Siegfried von Walheim

Was "fear" another word for "respect" back then? If so that changes a lot about how we ought to perceive the olden times. However I differentiate them. I fear the tiger, respect the tigerslayer, and tolerate the hippy mourning the tiger. Good point. Honestly I think Islam is the Lion as if the Soviet Union has taught us anything, Leftism is unsustainable and will collapse on its own. Islam does not collapse. It dominates and remains for seemingly ever. Therefore I'd rather the Far Left win because eventually they'll crumble and the Right can re-assert itself. Meanwhile Islam will just crush us and maintain itself for a near-eternity. I think the "why" is because Islam is far more ethical and serious than the Far Left which is far more cynical and pragmatic (and thus is harder to retain as it lacks true belief). That's my hypothesis, at least. Maybe, I'm not sure. But aren't they all beta males? Would they even be manly enough to care? Perhaps even a beta cares enough to win but I imagine they'd all be competitively beta while secretly trying to "win". Whatever that means (in reality)... I'd assume that's the standard since most polygamists (that aren't Muslim at least) are taking in low quality women (thus quantity over quality). If they're all high quality... I don't know. More that below given you elaborate further and stuff. I don't think this would work unless it's multiple men/women (like not one man, several women or the reverse) and even then it's so r-selected it's doomed to fail eventually. It might be plausible for the low IQ, but the high IQ can always find good work--especially in the age of Internet. I suspect it has more to do with the lapse of Christendom and the rise in tolerance/acceptance culture. Personally that was how I was first "warmed into" the idea of polygamy. I'm not morally against it but I am practically against it in large scale. I am also very repulsed by it if there's multiple men involved. I have no intention of being a polygamist but I am not against the fantastical and unreal idea of marrying multiple goddesses. Of course, it's so unlikely that I am not planning for it. I might get one great woman, but I am definitely not worth several great women. And I doubt I will ever be unless I am the Kaiser of the Holy American Empire or something. *mite, not "might" ( :-P ). And maybe; it's not all that stable in the show but it could be dramatized to be less stable for drama's sake. I don't know. I have neither experience nor anecdotes. I just know a few historical Asian heroes who were polygamists and how they worked it (which is hardly consistent between them). Basically they all have to love each other? Agreed. And "sexual bonding" might help but... I feel very dirty indulging the idea of it. It may be more of a male fantasy than reality. Makes me wonder. A lot of powerful men have/had a "side woman" who was in many ways his "real wife" that he loved and cared for. Sometimes he loved both his wife and his mistress. It's complicated, to say the least. I'm against cheating (of course) but if the wife condones the idea of it... is it cheating? But I'm presuming there was consent for the adultery. If there's consent, it's not cheating. But if there isn't, it is. I don't know. "Advanced" means they're more than Maid + Cook + Toilet, which means they're either loving, wise, kind, skilled, entertaining, talented, and/or etc. I assume such a woman would marry an Advanced man, thus easily able to be a stay-at-home mother. And I'd presume high quality men work for less hours and make more money doing it. From what I can tell, the wealthiest men don't work that much. And that's an important lesson for rising men to recognize the need to maximize the value of one's time and figure out "how much money is enough". It may be hard for an alpha male (in the money and IQ sense) to know if he's really loved or not, but I have come to the idea that he actually is loved because his woman loves that he's so great and getting resources and wisely handling them. After all it's all indicative that he has self-discipline, a good work ethic, intelligence, wisdom, and skill. Likewise a man loves an alpha woman (i.e. a woman who is beautiful, wise, composed, etc.) because these things imply more than what they show on the surface. However that's not to say there aren't shallow gold diggers or men with only a visual "appreciation" of women. I just think most rich and powerful are more stable than we assume because we're projecting the lives of the poor and mean onto them because that's what we're far more exposed to. From what I can tell, nobility actually wasn't a double-meaning in olden times because nobles were generally noble in character as well as status. It's the exceptions that became infamous and are the boogeymen we concoct when we think "aristocracy". However I might be wrong. I'm still learning, and it's from what I'm learning of European and East Asian history that implies to me that rich people are actually quite nice and dandy and it's the poor people projecting their own dysfunctions onto the nobility that creates the hollywood image we have of rich people in general. Or, in short, it's the ugly and mean trying to bring down the beautiful and kind. Yeah, I get what you mean. As a man I'm naturally afraid of being unappreciated and unloved but so are some women. I think to really know if we are loved, we just have to be attentive to each other and see how the other person responds. Like if I'm tired and exhausted, I know I'm loved because my wife is sitting me down, feeding me, and trying to nurse me back to health. She may only in fact be mending her work horse, but I think this fear that we are unappreciated can lead to an endless stream of paranoia (a slippery slope) rather than reveal truth about our situations. Perhaps empathy can help enlighten us and give us more faith in the other person (and people around us). lol "incels". An aside: as a Roman Catholic who is "voluntarily celibate", I am grossed out by the idea of horny beta males who can't get laid trying to screech like a fat feminist rather than become good husbands. I can't say I mind their gene pools going with the Dodo... As for this example above though: it's so r-selected that there cannot be "top quality". Top quality men seek top quality women and that's usually monogamous as few men are worth several great women and great women usually don't share great men. Therefore this dynamic is really only conceivable for low-class peasant types, not the noble types we ought to emulate. And among "nobles", women do not work like men; they work like women. That's to say they focus on child-rearing and household management rather than try to do the men's jobs. What you're describing is the plight of the low IQ, I think. High IQ people always have an opportunity to do more in less time. And while low IQ people need help to figure out what to do, I'm mainly focused on people with an iQ over 110 or 115. And for them, it's important they learn how to be fiscally wise so they can make just enough for a decent house in a good neighborhood and provide for their family and not work much beyond that. This way they can raise a family as well as be "wealthy" (which I argue every First-Worlder is by reasonable standards but here I mean wealthy enough to keep a home in a good neighborhood and have 3+ kids). I don't know. Are you sure there was "less negotiation" than now? I'm not sure "Arranged Marriages" were as without-love and political as modernists would have us believe. I suspect they're no different than family elders talking amongst each other who is most compatible with each other and letting them get to know each other before making a decision. And it may actually be more efficient and a sign of progress that they could make these decisions relatively quickly compared to the inane years modern youth spend looking for a man/woman. You're right, that's why I'm a good boy Catholic. I think rules need to be laid down and a strong culture needs to be in place so we "know" what's permitted and what's not. I'd rather we move forward by learning from what worked in the past. I think letting elders settle on who should date and letting the dates be focused on what matters (long term planning and kids) is the best way to do it. Yeah, you got a lot of points that I can't disagree with (either because I don't or I can't come up with a good counter-argument). That's why I'm trying to make my ideals my aspirations rather than the standard-bearers of them. This way it doesn't matter who the leader is (in a sense) but rather what standard they're carrying into battle. It's the standard I fight for, not the standard-bearer. And I think many people focus too much on the standard-bearer(s) and not the standard, thus losing sight fo the ideals and giving power to the standard-bearer(s). I suggest you start a new topic as this is basically an unrelated tangent from the OP. I'm willing to discuss further and I think if the idea were highlighted in a new topic (what's the main idea, exactly? How feasible polygamy is? Whether we're losing sight of our goals? Whether the Left is the real enemy or the ideals they represent?) more people could come in and talk without having to play catch up with our essays worth of print (:-P ). At present, I think I have already stated my ideas on the workability of polygamy and how it really depends on whether or not certain conditions have been met. I've also stated I think the better solution for the over-worked is learning how to make do with less and make more money in less time, thus to become happier and more fulfilled rather than try to become an army of rabbits. I've also expressed criticism of how we view centuries-past marriage customs and how modern people view the rich of both present and past. I think some of these things are a tangent (to the tangent of polygamy) and thus could be (or ought to be) dropped from the premise of the new topic, but if you find them worthwhile I don't mind joining a topic you make of it. I tried to broach the subject on other topics but I either wasn't clear or there just isn't much interest for it.

It's held up by families and their incentive to maximize local productivity. It's nearly the opposite financial incentive from modern republics and is far more stable because most families have limited variance per generation and the longest lasting families tend to be highly conservative and cautious with their policy making. They also check each other. Considering how much genes affect the history of family lines, a strong argument for aristocratic rule is that they are far more predictable and when the right families are in charge there is far less room for corruption and disaster compared to the bipolar republican system.

This last part, the dentist analogy, is sort of where I'm at with Church. I don't really believe in God but I am a Roman Catholic and I feel a pain in my chest when I think about whether or not to attend Church. I have not decided whether or not I should because on one hand I want to go with the right reasons and be true and honest but on the other I don't really believe in God so that's dishonest and thus morally questionable. For now I'm thinking I'll go again next Sunday since it's only an hour and a half and it might give me closure on whether or not I should go. I have one leg it and one leg out, so to speak. I don't know if I should or shouldn't because on one hand it has a clear track record for building (Western) civilizations and on the other I am not truly religious and thus not really a part of the grand system.

Well, I meant if I were a homosexual or homosexual advocate. I know they're atheist af and thus I don't really care about them (at all) as a group, but individually for those with qualms about treading on religion, I'd do it differently. Well, I mean tolerant literally. Like if I tolerate something, I won't attempt to destroy it or convert it. Basically tolerance=ignoring something I don't like or care for. Maybe, Nick Fuentes is just a year younger than me yet so very successful as a public intellectual. Maybe I would be wiser, maybe I would be as quick to condemn others without a firm foundation. I have yet to have that trial. Well... language issues. "Respect", to me, is earned because "respect"=like/admiration. I don't like to use "rights" because unless it means "allowance" (like being allowed) it's just emotional politi-talk. I don't respect them; I tolerate them. Because a person cannot be moral if compelled. I am inclined to take Dinesh D'Souza's stance that we ought to ally with Islam ideologically against Western hedonism but not get so comfortable as to be willing to strip people of agency and choice. After all; promiscuity isn't murder or theft. It's a victimless kind of evil (in the sense that no one is being forced). As in polygamists are committed? I'd assume by definition. "Working"=as harmonious as your average 19th century marriage. So occasional yelling and walk-outs but not hitting or breaking things. Assuming marriages were even that decent back then. I'd assume paternity wouldn't be an issue because... if they're in it as a female-led marriage, then all children are shared custody and thus all men are fathers of their children. I think this applies if there's an on-going mental power struggle. Personally, I refuse to marry a woman I must combat with regularly in order "to keep". One huge thing I'm looking for from a wife is emotional support and tranquility (sorta one thing), therefore if I have to pretend to be a dominant alpha and be paranoid of every conversation then I'd rather join the Democrats and actually get something out of that horrible Game of Thrones-style agony. But taking myself out of it; I'd assume a polygamist marriage would be, if working, like a monogamous one in that the wives would probably form a cohort and negotiate against the husband in advance for what is acceptable for both sides to provide. And perhaps amend over time (especially if the wives and husband don't marry all at ones). This only applies when the marriage is not based on love and mutual respect... after all, pulling out guns as a demonstration of who has greater leverage is always (unless under a gynocentric welfare state) favorable for the man because he can refuse resources for the women and claim custody of his children. However in modern America polygamy would most likely require a HUGE amount of trust between all (let's assume a Big Love style dynamic of 3 women, 1 man) 4 of them to refrain from pulling their big guns and only negotiate with what's left after disarming resources and the legal system. Which would be favorable for women because men's resources are everything in terms of tangible benefits. Assuming morality (and thus they won't hold their children hostage) and the man is wealthy enough to ourtsource, the power balances out because what can a woman not give a man that he can't get elsewhere? And for women largely the same from men. So modern marriage MUST stem from love and respect as both sides can outsource each other. You're assuming the man's doing his wives all at once every night. I'd assume they'd either have a schedule of alternating between each other (like the show Big Love which attempts to portray Mormon polygamy. Basically the husband cycles through the wives one per day) or, especially early on, just act based on desires in the moment (so wife 1 in the morning, wife 2 in the afternoon, and wife 3 before bed). However "need" doesn't belong here because men don't need women to ejaculate. The purpose of sex is, in part, enjoyment but also for pair-bonding and making babies. A man (or woman) cannot make babies by themselves and can't really bond with their mental sex phantoms... Let's see... well, Genghis Khan's top wives were all smart and advised him closely both on political and family matters. So if I were a "patriarch" of the warlording sense, I'd value multiple wives because they could advise me and perhaps serve different emotional purposes depending on the situation. After all, some women are better at giving comfort while others are better at cracking the whip. In modern times, this could be translated to a businessman or politician. I mean, surely all that's stressful and it'd help a lot to have a trustworthy companion to help either emotionally or practically. Of course you don't need to bang them... although for the former, it'd almost certainly have to be a woman. Agreed. Without morality and commitment, what's to stop the Sultanate of the Woman from returning (see that as an example of where as you described really happened in Osmania) or for the new stud to boot you and take your women (who willingly join)? But I think we have to set as our standard a true love and respect for each other, otherwise it generally boils down to mere advantage seeking. And women did have their numbers to check the men of older times, who had the swords and money. I mean, anyone who believes that in Europe men were unchallenged or unchallengeable by women are simply ignorant of real history. If anything it was as equal then as now because on one hand men didn't want to displease the women they might not see a lot of if they had to wage war, and on the other the women didn't want to drive away their men into another woman's arms or lose their source of income. And of course it's not like there was no love or respect. Factor these things and you know part of why guys like Kaiser Barbarossa were so successful (hint: his wife was considered so great, she became the reference that men of later generations thought of when they thought "ideal woman"). Well, "feeling the need"=/= "need" and I think a good argument is all that it takes to resolve a more common situation of an unsatisfied spouse. However there are true imbalances at times; and a really high-functioning man, without love, probably wouldn't value a Standard Woman because... she's highly disposable. Now if she were Advanced Woman--that's to say she's a person to love--then it's much easier for him to appreciate her. Because she's lovable. Likewise the woman with the man. I suspect un-satisfaction might come from not actually loving the other person. Seeing him as a mere resource provider. Seeing her as a mere toilet or nag. With love, that is to say respect and admiration for each other (I think), I think these things can be smoothed out. Of course to love someone, that someone has to be virtuous in some way. True. The problem is if they're poor enough to have to work so much, then there will surely be too few women as only some men will marry. Thus civil war or wars of conquest become inevitable in order to seek a wife. Polygamy can only really be practiced by rich people (or rich men) and, if taken as a serious marriage/child-custody arrangement, ought to only be legal for the top 1%. Well... Any woman who is a housewife can be Standard. It's not that hard to budget time for cleaning, cooking, and "doing it". Advanced is more a matter of character than action to some degree. Like a wise woman and I could talk for an hour before I go to work and thus really help me, and not have to fear not having time to do the Standard Woman stuff and raise the children. However if she and I were talking half the day and working very closely with me, I'd need to hire a maid and cook. And maybe even a nanny. I'd say an Advanced Woman doesn't really need to be able to cook or clean if she's with a rich man as she's giving him something money can't buy; a great personality, character, and perhaps wisdom or more. I think you're assuming they'd all have sex at once. I'd assume they'd take turns (and I don't know if lesbianism among the wives can be called cheating as they are married to each other as well as the head man after all) and if gender-bent... Well, same deal. They're all married to each other. However the idea of how the system works could cause problems. Like if the man went in expecting the wives to only do him and not each other; or the women went in seeing each other as rivals rather than partners. Well, I don't know if that's rape. Like consent=say yes or plausible yes. Like if I'm naked and inside a woman and suddenly she's not sure but she keeps going... obviously it's gray, but if it's gray it's not rape. Rape has to be a simple forced sex, not a "come on, I'm hard so just take it already", "All right Chad..." sort of thing. And if they're both being promiscuous it muddies the waters further as it could be said they're "married to each other" sexually. Well herpes isn't just an STD. As far as I know you can get it without sex and thus it isn't indicative of promiscuity. More telling stats is the amount of identified senior-aged high school virgins. It's still around 75% for both genders in America though obviously widely disparate between races. My mother had mouth herpes as a girl and only lost completely them after giving birth to me at 27. So I know herpes isn't always an STD... But having warts around the genitals is very different and can only (I assume) be sexually gotten. Although it's more unfortunate than a bad sign to get an STD from a virgin. And that situation warrants sympathy (assuming they weren't "incels" and were proper virgins losing it in marriage). Well, I think we both know the Left is just a hostile tribe (at least the "hard left"). I am not sure as to where I fit in (totally, that is) but "Nationalist, Christian, Conservative" apply fairly well although naturally within these groups I know I have my disagreements but would definitely take the side of the Conservatives over the Left if I had to have the full-package (like in cases of elections) and couldn't just pick and choose what I liked.

Thank you for your words, but I have had an internal struggle regarding my Church attendance: mainly that I don't really believe in God and therefore feel guilty and deceitful for trying to copy the rituals that I don't believe in and associate with more seriously faithful people. I haven't made my final decision yet, but currently I intend to stop going to Church because... Well, I'll continue down below since barn hit what was in my mind a couple nights ago. And that's why I have a problem. I don't feel like I really belong because I know I'm not going for the right reasons. I don't really believe in God though I believe the Bible and the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of wisdom, and thus I feel like a cheat since I'm trying to have the benefit of a parish while not really being religious. How do I explain? I sort of arrived to many of the same conclusions as the Church but with a different methodology. And while I strongly value the experiences I had, I have to admit that it just confirmed for me that I am not a true Christian. I am an atheist. However; I am a Roman Catholic. It's confusing, for me anyway. I believe in the 10 Commandments and all that but not because I believe in a literal God but because I believe them to be morally correct from all the listening to moral experts (from all over the spectrum) and trying to reason it all out in my head. I wish I had the same faith and religiosity as those parishioners had; I could sense the love and fraternity in the air but I also sense myself as not belonging. I don't believe in God, I don't believe in the power of incantations, but I do believe in the word of God and the placebo effect that can come from the incantations. I really envy those that have a genuine religiosity to them because I don't think I'll ever have it. I love my Church and all the good its done the world and (indirectly) me, but I can't falsify and pretend to be a true believer. I don't have it in me to deceive the best people in my crappy area. I just don't. Overall: it was a very educational experience and from what I can tell, the Church near me is actually not very political (or the be precise: not directly in favor of the likes of the Left or Right or whatnot) and they speak of morality and truth instead--thus expecting us to make conclusions from there. I do recommend the Catholic Church because although the Anti-Pope Francis is... well, un-Christian, the Church itself is not one person. It is a set-in-stone ideology that has lasted roughly 2,000 years and every Church has the same script for what to preach on a given Mass date as well as the same set of principles to give sermons from. The sermons were, although only a few minutes, the most interesting part for me because I found both of them (I forgot the second and did not mention it: it involved an Old man who saved his son's friend rather than his son because he though of God and knew his son would go to Heaven while the friend would surely go to Hell, and by the "present time" of the story the friend became a pastor thus redeeming himself) to be thought-provoking, deep, yet spoken very simply and easily digested. However I think I can get these sermons from folks on the Internet directly and thus get the "good part" as I want it rather than spread out. Although I don't mind the singing and reading of both Moses and Jesus's histories, I have to say the sermons are the meat of the matter. And ultimately, I wish to be both honest with myself and my parish and thus don't want to deceive them by attending Church for Mass when I don't believe in it.

Well... As the title states, recently (as in June 2nd) was my first time going to Church. Now, having said that, I was taken to Church by my grandparents when my mother was in the hospital a decade or so ago back when I was a single-digiter. However this was the first time I, by my own will, attended Mass. And it was an otherwordly experience... First off: my initial intent was simply to find out when Sunday Mass is--so at around 2:00pm I headed out for my local Roman Catholic Church. I knew where it was because, a year or two ago, it was a place I handed my resume to back when I was green in the work world and I remembered how beautiful the church itself was; with twin statues guarding the front entrance, a tall and proud cross high above, and stained-glass windows facing the dirty streets around it. It was like a pear among a mine full of coals. However the office where one would "sign himself up" (so to speak--I am still quite ignorant of the proper terms and procedures) was closed and I noticed Mass would be held at 4:30. I was curious about whether or not I should wait (by the time I got there, it was around 2:30) so I checked out the beautiful interior architecture; from a wreathed statue of the Virgin to the massive cross bearing Christ over a tabernacle (also the day I learned what that word meant and what it represented) to the portraits of various saints along the walls that framed the upper church (there was a lower-roofed "lower church" underneath!). A church boy told me that confession was going to be held at 3:00, so I waited and then spoke to the reverend who helped educate me about how I can properly officiate myself as a Roman Catholic as well as gave me a brief confession which is when I briefly introduced myself as someone who was seeking wisdom and virtue after having left Socialism a few years ago. I don't recall much of the moment as it wasn't all that special, as it was more an introduction and guidance to entry rather than a proper confession. I then sat an empty pew and contemplated in prayer what I was doing, what it meant, and why I was doing it all. Ultimately I was going to Church not because I believed in God but rather because I believed in the word of God and the wisdom and power behind it. Eventually, Mass was time and sadly I was perhaps the only young person in the audience. It was mostly old people, surprisingly nearly all white. The only young people were a couple converts from India or Korea, though I kept to myself and mostly just spoke to the old woman behind me to help me keep up with the Mass (like what page number the priest at the podium was reading from, or the singer was singing from). Perhaps the most meaningful part, however, was when the reverend I spoke to earlier taught about the desire for recognition. He opened rather simply; "Have you ever spoken to someone, and then they look over your shoulder as if looking for someone more interesting? Or perhaps speak 'hello' to someone only for them to look away and ignore you?..." and from there proceeded to talk about the desire some have for recognition and then tied it to Jesus; stating something like: "Jesus did not do what He did for fame, but rather so that others might learn from Him". At the time I thought little of it as... isn't that common sense? Isn't it better to focus on doing good rather than seeking recognition for it? However when I spoke to my Father later on about it, he helped me realize how relevant it actually was. You see, the 4 reasons as to why I decided to go to Church were: Wisdom, Faith, Family, and Fraternity. Basically I wanted to improve myself and perhaps make some friends from among the parishioners over time. However... I was pulling the cart before the horse. I was going not for the strictest reason of seeking God (or wisdom) but rather for the effects of this. And that's why, when I went to Mass today (Sunday), I went with the singular purpose of leaving with wisdom rather than for the secondary gains that might come with seeking out the best folks in my area. And today's mass was largely the same as yesterday's but with a younger man (perhaps the pastor) giving it and sadly without the wise sermon in between the songs and readings. I focused more on the readings this time as they were the same as yesterday's so I could absorb it more. I think they were under "Corpus Christi" or something; I know the story went something like Moses sacrificing half his livestock to an altar of God and then sprinkling some of it onto the disciples followed by Jesus sending forth a disciple to arrange for passover in another disciple's house in a city. Not sure what wisdom I ought to extract from this, other then take it as part of a larger story on both sides. Perhaps next Sunday, when I go for Mass, the story will continue and become clearer to me (I ought to mention the masses are mostly scripted a year in advance, apparently). Overall it was a very enlightening experience with few distractions. I was quite anxious for today's mass as I was thinking last night whether I was doing it for the right reasons and whether or not I was being honest with myself. To be clear: I don't know if I believe in God or not. I am tempted to say I don't, yet a part of me is inclined to believe there is either due to an instinct to believe or the logic that something must have caused the Big Bang... ...And, if I don't really believe in God, then why I am going to Church? Quite simply: for wisdom, guidance, and a place to think over my week and prepare for the next. These things I got for myself and I am happy though still hungry. Tomorrow I'll be making a call for a meeting and stuff to properly initiate myself back into my ancestral church, and I will make it a regular thing for me to attend mass on Sundays. And, to be clear on the point of sharing this, I am curious what folks think around here. Both the atheists and the Christians. Am I doing the right thing in seeking wisdom from the Church and broadening my fountains of wisdom or am I perhaps being deceitful by not being fully a believer yet going to Church?

Appeals to emotions is just a way of convincing people (rather dishonestly) to believe something. They aren't valid in terms of getting to the truth of a matter, but they can work and that's why they're often used to muddy the waters and seize control of the older parts of the brain.

Having in common the existence of a belief structure (or the existence of tenets) is reaching to say the least. Wanting to emulate the bold badass who stood for something great is not the same as conforming into a workerbee. Literally every belief set has this in common (well, literally every belief set with morality as a desired end). And I'd argue the "greater good" of Socialism is subjective because "muh morality is subjective". Saying it's harder for a man of means to prove himself moral and resist temptation because he has it easier is far from the same thing as being jelly and wanting to loot his corpse. Technically neither would be considered murder under their belief systems. Since murder=Immoral Killing, all killing that is sanctioned is not immoral. Like self-defense as an easy example. And it actually is a violation of "do not take the Lord's name in vain" to use God's name as a justification for murder, btw... *facepalm* I did not realize consent and rape could be so similar. They both involve two human adults, body parts, and fluids so naturally they must clash. Not because one is consent and the other is rape, but because they both involve bodies... ...Do you get my point?

Ideologically? They're polar opposites. Socialism violates all of the 10 Commandments and twice on Sundays. Shall we list them? (Copied the bullet points and wording from another site, not sure what denomination they're from nor what translation.) "You shall have no other gods before Me." Instead of God and Christ, Socialists have Marx and Engels as well as a litany of local gods based on who pioneered socialism there. Big ones being Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Fidel Castro, Mao Zetong, and Mussolini. "You shall not make idols." See above. Socialism is all about the worship of false idols as if they were gods. Kim Il-sung being a big one. "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." 100,000,000 dead in the name of Socialism. So either they were abusing the good name of Socialism, or that is exactly what Socialism is about. Either way they are shameless about citing their ideological founders... "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Under Stalin (from what I remember at least) Sundays were made into workdays; thus "never-ending work weeks". Modern Socialists, however, are incredibly lazy and do what they can to make their societies even lazier. "Honor your father and your mother." "Your ancestors are bigoted white supremacist cis-gendered transphobic homophobic sexist ((insert -ism here))!!" Literally preach hate for our ancestors and often, by extension, negligence for our own children and promotion of promiscuity. "You shall not murder." Need I cite how quick they are to kill large numbers of people for their ideological supremacy? The 100,000,000 aren't going away. Not to mention promotion of infanticide as if it were simply a "medical procedure". "You shall not commit adultery." They literally promote cuckholdry and promiscuity. Massive adultery. "You shall not steal." Socialists are all about stealing from good, hard working people in the name of the evil, lazy, and stupid. Welfare is a huge example of this being broken on a regular basis. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Socialists lie and falsify so much, so often, and on such great a scale, I'm surprised they can even separate fact from fiction well enough to tie their shoes on, walk with their feet, and yap with their mouths. "You shall not covet." See above. Socialism is all about the armed robbery of the superior in the name of the inferior. Rob the good for the bad. Tarnish the beautiful for the ugly. Destroy the monuments of glory in the name of pettiness and spite. === Conclusion: how could Socialism be any more different than Christianity? If anything Socialism is just the modern word for Satanism. While not all brands of Socialism are the same and equally terrible, none of them are Christian even if they dare to call themselves such.

A part of me wonders if the "Refugee" Crisis is not in fact a blessing in disguise. Europe has become very decadent and morally dissolute since the World Wars and I think they needed a kick in the shin to wake them up lest their governments slowly put unremovable collars around them over the course of decades. Plus, the huge value difference between the ineffectual and degenerate Western Europe against the highly effectual but overly repressive Islam may spark the necessary culture war (assuming it hasn't already happened) that bridges the two extremes of decadent and careless West and overly repressive and extremist East. Rome wasn't built in a day... and it didn't collapse in a day either. But by the time it did collapse, it was beyond saving. I am not much of a debater as I prefer not to hide my own beliefs and speak from the perspective of those I vehemently disagree, but speaking from the perspective of false egalitarianism and "inclusivity", saying that the "refugees" will most likely suffer from Evil Whitey while they could be helped by Good Whitey (i.e. the Arabs) might make a dent. However I think that kind of incremental shifting is too slow and too ineffectual. If I were you (and I was in this position as a high schooler not long ago) I'd go all-out with statistics of relevant facts about the crime and rape rates and have them all sourced. They can cry and bay, but at least they were warned and those that hear it for the first time might take it upon themselves to educate themselves after. Arguing from their angle might be too weak and easily dismissed as nonsense, as I don't think it's equivalent to arguing from the perspective of a rival or friend. It's more like arguing from the perspective of a dweller of IngSoc. You don't speak the same language and don't see the same world. Tying these paragraphs together: I suggest you go all-out and try to shock them with facts and when they recoil, allow the consequences of the Crisis to happen so that they can no longer deny reality and perhaps respect you in the future as someone with a sober mind. Unless you plan on becoming a professional debater or public intellectual, you only have one shot at this so you might as well make it count.

Not an Australian but I have to say: I'm happy you guys get to see two of my favorite modern-day heroes! Hope all goes well and you all get the ultimate Stefauren Southerneux experience!

A case can be made if the child is already dead and the dead baby's corpse is endangering the mother's life, that an "abortion" could be not immoral. However besides these extremely rare cases, the argument is essentially whether or not a woman can, without being immoral, kill a baby in the whom. The "pro-choice" case is that either the baby is not in fact a baby (and thus not a sentient human being) and/or the mother, who chose to become pregnant, has greater moral authority than the baby who did not choose to exist. I can't morally justify aborition in any case that doesn't involve an already-dead baby or rape/incest (and even then a case could be made that the baby didn't choose to exist, however in one of these cases there's a chance the mother didn't choose for the baby to exist either. However that alone does not justify infanticide). I can't say I'm surprised "convenience" is the primary stated motive. It takes a very evil soul to murder a child in the womb. Yeah; in reality they're not that different. Ideologically, at least in rhetoric, they may differ because one's race-based while the other is class-based, but in practice they both apply Socialism as their method of making their ideals happen. And the result... Well, the bodies speak for themselves. ??? I don't understand what you're replying to. I said banning prostitution makes it impossible for not-prostituting to be a virtue because a gun is being employed to ensure the non-prostituting. Which stems from the over-all argument that a man cannot be moral if he is being compelled to be good through force. Like if someone at gun point demanded I donate to charities and fight for the liberation of slaves in Libya, I cannot be moral as a donor or liberator because I'm being made to do these things. I think you've got a point. I think legal marriage and moral marriage ought to be seperated because it solves two problems: #1 the homosexuals want to marry but the Clergy doesn't want to sanction it; #2 the political parties wants to appease the Leftist voting bloc but doesn't necessarily want to alienate their Christian voting bloc. It boils marriage down to a piece of paper (when done in a court at least) but it does preserve "moral marriage" and therefore not conflict with the Christians or Muslims who understandably want to maintain the sanctity of marriage (or what's left of it). I think any homosexual activist worth a damn ought to protest at the mosques as the nice boy Christians are clearly willing to tolerate homosexual marriage rather than violently reject it. I'm not saying people ought to deliberately harass the Muslims, but I am saying if someone thinks harassment is the way to advocate for homosexual marriage then surely the biggest enemy of homosexuality is Islam since they literally kill gays ("to save them"). Same for Christina Hoff Summers and Nick Fuentes. During a speech made at American Renaissance, Nick Fuentes said Summers tweeted (something like--don't remember the exact wording) "young people should just let loose" (with sexual implications--again, I don't remember the exact wording as the only part I remember is "let loose") but I couldn't find the tweet scrolling down. Either Summers deleted the tweet because it alienated her young conservative fans or she never made the tweet and either Fuentes is being a sophist or he misidentified the source of the tweet. I'd like to assume the guy younger yet more successful than me is being genuine, however he might be a politically motivated liar. I'm inclined to check again as I personally don't like the idea of someone so young with such great potential wasting it on sophistry. I do not respect promiscuity; I tolerate promiscuity as I cannot compel the goodness of others, but I definitely do not respect anyone choosing to be a slut (male or female--I do not believe in double-standards). Polygamy (didn't I broach this?) is a bit different because one man could theoretically love more than one woman and marry more than one woman while being moral. However the big issue is that... Well, either the women are worth only a fraction of the man or they think they're worth a fraction of the man. Therefore the man has to either be a really great man like Donald Trump or Alexander or the man is just some guy and the women are either trash or highly insecure. It might be healthy if the man is a big man but otherwise it's clearly dysfunctional. However that's just how I perceive polygamy; perhaps it really is a "marriage of equals", therefore it's basically just like traditional Christian marriage but with more women. I didn't mention one-woman-multiple-men polygamy as I don't think that can ever work. Women, I think, are naturally attracted to alpha males. A man who chooses to share his wife is pretty much by definition not an alpha male, therefore a woman can only ever have polygamy with beta males. Therefore, similar to the problems I perceived with male-led polygamy, the men have to either be really low quality compared to the woman OR they have to be highly insecure. The first could be "okay" if the woman is basically Margaret Thatcher or Lauren Southern because they'd easily be worth several common men, but I doubt it could ever really work because, unlike men, women do not like marrying down (significantly at least) and can't respect someone who'd be so very inferior to them. Therefore a woman can only ever be happy with (in general at least) a man who is roughly equal to her if not superior. Since there are few women like Donald Trump (Margaret Thatcher might be his only contemporary equal a a woman) he has to marry down or find a truly special woman who has more to offer than Maid + Cook + Toilet (which is usually enough for a man who is Worker + Defender + Depositor). Now here's an area where I'm still trying to figure out: what kind of woman is enough for a really great man? I'd argue men of Donald Trump's quality cannot be satisfied by the traditional Maid + Cook + Toilet as they can easily pay for someone else to do these things (if not get them for free for being so alpha). I'd argue these three things are "Standard" so "Advanced" would be Mother, Advisor, Entertainer, Friend, and probably some more. I know this is quite a tangent from polygamy but I think it's important because a man that is high quality in the Basic 3 (Worker/Provider + Warrior + Depositor) but isn't much of a Father, Leader, Entertainer, or Friend could probably be justified in scooping up "Standard Woman" to compensate for being a "Super Standard Man". ...However, I have barely touched how it would effect the children (which is most important). I'd argue if the polygamy is "healthy" (assuming it can ever be), then it could be fine. Like if Donald Trump was married to several "Standard Women" then he'd basically have a very standard family structure but with a weak future (as "Standard" does not imply being a good mother/father rather just being a human utility--it's just the basics, the very least one ought to expect in a marriage partner). Since Donald Trump (is probably) an "Advanced Man", it makes a lot more sense for him to be monogamous and thus marry an "Advanced Woman" who is more than just the basics; she's also a great mother (potential), great source of wisdom/advice, great company, and/or etc. The tough part, I argue, is determining what equates to what across the sexes. Like to keep using Donald Trump: what kind of woman is the feminine-equivalent to him? I said "Margaret Thatcher" but that's only because she excelled in much the same things he did (as a country leader) and therefore is easily comparable to one another. However men usually do not marry women (and vice versa) that excel in their own gender role. Men typically don't marry women who are great at doing manly things and women typically don't marry men great at womanly things. So, to conclude my hypothesis, I think male-led polygamy could work due to how men are generally willing to marry down but female-led cannot because women generally don't respect inferior men, and in order for polygamy to work the "subordinate spouses" have to be inferior to the "head spouse" like how a Sergeant has to be superior to his Footmen in order for their relationship to be harmonious. And from what I am inclined to believe at this moment: I think monogamy is far better than polygamy simply because it is usually a marriage of equals rather than un-equals. Well, that's not the definition of promiscuity. Like, using myself, I could be an honest slut ("Hey babes; I'm totally just gonna surf around the waves and not really stick around. Wanna shag?") and thus not be a liar or manipulator. I don't think rape and promiscuity can be equivalent as promiscuity necessitates consent. Serial rapists aren't called "sluts" or "promiscuous". They're called "serial rapists"! As for knowingly spreading STDs: sluts could be honest about that too. Or it could just be implicit that if a guy or girl is openly a slut or is easy-access then chances are decent that they have herpes or something. Yeah, I think you're right about the weakness of the left/right spectrum. I prefer better defined labels like "Nationalist" or "Socialist" because while there are still plenty of variation among them, they are far more "in the ballpark" than Left/Right.

Ehhh I get what you're trying to say but the "upper left/right corners" are extremely similar, as are the bottom left/right corners except in values. In terms of governance, the top is statist while the bottom is communal. I know that's the point but I think it'd make more sense to have a separate spectrum for each diametrically opposed values. Like you can't be moderately for or against abortion; you can't half-murder people. Although you could argue cases where it isn't immoral (like in the case of an already-dead baby). From what I know though. Stalin criminalized abortion sometime after it was easy-access due to how r-selected it was making his country. So the far upper left isn't actually Stalinist... Maybe. Yep. Although indifference isn't the same as promotion or denial (so what, "centrist" on certain issues?). I'm perfectly fine with state-enforced bans on abortion (so long as we have a state) however I want as little state as possible. Ideally, so long as there's a state, only murder and theft and that which can be derived from this are truly punishable. However in spite of having said that I think there ought to be some moral policing; like no nudes or tranny propaganda where children can see them. Yet at the same time, I'd be against the state punishing sexual immorality via its own police and jail system. My disagreement being that a person cannot be moral if they do not choose to be and people have the "right" to destroy themselves (so long as they aren't destroying others). I'm indifferent to all matters of sexuality so long as it doesn't involve "minority benefits" or some other kind of statist strong-arming of other groups for the "minority" group. I am indifferent to marriage laws so long as it doesn't involve legal disputes (like I'm against gay marriage if gay marriages can be used to exploit some kind of legal system that was intended for a nuclear family rather than a two-working or two-unworking family. Which is to say: I ideally want the state to have nothing to do with marriage. No legal benefits or drawbacks for being married. Let that be a community/church thing). I was baffled by Voxday's recent attacks on Dr. Peterson but forget much of the substance. Perhaps he's actually a much slimier person than I realized and is attention-seeking. I don't know, I'll have to re-listen to him as the only thing I concretely remember is stating that Peterson got the Jew IQ average wrong due to a very poor but oft cited source and that he had done so deliberately to promote some agenda. Maybe. Are you not against promiscuity, just against the government handling the punishing of it? Personally I'm against it and also against the government punishing it as that would rob individuals of moral choice. Like: you can't be good if you're threatened to be good. Yeah, the Far Left lives on in spirit... for the many millennia it has existed. Whatever Far Left means...

Advice from a 20 year old virgin: if a woman puts out, don't bother. The woman who popped her cherry to the guy who proposed to her: Ehh... I don't know. Assuming she hasn't had sex since, she's worth considering if she's got good traits to back it up (like someone who reasons, has a moral compass, is intelligent, etc.). However I have a feeling we have very different tastes in women and expectations for the future. As a rule: no hymem, no diamond. The example you provided is a bit gray because she pretty much accepted marrying hm and thus it makes sense they screw--however she didn't wait till actually being married, so it hints she doesn't have good self-discipline. At least compared to the woman who actually waits till marriage... A woman who screws around however, regardless of how often, is simply unreliable and too much baggage for what is likely very little gain in either character or utility.

Yeah, probably. Personally--and I say this because I am probably one of the few that does this--I divide Left/Right as totalitarian/anarchism. So "Far Right" would be anarchism (of either the capitalistic or nihilistic sort) and "Far Left" would be any totalitarian state. Obviously the spectrum was/is invented to make rather similar parties appear very oppositional when in reality they're very similar. And yet depending on the context we "understand" what's Left vs. Right. I don't think judgements of me would be too far off if I said I'm a Rightist but if I said "Far Right" then people's judgement of me would likely be far off from what I actually mean by embracing the term. I'm socially conservative, fiscally liberal (i.e. I like Free Markets though I have no idea how money works), religiously conservative, and until new information changes my mind I advocate a return to monarchism as the best tried and tested form of government. Where on the spectrum would I be having said all that? Rightist, I guess. I don't agree with the Leftists (as commonly understood) with much as I am very much against promiscuity or the murder of children, very much against class or race baiting, and very much against infringements on individual rights (whatever that means) and double standards (which I mean in full. I judge everyone and everything by equal standards, though having said my expectations for everyone and everything are not equal. I don't expect rocks to talk to me lol). ...But my tangent is just further revealing how weak the Left/Right spectrum is for any ideas that don't largely conform to them. I have a lot in common with Conservatism (that actually does conserve things rather then slowly burn things) but not with Fascism which is somehow a Far Right Left Wing ideology.

I think he argued as much as he could about why political correctness is cancerous (and Stephan Fry did a good job as well, I'd say) (that being said I don't remember his argument against political correctness) as well as (this I do remember) the lack of distinction between "moderate Left" and "Far Left". Like, what standard can be used to separate the moderate Leftists (whatever that means) from the far Leftists (whatever that means). I say "whatever that means" because... I don't know what the differences are, ideologically. Is a matter of methods that separates the "far" from the "moderate" or is it philosophical? Is a far Leftist the guy who'll do whatever to establish a Communist/Fascist state or is he the guy who just takes the principles of Socialism and collectivism far more seriously than his moderate counterpart? Same can be said with the Right. Is a Far-Rightist a Monarchist or a (to use a popular misconception) Fascist? Is he an "ultra-liberal" (i.e. super free market, individualist, Objectivist) or a super-religious person? Is the moderate Rightist someone who doesn't take any of these popularly called "right wing" ideologies seriously or just wants part but not all? I don't think there's a commonly agreed upon definition of far vs. moderate beyond the former usually involving calls to violence while the latter tends to be more diplomatic. It's good Dr. Peterson asked that question as well as pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left because I think that does more than simply focusing on political correctness alone. I think the average person would lose interest in only talking about or arguing about one (seemingly minute) topic as compared to its broader implications or related tangents. However I'm not a public debater and perhaps people in general are more interested in the abstractions and minutia of a concept then it's practical results (like to use P.C.: abstractions=infringement on individual liberties; practical results=people afraid to speak their minds or the truth).

You have to remember that winning in the moment often comes at the expense of the long run. Both sides got notable applause. Do you think maybe some people who laughed at the "mean white man" comment felt bad once Jordan Peterson called Dyson out for his racism? I'm sure at least a handful did. How about the online audience? Statistically, more people left as anti-PC than pro-PC (while the question polled wasn't that direct, the meaning was effectively "is political correctness a good thing?") by a fair margin. They went in roughly 60 anti-PC and 40% pro-PC with 87% stating a willingness to bend and the exit polls showed 70% anti PC and 30% pro PC. That's a victory. I think Doctor Peterson's refusal to mud wrestle and instead make his points and call out BS when especially relevant was what won the intellectual battle. Jokes may score points in the here and now, but when people think back it's not hard to picture who was being straight and honest versus the guy who's being bullying and condescending. Especially if they're curious enough to rewatch some of it.

Maybe. I've never left my hometown so I can't really be sure. I've heard port cities are generally trashy with similar cultures and Philadelphia is a port city... ...But I don't know. I'd hate to spend the next 5 years working to gtfo of Pennsylvania just to end up finding out Boise or Salt Lake City are actually little different. Personally I'm much more hermit than not, but if I actually felt safe in my own berg I might be a lot more adventurous. After all I do like interacting with interesting people, I just don't like interacting with obvious trash (you know; the guys with blazed eyes, the girls with overtly sexual getup and lots of betas around, or the groups that look less than legal). Obviously every city has its good and bad people, but I think the average is widely different depending on the local culture and ethic. Here's culture is basically hedonism and escapism. I'm innocent of the first but I indulge/ed in the latter quite a bit as I really don't like my surroundings. But I am very thankful to be living in a world where I don't have to worry about going hungry, being dirty, or melting/freezing. It's not hard to "get by" and "getting by" nowadays is quite luxurious compared to the days of our ancestors. They clearly left more for us than just problems.

What state do you live in? How's life in the best part of America like? Are the streets clean? Are there ruined houses and apartments? Do people actually know their neighbors' names? Is there any semblance of racial or gender equality there? Is it remotely American? ...This is not rhetorical. I would like to know if I'm overly optimistic about the American Midwest given how terrible the East Coast is.

There's some obvious potential for abuse with this. However knowledge of it will surely result in a form of protection against it like some "block-tech" magic somehow can make sending and receiving information secure. ...I'm frankly more annoyed at the possibility of A.I. voices mimicking BAD voices. I'd rather hear a smooth, sweet, or cool or whatever voice being mimicked not some whiny, bored, and apathetic receptionist voice or whatever. Like in that example Stefan Molyneux tweeted; horrendous voice but terrifically convincing. I'd have assumed it was an annoying mouse squeaking rather than an A.I. and a fair amount of people sound bad when they talk, so that's very realistic. I think the value of face-to-face interactions would increase again as audio interaction would be treated more carefully or suspiciously than currently.

Very sound points, I must say. I can't speak for everyone with dirt on them but since I don't have anything I could be blackmailed for (well; I could be made embarrassed by some things but I'd rather fess up or whatever because they aren't worth paying someone off for or whatever) I think it's a minor issue for anyone that isn't a moral-law breaker. And I think differentiating blackmail from extortion was important; after all the former usually involves letting out an inconvenient truth while the latter is usually a death threat. The given example is fairly gray; if I don't know the boss's wife personally, I'd be more obligated to be loyal to him. However I'd mentally bookmark it because it tells me he can't be trusted as much as, at least, a guy who isn't cheating on his wife. After all; if he can cheat on his wife, why not his employee (so to speak)?

Hey man, you're welcome! I'm glad you took it the right way since I know I was being very blunt (but I like to be very blunt!). It's not up to me to forgive anything because I was never offended; I had an excess of happiness and ambition and wanted to share it; also it's ultimately up to you whether you're being too revealing (on a forum where being revealing when talking about one's problems has fuzzy lines depending on the subject) or whatnot. I do think you ought to shame the Devil whenever you find him, but again it doesn't bother me much if you don't. It's all up to you; if I were you, and this is me projecting all my wants, aspirations, and fears directly into you in the moment, I'd do what I could to be like Abraham and go from zero to hero before departing the Earthly coil. However you might find that a chore and perhaps would rather navel-gaze continuously. I didn't ask if you had any kids; if you do, I think you're morally obligated to steer them away from repeating your and their mother's lives. And take care. I want you to do well and pull an Abraham, but I don't know if you have what it takes internally to do it or the will to get it.

Dude, you're 50-something and have a lot of work to do. No decent woman will ever be interested in you unless you pull an Abraham and become all kinds of great and reformed. At present you could sniff around the wasted druggies and single moms but any half-decent woman would sooner bang any random grandpa over a guy who has 40 years of work to make up in less than a decade's time. Pull an Abraham, who did amazing shit as a 75-ish deadbeat and became literally the Father of Nations, or realize you are pretty much an example for others of what not to be. You might have been surrounded by cowards without the balls to tell this to your face or fellow ditch-diggers who fed you more of their ear-poison, but it's pretty much too late to have a family unless you REALLY reform and manage to get a half-decent risk-taking 30 year old as a reformed 60 year old. Granpas can get some too, but they have to compromise on pretty much everything and compensate with a grampa's worth of life experience and wealth.

Yeah, probably. I wrote most of them in a matter of months, spending 5 hours per day both at home and in school writing them. It may actually be dozens, I'm not sure but I still have them in their grimy spiral and marble notebook form. Well, all this is news to me! I might check her out--I don't want to overdose on news and redpills since I can be a bit sensitive to it--but if it's basically what Stefpai talks about than I'm not that interested because I'd rather hear from a personality I already know more than an unfamiliar one. But I'm getting bored of listening to FDR for the last 2 years and I have only be listening for like an hour or two per week lately so I could use a new voice in my left ear! On the subject of female public talkers, Roaming Milennial caught my attention and while, 2 years ago, I would have vehemently disagreed with her on many issues I am surprisingly finding myself more and more "civic nationalist/alt-light" as I simply value culture over all (in terms of demographics) and while I do not totally disregard racial preference (not in terms of other people having them, rather in having them myself) it is amusing to me how racist I was for a few months after getting redpilled for the first time and how the more and more I learn about the power of Christianity and how the White Man is essentially an unwashed barbarian with Christendom, the more and more I become a "Christian Nationalist" rather than any kind of ethnic, racial, continental, or country nationalist. I mean take Americanism (freedom of speech, free markets, entrepreneurialism, pioneering, patriotism) out of America and I wouldn't care about American anymore even though I have ancestors here for 4 generations at the least! But I'm in flux as far as culture vs. race vs. etc. is concerned and don't have strong beliefs beyond Christianity being the keystone of the West and America's founding principles of libertarianism being stuff I really like and cherish. However as a Japanophile who really loves and admires their culture and society, I would really be willing to wage war in their defense while for America's sake I'd only do so if my own life and property was in danger. I don't love modern America, while I do love Japan. I just prefer America to everywhere else because we pretty much live in utopia and most of our issues don't affect most of our everyday lives. I really don't like the trigger-sensitive and hedonistic culture but compared to the uber militant and repressive Islamic culture I really respect what I've inherited. I also am very ignorant of American culture and people outside my own slice of the East Coast and the media, so what I "think is America" might actually be just a small minority of it and the "real America" is actually something I'd truly be willing to die for. I don't know, I don't know when I'll know, but practically speaking I want to find the best slice of the Midwest to plant my roots into as I suspect their highly conservative culture and voting block will jell far better with me than the decaying coastal cities would. However, yet again, I am very ignorant of my own nation's culture outside of what the media portrays and my own slice of it. I think America might be far more diverse (in terms of culture) than is projected and perhaps one of America's cultures would be far more gratifying and enjoyable for me than others' (like the one around me or on TV). I don't know. I don't know how to find out, but I suspect given all the stats and trends I've learned from FDR that the Midwest is the Last, Best Hope for Western Civilization and America/the Anglosphere in particular. Yeah, I get that (at least upon hearing it from you. I totally forget what was on my mind when I responded to what you're responding to), and I might use it later. However I, in general, prefer to have as few connections as possible and in the future would rather live in a place I generally agree with than would have to argue with. I enjoy clashes of ideas only on occasion, not every day all day every hour of the day (not to say you said that; rather to say that's how my life used to be since I live in an uber Leftist city and I can't wait to leave it. Though, credit where it's due, I thank God everyday I live in Utopia because at least I have comfort and solipsism to make up for the ideological and societal mess and degeneracy going on around me). Yeah, I can definitely think up situations where this might be helpful. Namely in getting a wife (who I'm sure I'll disagree with a lot until we educate each other or something), getting work partners (as you taught me, they are typically friends who trust each other, therefore I need to be able to argue with them outside work so they can feel more confident in me during work), and living in a community (which I'm years away from living in). Oh yeah, I get that. I've stared very deeply into the Abyss and it screwed very badly with my head back when I was 17. I'm more interested in living by example and outbreeding them, but I do have an obligation of sorts to out-argue them since I have the ability to do so and once I find a place of settlement it'll be a part of the mutual assimilation process. However at present, I have no desire to fight battles where I win nothing and only tire myself. I think it's an exercise in futility to argue with people I have different values than and since I am not even sure what my values are and where I stand, beyond freedom of speech and the power of Christianity and the recognition we live in utopia, so I don't think I can really argue against someone when I'm not even sure I agree with their opposite. However it's context dependent. Like can I argue with a pro-chocier? If saying "killing babies is wrong" isn't enough, what is? On the other hand I could argue the effects of President Trump's administration rather easily as I'm more familiar with the good and bad and could more confidently argue in his favor as believing bad things about him aren't automatic signs that this person has radically different values than me. However I think at a certain point, like pursuing equality of outcome rather than opportunity, the value differences become present and agreement becomes impossible. Having said all this, I must again say that I'm much less sure of my values now than I was 1 year ago and therefore, beyond basic stuff and principles, am not comfortable arguing about more abstract things like drugs vs. incarceration rates and the plausibility of closet racism. I mean I could say "Yo, the Democrats literally were the party of slavery and haven't done jack shit for black people" all day long since I know my history but there are things I don't know about, partly because I have little interest. Like night life and drugs. I'm too kangaroo for rabbit life! ...PS +3, I know I've repeated myself several times already but in different ways, however I'd like to express my general sense of uncertainty about what's right and wrong in terms of politics beyond principles and the basics. Already in my life i learned that so much of what I was taught was not only BS but the opposite of the truth. Then I learned several times over that the radical solutions to the supposed or true problems are themselves causes of further problems. I feel like I can't offer a solution without also causing an unforeseen problem down the line. And frankly, if I can't be sure, we shouldn't having a public voting system and out to re-establish the monarchy as I think people whose job is to figure this out for a living are far more qualified than 90% of the population--including unsure kids like myself.

Why "no one should be felt compelled to rip a part of themselves away to become anything."? Why "should"? You do not have control over the lives of others, you are not an autocrat or a god. Most people have issues they have to work with or else they have to prepare for problems to ensure. To take an extreme example: pedophilia. Are you saying a pedophile shouldn't feel compelled to "rip a part of themselves" (their lust for children)? What about people with a trigger finger for violence? Or addictive personality? Now it is nearly impossible to literally take out a part of someone, but at the very, very, very least a bad trait can be repurposed. I don't know about pedophilia (I don't think it can ever be "made good", it can only ever be a predilection towards great evil) over-aggressiveness can be honed towards healthy competitiveness while someone who is prone towards addiction can abstain from addictive substances to build his self-discipline and perhaps repurpose his desire into something productive. Like turn a drug-addict into a workaholic and suddenly you go from self-destructive to productive. Of course there is always the risk of working too hard/too much and that would have to reigned in, just like being too competitive and too sensitive etc. etc. but the point is that people with weaknesses (i.e. everybody) have to reign them in and repurpose them otherwise they'll have to put up with it and suffer the consequences accordingly. To live is to breath. That's it. If you want happiness, that takes effort. Depending on your personality is the kind of effort needed to become happy. Putting things into perspective (like recognizing how every first and second worlder lives in a veritable utopia) definitely helps.