, before I go any further, can you name me a single monarchy with as much blood on its hands as the secular/republican/non-monarchist states of the 20th century? Especially compared to (former monarchical) Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, America, Cuba, etc.? Now, I'm not saying all these countries were totally terrible for the last one hundred years. But I am saying we have a hell of a lot more blood on our hands since WWI... Name me a single genocidal monarchy. I'd be tempted to name "Japanese Empire" for you, but in its defense it was no longer an effective monarchy as the Shogunate (arguably the real monarch for the last 1,000 years) was overthrown and a dictatorship of politicians and ex-nobles and warlords had seized control. Even more I dare you to name a single monarchy that required genocide to sustain itself. I think you've watched too much Game of Thrones because even the very worst of rulers were mild and limited compared to Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Castro, Mao, etc. and in general they were much more of the Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Trump, Obama, and Buchanan level of good vs. evil. Generally quite mild and consistent. (Almost) Literally every Holy Roman Emperor (exaggerating but this is a notable trend) was a depressed drunk who spent his days arguing and defending his country rather than sanctioning genocide or radically reforming (for better or worse) his nation. Great guys like Charlemagne, Ivan the Great (not his grandson the Terrible), Ieyasu Tokugawa, and Charles Martel were rare but so too were the Borgias, Ivan the Terrible, or Hideyoshi Toyotomi. In fact, I'd wager ye average monarch was a mild-mannered debater who kept the status quo more than anything. Occasionally there were economy-wreckers or warmongers but in general the aristocracy kept them in check. In general no one died as a direct result of government policies (because, in part, the government officials--aristocrats--directly profited from a happy and healthy populace whereas in Republics they just take their lobby money and leave before the crap hits the fan. These guys had an incentive to plan for the long term). If you want peace, establish a decentralized aristocracy. if you want war, establish a federal republic. Best example I have of a good monarchy: the Tokugawa Shogunate. Literally the worst Shoguns were dog lovers, preachers who loved Confucius, a wastrel who liked wine and poetry, and a guy who liked swords and broke the then-historically-strong economy patronizing swordsmiths. I don't know about you but I kinda prefer having my worst leaders be dog lovers and fiscally irresponsible over cynical rapists, anti-patriotic foreigners, warmongers, and/or city-nukers. Especially I prefer it when foreign policy is consistent and foreign leaders trust our word and loyalty rather than starkly changing every 8 years. The fact America (and most other democratic-republics) is practically a different country every 4-8 years ought to say enough about the inherent danger of the bipolar republican system.

MGTOW is just the male equivalent to feminism. Pretty much everything a feminist says about a man, a MGTOW says about a woman. While there is stuff to learn from MGTOW (like the dangers of bad women) sort of how there used to be stuff to learn from feminism (like about dangerous men), both are just suicidal ideologies that will cease to exist once their proprietors die of old age and the children of those that decided to actually procreate become the dominant force. Like feminism, MGTOW is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only difference is that feminism is backed by the state and dominant while MGTOW is new and dormant.

Some Russian guy among others have debunked this grotesque and racist game to death.

No, I'm seeking sanity and humanity from a woman. If she's as bitchy and worthless as the kind your advice is needed for, she isn't worth it. I'd rather dig around for a unicorn or be a single dad (or even a fake-gay dad or some crazy thing like that) than marry an adult child. Heck, even a 40 year-old used up train wreck who somehow managed to "fix herself too late" is preferable to a 20-something who is basically a child that never grew up. I'm not saying I'll go for 40 year olds or purposely become a single dad, but I am definitely not working and creating for a woman who is just a black hole with nothing to offer that either money or a professional can't replace. Let alone impregnating her and letting her genes continue.

While I trust this as good advice, there is a problem: why would you consider marrying a woman that is really no different from an English (or in this case Spanish)-speaking dog? How can you love a woman that is basically a child with tits and ass? I'd just do what Stefan said: assume she won't change and move on. Attention-seeking whores, mentally/emotionally unstable, and bitchy are definitely red flags for "gtfo asap".

If it's that simple, holding a job and renting for the first time is a rite because nothing says "I am in control of my life" quite like having to be responsible for one's finances.

How is it just to "reduce mankind's burden of survival"? What does that even mean? Theoretically if justice meant reduction of pain, you could do that very easily through universal genocide. No man, no pain. Obviously, for sane people at least, this is not desirable because anyone who is currently alive and not attempting suicide prefers life over death because they get more than they lose. Your goals sound very Socialist as their ends are about "reducing pain" and they have a love of manipulating and twisting language as well. What is good behavior? Good for who? Why are these things "good" and what is this "ethical code of conduct"? In the Middle East, it is considered ethical to stone folks who tarnish the name of the Koran. The abundance of "symbolic terms" only obfuscates your own ideological and moral intents. Without any context besides the chart and what is said, there is little difference between "Social Justice" and "Creative Justice". Why not simply "Justice"? Why is there a desire to "resolve inequality"? I don't think inequality is even a problem. All creatures are naturally unequal. And thanks to the intellectual, moral, and physical titans of yore it is us who get to live and bask in the Sun of Utopia rather than live in a swamp or desert eating only what we can catch or graft, and disposing of our wastes into ditches. I, as a novelist, am extremely skeptical of artists. Given the solipsistic nature of our similar professions, a whole lot is required to justify the formation of ideology formulated by folks like us because most of us are talkers and thinkers rather than doers. Meaning we don't do much and have little experience yet we like to talk about and write about the folks that do and occasionally some of us arrogantly think our revolutionary ideals are the next great leap forward and every now and then one writer/artist out of a hundred thousand actually succeed in putting theory into practice. Some like John Locke or Milton Friedmon actually save and improve lives, others like Marx or Lenin take millions and inspire the rising of even greater evils. And what the bad ones have in common is obscure language, lack of concrete definitions, and the belief that their ideas make perfect sense so why doesn't everyone just do it already? I am not saying you have evil intents, but I am saying the gravitas of your proposal is quite huge and you have to be able to answer at least my basic questions or else you're just another sophist preaching for yet another fool's idol.

How is "creative justice"--which is neither defined nor explained-- any different from "social justice"? And why would anyone want equality of outcome? I am extremely skeptical about your moral intents.

Well, that's all news to me. What's so different about Baptists compared to other churches? May be necessary for you since if you seriously want to try being the atheist husband to a Christian woman, you'd probably want to figure out what's distinctive about Baptist churches compared to others. The problem (and I don't mean my problem but one I think you'll have in the long run if you try for a Christian woman) is that you're lying and deceiving. You're acting like a Christian even though you're an atheist. Even if you're a good liar and a sociopath your woman will eventually figure it out I doubt you could have a good marriage with a woman you regularly lied about yourself to. The main reason why I decided to stop going to church was because I didn't really believe in God. I don't want to call myself an atheist because I do have moral values even if I don't have a rational methodology for them... but I am definitely not a real believer and I don't want to build relationships from deceit.

I would never joke or be sarcastic about such a serious issue. It's definitely possible we're overreacting, but it's also very likely we're not and with children I'd rather be safe than sorry. Besides: given culture of the government, media, and Pedowood, it would not surprise me if it was either deliberately sexualized or the maker is just crazy enough to be desensitized to the idea of sexualization.

Issue: why should all people exert a similar or same amount of effort? What's wrong with deliberately doing just enough or deliberately going above and beyond? "Justice" as defined as of opportunity is a new one, as I always thought justice meant "equality under the law" (as in one law that applies equally to everyone). It is impossible to have total equality of opportunity just like it's impossible to have equality of outcome--unless you slash the knees and make everybody equally helpless or poor. Or, in the case of effort, force everybody to be equally lazy or exhausted.

Yeah, sounds very groomy to me. As far as I know, actual groomers do crap like this to "ease in" the crap they actually plan on doing. So you really ought to keep your kids out of those "dances", ones like that reek of preparation for either rape or long-term promiscuity. I mean, what you described sounds like the motions of someone being... Well, you know.

If I had to guess? Probably because our standards are high. I'm not talking about the socially awkward--that's got some more to it--but about why smart people in general struggle to make friends and spouses. Because we are looking for quality, nothing but what we're looking for will do. However we can overestimate and overvalue ourselves and aim too high or aim for something that either isn't real or is real only for the great men. For the socially awkward... Well, it may be a conflict of interest (mentally). On one hand they may want to socialize and "be normal", on the other they may dislike their company and want more, and another still may be sending red flags to warn the person that they're in bad company. Smart people think and sense a lot. Therefore I imagine if they betray their instincts they'll be a lot less confident and more awkward. Personally, I'm used to be very awkward back when I wanted friends. However I didn't like the people around me and a part of me both knew I was hanging with the wrong crowd and another disrespected me for hanging low. I felt and acted a whole lot better when I stopped trying to make false friends with shared-hobby types and instead looked for only the most interesting and intelligent folks I could find. Mind you I don't have many friends but I'm a hell of a lot better off as someone who speaks his mind and actively attracts and repels people than I was trying to be obedient to authority and a social chameleon. However, for smart people in general, I don't know if my own experiences are common or rare. I assume smart people being awkward comes from a lack of respect for themselves and those around them--both justly and unjustly--while trying to pretend to be respectful and good. Basically I think there's more going on up stairs and the result is awkwardness in the face. EDIT: I don't know about the geek types though. I never was much for numbers or science Latin/Greek but I loved to talk about history and politics. And if I wasn't getting a reception, I wasn't sending anymore signals. However again I don't know about other people, just me.

Naturally there will be big historical holes as they do research. There's a heck of a lot of it and a lot of nuance but the important thing is to have at least an ideal hero to aspire to become like (ideally multiple as few men are great in all the major areas but you can certainly find great men who excel in a few major areas) and from there learn about the conflicts and struggles of the real men. I'd be more worried of holes in more recent (i.e. post WWII) history as it's a lot more relevant than a great Japanese warlord who wanted to turn Japan into a Westernized nation state. I agree that you ought not to either be controlling nor not-there but rather find a way to facilitate them and guide them without holding their hands or making (too many) decisions for them. You ought to grow them gradually so they can make decisions on their own and view you as a wise advisor rather than a necessary director. As for video games: there's a lot to be said and I don't know if you're a gamer or ever were but there's so much variety in the gaming world that they're not all equally good or bad in terms of influence. Some can be very inspirational, some are simply very fun, others can be toxic (especially on the youth). The problem is I'm not sure you can just choose video games for your children. My mother sorta did that (especially when I was young) but it worked well because I almost always enjoyed her picks (and that may be because she herself played video games a lot before becoming a mother. She still plays games every now and then but not much compared to when I was a toddler and before). However if you're not a gamer (or were one) then you probably won't have much knowledge or sway over your children's desires to play video games. My therapist himself only played a video game once in his life and his son (who is in Dentistry school, a few years older than me) likes video games but never let it come at the cost of having a personal social life or career. I think part of it was that his son had him to look up to as a role model (he even planned on becoming a brain surgeon or therapist like his dad was but his dad, my therapist, convinced him to look into another medical field as therapy is apparently not as profitable as it used to be) and they have really good genes. Literally every male in my therapist's family is a doctor or engineer of some sort. However... my conclusion is I'm not sure how you can positively influence your sons taste (or lack of) for video games. They were escapism when I was a kid as I had a very bad age 7-13 when my father was still around but once I no longer felt threatened or in danger I started to seek out things and got into writing. My video games became sources of inspiration rather than escapism. Now they're rewards for a good day's work. However most kids with bad childhoods I knew didn't make this transition. However again, I assume you will make sure your kids aren't fearful and looking for an escape. So you might have it a lot easier as a result. I think most of it is a gradual process. I did not become a man overnight; I was grown into it as I learned more and sought more and became wiser. I eventually did the adult things of work and taxes and responsibility to authority for the first time and they could be called "rites of passage" but beyond the basic things we have to do in order to get a living and legally keep the income there isn't much overnight stuff. Except where it comes to career and ideals. Inserting myself as I easily had that 3 part experience myself; I started off learning about modern politics and governance and was originally a Socialist. I learned Socialism was actually very evil and broken, which broke my enthusiasm and so I spent half a year recovering while essentially hopping from ideology to ideology until I could find one without a fatal flaw. I eventually recognized (as I had already to some degree) that the reason why I was fixated on ideologies and their heroes was because of the lack of them in my own life. I had no father growing up and looked up to the Communist "heroes" as father-figures. Losing them was a big but painful step towards manhood. Respecting the "minor heroes" I didn't pay much attention to and realizing how truly heroic they were was another step. Accepting my own ignorance and limitations and all the while charting how I can make my own life good was the next. In short my lifetime goal is to become a novelist and family patriarch. The income bracket I am aiming for is 60-100,000 per year and to live in a low crime and Midwestern neighborhood far from the over-boiling melting pots and hedonism of night lives and drugs. I don't know your sons so I can't "write their story" in advance. You could, however. If they're curious then that's a great start because curiosity is the mother of wisdom-seeking and humility (that's to say an accurate appraisal of oneself and others). I suspect your sons will, on their own power, become interested in the way the world works around 12-14 and probably have some "out there" political ideas around 15-16 (that I suggest you debate them about in order to help them grow out of bad ideas and teach them how to find the weaknesses of an ideology as well as to encourage continuous growth and wisdom) and finally be set on what they're about by 18. By the time I was 19 I knew exactly what I'd be doing for the next 5 years and what the markers for success and failure are. I knew what would happen if I shirked my responsibilities and the benefits of success. I sought ways of doing more in less time, making more of less, and otherwise finding ways I could make enough money to do as I want while also making enough to one day have a wife and children and actually be there to raise them. I am especially keen on being an active father in my children's raising. While I can induce a sort of schizophrenia on myself as a novelist, I cannot be so arrogant as to assume I know your children just because I know a little bit about you. I assume they'll be curious because YOU are (as demonstrated by the fact you're looking for parenting advice from an out-there philosophy forum and occasionally debating far-out ideas even as an active mother and wife) and you're their primary influence at home (I assume). Yeah, I get that. That's why I intend to found my own community (either "so to speak" or literally) and set the foundation for a very interconnected family so that my grandchildren will have lots of uncles, aunts, and grandparents to look up to besides their own parents. And for the generation after mine, at least my kids will have their parents and maybe a couple grandparents. We founders however have to work it with only a few like-minded hands, but in the long term our descendants will have it far easier so long as we set a good precedent and be sure to get involved in their lives as positive examples and advisors. I'd sooner emulate the traditional Japanese style of interconnectivity than the more recent Western isolation of modern false-families. They were far from perfect but definitely good for stability and continual improvement. I have a few families such as the Tokugawa and Mori to look up to for proofs of concept. My compromise, at least for now, is to do as Stefpai does and teach Christianity with the aim of it being storytelling rather than treating it like it's totally true. I don't want to call myself an atheist because I do have a lot of Roman Catholic values but I don't really believe in God (and thus am technically an atheist even if I don't want to identify as such) however I do have some of their values plus what I learned of the Japanese, Chinese, and some European traditions. A benefit of history learning is having a large pool of ideas and concepts to draw from. I plan on having a sort of East-meets-West approach to parenting and family culture as I think there's a lot to be gained from the strong and sturdy families of Japan (although they do have severe weaknesses I make personal note of) alongside the free and flying families of the West (who have weaknesses we can all easily identify) and of course the parenting advances guys like Stefpai made. I plan to incorporate much of what Stefpai did into my own future parenting but to do so while incorporating my own knowledge as a history lover and Japanophile. And how do I plan on actually making that happen? Find a good woman, find a good place to live, and at the very least practice it with the confines of my household so that even if the environment is fairly alien my children will be armed with wisdom to dissect the good from the bad and make their own advances as well as protect themselves, especially their souls and integrity. Conclusion on the rite of passage thing: I don't think, beyond the basics of learning how to manage one's tax files and find one's career, there is a real overnight shift from boy to man. I think the way to do it is to educate and rear your children because it's a gradual shift and that by the time they're 18 they ought to be mostly certain of what they want to do and have the personal characteristics needed to seek out what's needed to make it happen. I think the big leaps in a boy's life are really when he discovers the truth of the world around him and when he finds his calling. Most men, sadly, only do the first by crashing into the worst of the world while failing to ever do the latter, thus relegating themselves to work they don't want and lives a wiser man could have avoided living. Therefore I think what you ought to focus on is building a strong moral fiber, humility, curiosity, and helping them find a career calling. Once a man has a "why" he ought to do anything in life, he can do just about any "how" in getting it done.

Months later, I'm much more understanding of this than ever. I don't care to make friends with people I'm not interested in (which is a small pool) but I am a lot more appreciative of the guys whose labor ensures I can work with ideas rather than my hands. And that helps bridge the gap a lot as it's very easy for guys like me to slip into elitism and eugenics. I have no intention of trying to be "their" friend, but I do respect them as necessary elements of society and hope to reciprocate their labor with labor of my own. We can be civil partners in society, if not friends.

My biggest beef is that the conversations can be very boring and repetitive at times. Some of them are interesting and inviting and I love talking to wise, or at least knowledgable, folks seeking to become wiser but other times it's the same thing over and over and the folks are set in their ways without the possibility for change. How many topics have to be devoted to "is God evil", "is God real", "is --insert here-- child abuse?", "is my obviously abusive family abusive?" or "is the State immoral or super immoral?". All this might be interesting at first but after a while it gets really bland and predictable. Given the philosophical nature of this site, I'd hope to see some more intellectually interesting debates like monarchism vs. republicanism, socialism vs. capitalism (admittedly a bit stale, especially with so few if any socialists around to argue with), is Stalin really all that bad?, was Hitler actually not that bad?, etc. Even if I totally disagree with the topic creator, I'm much more engaged in debating people that think Hitler is cool or Stalin is cool than I am debating flat earthers, atheists, or sex addicts. In short: there's not enough starkly opposing view points and stuff I, at least, find personally interesting. The economic stuff is interesting but unfortunately for me often over-my-head and hard to comprehend.

A BAPTIST church? I'm pretty sure they're full of single moms if I know what the Baptist Church is... Isn't it basically the "black church"? And if decent black women can't find a decent black man at church, I doubt you could find a decent woman at a Baptist Church either! Besides, as an atheist you could never cement it with a real Christian. They'd either have to not love you enough to try to "save you" or they aren't really Christians. However there is a middle ground of "cultural Christians" who hold the values but don't share the same methodology for getting them. Problem is there's a lot of them and they come in many shapes and sizes.

Well, I think you understand very well my problem then. I understand and believe in the word of Christ, but I don't really believe in God and feel terrible implicitly lying to myself and others by acting as if I do.

I may be wrong since I'm only speaking for myself a virgin, but I can't "do it" unless I am emotionally attached to who I am doing it with (at least with the imaginary woman I'm doing it with). I suspect men aren't as brutish as you think, or maybe I'm just rare in that I can't "do it" unless I at least project a lovable woman into whomever I'm doing it with. Again, I have no sexual experience and have only solitary experience, but I suspect I won't be losing my virginity to a woman I don't love even if I tried. I'd have to at least love the woman by pretending she was someone else if I did try. Very interesting, and strong. I think what you've italicized has convinced me plenty that harmonious polygamy is impossible (or at least difficult) with K-selection. I think the only compromise that could work is if the woman believed she was sharing her man, not totally losing him. And that he had enough of himself and his resources to go around. So only a warlord could realistically fit and only in dire times could it be emotionally validated. Relatively peaceful first-worlders aren't going to have any justification for temporary polygamy...

I don't mean to take you out of context, rather I want to shorten what I'm quoting for space reasons. Also stuff I'm not directly responding to I'm either conceding or agreeing with or leaving (as in I have nothing more to say or I can't deny it yet I'm not moved, or simply bored). Given how Heinrich Himmler went a full 180 and was ready to release the Jews and ally with the Western countries against the Soviet Union, given how Field Marshal Rommel was personally against the anti-semitism but pro-Hitler, I think many Nazis either didn't really believe in what they were doing (on high, I mean. I assume the soldiers believed in it.) or they had very different ideas of what they "ought to do". While there were death camps, there were also preparations for mass deportations to Israel. I think many Nazis wanted deportation over genocide while the ones that wanted genocide either had greater pull in government or far less restraint than the more public facing deporters. I have tended to view politics as an endless battle of ideals and visions and I think I wouldn't be far wrong if I said even the most cynical of politicians have their own standard, their cynicism, at the very least. Perhaps modern politicians believe very much in what they preach. I am sure some do. However I don't know, and perhaps can't know, how many are true or not (to themselves and others). Thus they can become entrepreneurs in their fields and compete against the "credentialists". Easier said than done, I know, but definitely possible. Not for everyone, but for the demographic I care most about (the smart, moral, and virtuous). I'm tempted to call you a liar because a harem is every sane man's dream. Sure, realistically, he's more likely to be ruled by the harem than ruling it, however it is still a male fantasy because it is the epitome of biological success. However it's also like candy; it's tasty but very unhealthy in large doses. Hence why harems have been historically held by very few people even in societies that condone them. I don't know. As a straight man, I do get off on MFM sex scenes but not because I'm bisexual but I can empathize with the woman in the middle pretending to have the most amazing sex ever. I don't want to get any more graphic than this, but I think I can use myself as evidence that it's not that men are naturally bisexual but rather we're naturally hungry for whatever meat is around and sometimes the forbidden meat is the tastiest because it dares us to conquer it. It challenges us, and therefore makes us wanting. But again, like candy... Maybe. But all I can say is "maybe" because I have no idea. I know what you're describing, I get the idea. It's that idea that I'm thinking may be more male fantasy or misinterpretation than reality as... Well, yuri is popular for a reason. True, true. My personal standard, and one that'd be up front with, is that it's okay to be interested, to look, to fap, whatever, but not to actually do anything with someone besides the two of us or to give emotional attention at the expense of either of us. Basically hands-off and spouse-first but the mind can go where it wants (though like candy that doesn't necessarily mean it should. It's just unrealistic for a man to expect his woman not to have the occasional spike in interest or vice versa. Just shouldn't try to indulge it and recognize it for the fantasy it is. Or, and perhaps, try to make the fantasy realizable with the spouse). Problem is every orgiastic society in history (that I know of at least, in Eurasia) was dominated and destroyed by the more moral and monogamous societies. Greece lost to Rome, Rome lost to the barbarians, and the barbarians reformed into the progenitors of modern times. While Rome had its great parts, it is important to identify what caused the greatness from what was a cancer they simply overlooked. I think free lust is cancer to any society, and that includes orgies. I don't care what goes on between a husband and a wife, but I do care what goes on if it hurts the children or the culture of society. See Robert Kiyosaki. It's not the "lazy boss", it's the "smart boss". Not saying the President is dumb; but rather he really loved his work and thus he put a lot into it. However I don't live to work; I work to live. That being said I enjoy my work and am confident about my prospects, however I know most aren't. You want loyalty, as we all do, I think. I don't know... if a woman loves me for the manifestation of my qualities, it's not that far from loving me for my qualities as they're proof of concept. I'd want her to grow attached to me and desire to keep me so that when times are tough she can help me rather than betray me, and I don't know how easy or hard this is to tell even as a wiser young man, but I do think there's less risk than we think because most women are up front about who they are and oftentimes men just close their eyes or hold their ears. Given how horribly nobles are portrayed by modern media, and how pedo the modern media is, I suspect the nobility was in general quite noble and thus by their own naivety or over-trust lost their power to whom they thought was an enlightened populace. If a serious movement to restore the feudal system were to appear, I would be the first man to sign up and give material resources to sustain it. If in war, I'd fight for the monarchists. Because they're more r than the K's that came after? To be sure, I'm not sure what we're talking about with this line. Why do K-selected men have a harem? Because they're less K and wise than the K that has a really great wife. Like a Sultan versus Kaiser Barbarossa. Do you mean animals (as in literally)? Most if not all animals are r compared to most humans (at least Eurasians). And why would man want to emulate a boar? We're humans, after all. ??? I am very egalitarian in my judgements. I have only a single standard for all things, though I do have expectations raised or lowered depending on context. As for what's a great woman... I think that's partially subjective. However I think I already said the big parts that are common as "Advanced". As I said above, attachment usually prevents this. And it's not like we don't love people for what they bring to us and how they make us feel when we bring things to them. And it's not like love ceases when the flow temporarily ends, it's just a bump to overcome (assuming a good pairing was made). True, but a smart man can always find a way to get bread. See Robert Kiyosaki for more... I'd rather talk about nobility than potential female bisexuality or the feasibility of polygamy. I think we're pretty much done with those subjects (and if you aren't, I am. It's not that interesting after a week of talking about it and I think I got the bulk of what you have to offer from the discussion. Hopefully you got the bulk of what I have to offer on it and don't misunderstand or mis-read).

My beef with the show is that it's about yet another Hollywood-esque distantly-noble family with a creepy and abusive Dad (who I won't spoil--I know the ending from my mother who watched it) and a horribly negligent Mom. I don't know if there's a happy/inspirational ending but if there isn't it's basically masochism/sadism in the form of a show. I don't really care for shows/literature/games that portray horrible evil but don't have some sort of inspirational comeback and thus a lesson to combat that evil. Also it's British and I don't like British TV. Too A.D.D. for my taste. Not that modern American film is much better but the East Asians do pacing and information much better and thus are the best filmmakers of our generation.

Neither father nor particularly knowledgeable, but I do have a few ideas. 1: Martial Arts. Nothing says "knowing my limits yet persevering" quite like regular sparring with boxers or other kinds of martial arts. I think, for exercise, character building, and self-defense, martial arts is a great way to get your boys into manhood as they'll at the very least know how to defend themselves and persevere in the face of adversity. 2: Get them to try things that could be made into careers. YouTubing as a gamer is highly unlikely to be their future, so I suggest helping them find other hobbies that could be made into jobs. Like in my case the start of me becoming a novelist was being bored in Middle School. I had pen and paper, so I amused myself. Eventually I hand-wrote a dozen books into spiral notebooks and marble notebooks. Sometimes the "calling" (to a lifelong career) is unpredictable and random, other times it can be induced from childhood based on what was enjoyed and passionately pursued. Try to get them into hobbies that could be made into careers. Don't push them (or else they may resent it) but facilitate them if they express interests in creative stuff or potentially entrepreneurial stuff. Don't indulge sports-related career aspirations as they'll most likely fail rather than succeed (not for lack of skill--it's a free market in most other areas but sports is a heavily regulated and "elite" career path compared to being a novelist or freelance writer or anything else my skills would translate into). 3: Figure out what they're strong in and weak in. Luckily for me I always had an interest in history (sparked by video games) and learning from others, but for other young men listening to history can be very boring and learning from others can be a challenge (by extension, maybe). If your kids are curious and adventurous, I think you'll have a far easier time educating them about being men (how you do that? I don't know for sure but at least teaching them ethics and being able to argue ethics and perhaps getting them into a productive hobby or martial arts would be a start) and they'll be far more self-motivated. On the other hand if they're not curious and shy, I am not sure what to do then. I think in order to make your children curious and adventurous (without being stupidly so) you have to encourage it at an early age and reward them for seeking out new information and coming up with (to them at least) new ideas. Overall: I'm not sure. I think finding good male role models (does your husband have some good male friends you'd like to have spend time with your kids? Ideally a father and husband himself?) is very helpful as the few I had/have certainly gave me a visual proof of concept (an example of what I could become) that I might not have believed in without them. I'm personalizing a bit, but my love of history may have given me an edge as I sought out famous male heroes and tried to both learn from and emulate the ones I admired most. If you could educate them about history but make it a sort of storytelling (instead of dry facts, talk about the accomplishments of great heroes and how they did it and who they did it with) they may do their own research on their own and educate themselves. I love Japanese history because of historically-based video games; perhaps you could take from my mother's example (as many people I know--mostly over the internet, admittedly--love history because video games introduced it to them) or try something different. Either way I strongly suggest making history a focus of your life as I think all boys love tales of great men and how they overcame great adversity and what glorious things they did in their short lives. ...That's all I've got. Let me know what you think as I suspect you probably already thought of #1 and #2 and part of #3, but I think my suggestion of teaching history through story-telling or video games as a way of sparking creativity and self-motivated curiosity might be fairly original. I don't mean to over-praise, but as a son I thank you for looking out for your own sons' futures as they may very well be blessed as a result of your own curiosity and dedication to motherhood. I wish more mothers were like you! :-D

Modern Skinner-ian war might nullify the advantage of fanaticism, but historically the guys that took their war seriously and wanted to win for something beyond themselves were terrors on the battlefield. However I can certainly see #2 being more con-man than fanatic outside war. At least in war even if he's all-talk, he'll inspire the men around him into being truly zealous. And a zealous army can scare a meek army from even fighting!

If it was a war (especially a holy one), guy # 2. If it's something more technical and less religiously inclined, guy #1.