Siegfried von Walheim

I aplogize for dropping this on you when you're clearly in need of help, but by God man do you need to excercise proper syntax! I'll break up my commentary into paragraphs just to show you how it's done. And the reason why I state this is because it makes it much harder for me to read and comprehend because it feels like you're pulling me into some sort of confusing vortex or abyss. "This show" as in FDR or England? I assume you're English because of the words you use (like "row" for fighting). Your definition of a loser is someone who has yet to accomplish anything noteworthy with any talents he might have? I guess it's on the spectrum. I'm replying as I read but I have to ask: how old are you? If you're 20 then you have a lot of opportunity to transform your life. If you're 40... Well, I won't bother trying to fix something that cannot be fixed. 30 is manageable--you still have time for an internal revolution. You may be idolizing your father too much. This is not my area of expertise (I strongly suggest finding a therapist; if you can't find a good one among your native countrymen, perhaps a foreigner will do better as that is/was my experience) but I think one of the first things you have to do is recognize the villains of your childhood and try to be accurate as possible (don't give too much credit when it isn't due, nor begrudge credit when it's due). I know nothing of your father based on this, but he is at least somewhat complicit in choosing your mother who clearly wasn't a good Christian given she apparently remarried an asshole. I would assume you already have, but just in case, I suggest you most definitely call out (at least in your head) your mother and her asshole for what they are: a whore and a savage. Then maybe you can take the red flags that they rose so to avoid similar types as a young man (and thus earn the feeling of safety). That's extra fucked up. I doubt he is a guy you ought to admire anymore; he failed so horribly that he killed himself. Don't be like him. I'm confused. Are you saying you were a tough guy or a victim of bullies? ??? This is abstract as all Hell and tells me nothing but the state of your mind. Oh boy, I can relate to that. It wasn't extending to my home life but I was the subject of rumors by other students. Teachers generally liked me, but I had few peers to call friends and was extremely depressed and even suicidal for a few years. That all stopped after nearly over-dosing on RedPils in 2015 though... A chance at what? Killing yourself? Sure, you can check out and thus waste the golden opportunity of life. But your life isn't your's to take, at least as a Christian (I highly suggest you go to a Christian church of some kind, as they can do a lot of good for those who are rudderless and depressed. I mean, there's a reason why Christendom bloomed wherever it touched without the threat of force...) Are you saying you put on the image of a thug and thus repelled potentially decent women? Or at least put on a repulsive persona of some kind? What do you mean here? Who is "them"? Are you saying these women regarded using men as a "right" of their's? You went down the rabbit hole of bullshit? I can make conjectures of how your hate for your life and world would make you attracted to the idea of a greater world in Space, but obviously this shit has/had to go. So you repaired objects for free? You were an emotionally unstable and needy guy who thus attracted a similar woman who used you as a tampon, then? So you were being emotionally manipulated by other emotionally damaged girls? Obviously you got to keep your dick to yourself from now on. I doubt you can fall into anything but black holes as no decent woman would be attracted to you as you describe yourself. Therefore, as the "Rational Male" Community would put it, it's time for "Monk Mode": where you stop chasing tail and focus on making yourself into a decent, stable, and wise man. What? I know you don't want to but I have no idea what you're thought of as discriminating for or against. Styles of art? Do you have actual talent and ability? In which case you could start a one-man corporation and work on the internet. I recommend reading Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki for more on how to conduct yourself, especially mentally, as a proper entrepreneur. Well, to sum up: stop dating women or having any romantic relationships with women. Find a good therapist. Divorce yourself from your familiar crowds and company. Move to another city if you have to. I think you have too much bad rep and heat to really be productive if you're going to keep bumping into familiar assholes wherever you go. If your name is tarnished, perhaps you can get a legal name change. Or at least work with a new alias. Reset yourself, especially your public persona. I think your best bet is to start fresh but appreciate the skills you've acquired and set about being productive with them. Leave the degenerate, r-selected, Punk crowd and go to Church (even if you're an atheist) and meet some decent people. Work on reforming yourself so that you project honesty and reliability--easily the two most important signals a man can emanate. Get a new hair-cut (ideally a professional one). Dress like a professional (wear slacks and buttoned shirts, or something similar). And, assuming you have a bad accent, speak like a professional. I don't know if uppity Oxford accents are the rage among professionals but assuming you sound like a Cockney or a hoodrat then you ought to learn how to speak like a professional so people can have positive first-impressions from you. Also remember: WE LIVE IN UTOPIA. Our ancestors would have literally killed to live in the good and soft times of today. We have running water, plumbing, easy access to large amounts of food, and we have the FRIGGEN INTERNET. We live in perhaps the best time in human history; appreciate that. Thank the inventor of whomever invented what you commonly take for granted; like refrigerators, toilets, air-conditioners, heaters, the internet, video games, soft beds, fans (the motorized kind), etc.! Your mindset, along with your persona, are what makes you, YOU. I have found it very motivating in my own life (disclaimer: I am 20 years old) and thus I can honestly say I am almost always happy (or at least content). I thank my ancestors for giving me the opportunity to live in the cushiest and easiest time in human history. Bad women are honest and open, good women are thus easier to select for (once you recognize what makes a woman "good"), and the same is largely true of men. I'm not a motivational expert, but I think I know a thing or two about the power of positive thinking (read the book by Norman Vincent Peele) and being appreciative of what I have versus bemoaning what I don't. I hope this helps you--if it doesn't, I don't know what to say--but if it does, then you know your life is all in your hands. Even if you're some burnt out 35 year old, you can still use the next 5 years to become a stable and middle-class guy with a house and use your life experience as wisdom to know who to avoid. You've got the rare gifts of life and sentience combined with living in utopia; don't waste them.

It's another side of ostracism. Violate a moral law or taboo... and try to hide the violation of it... Well, blackmail isn't lightning. It only happens to those that have done something that either they're not proud of or did something truly evil and (at least morally) criminal. In the former case I think fessing up and not backing down is best while in the latter... Well, shouldn't such people be in jail (or worse if the crime is really evil, like murder)? The main issue of blackmail is in politics. I think in a free society the potential harm that blackmail could cause would diminish massively. Having a sex tape of the company president can only, at worst, make him play favorite or embezzle money (or something like that) and the consequence is that, in the long run, either his company goes down or he goes down while in politics... entire countries can go down and wars can be waged. Like in a totally free society, blackmail just wouldn't be an issue (at least a major one).

I don't really care; I mean, they're animals. As an after-the-fact rationalization: since most animals regularly break the NAP and are incapable of moral thought, they have no "rights" to protect. I suppose a handful of requisites for humanity are this: being a biped hominid; being capable of reason; capable of moral thought; capable of self-restraint; and capable of empathy. Obviously there's holes in my requisites (like what about sociopaths that don't hurt people and take morality serious) but I think being able to think and be moral are sufficient differentiators from the "humanoids" and the animals. To further answer your questions: if a human being behaved like an animal (attacked other people, was without remorse, incapable of morality, etc. etc.) then yes he ought to be treated the same as an animal since he's effectively a "human-animal".

I think Stefpai's YouTube series on genes, IQ, and all that really nails the importance of "racialism" (I quote it because obviously it's "racism" in the 19th century definition of the word: the study of races) though largely without using such language (because such language is typically used by the Far Left to both discredit other members of the Far Left as well as to be "edgy"). If you want to refute the articles yourself (I think you'd be preaching to the choir here though), by all means take the lead on it.

Yeah but I haven't done THIS in a while. I've had email conversations which are far different in nature. Also, I guess, a part of me felt I had to? I don't know. I'll keep in mind to be more specific to what I'm responding to, but I think it'd be bad etiquette in itself to over-delete what I'm quoting 'cause... context. I remember that plenty; it was quite fun. I just remembering see your thing on Steam. It might not have been a Bethesda game for all I remember and it might not have been you, specifically (5% is a high chance given the vastness of the player base--assuming you meant potentially 5% know what a SnapSlav is and etc. etc...). I'm not even sure how I learned it. I think it had something to do with just "figuring it out" as I've been writing casually since the 6th grade (I was 12 I think) so that's 8 years of experience with millions of words written as my track record. About a dozen books as well (most of which not fit for public consumption. However several of which my peers read and enjoyed). Yandex is what Amyerki Conservative hipsters who want to be cool and not use gmail use. It's basically Russian gmail. I use the Yandex email and search engine except when looking for videos as Yandex is good at at finding and accumulating many images of attractive women and also for more general use as it isn't as stupidly unintuitive as google/bing. I also use Opera as my web browser since my therapist recommended these things as a way to avoid Google censorship and also (in Opera's case) to default Yandex to English as I speak very little Russian and read about as little. I might give her a chance, I just find her focus on relationships to be boring for me. Once I got what I wanted to know (at the time), I just felt "enough" and didn't want to come back. Too girly. Meh. I like women who pretend to be arrogant in those situations ("oh, my? Did I say that? I could NEVER have said that! Ahaha!") to be more attractive but that's a matter of kink. Yeah I know. I have been since by not avoiding dogs as I pass them by the street and I've gradually gotten better. I've even practiced maintaining eye contact with attractive women much the same way... It's not really a big deal for me as I haven't thought about it in months. My main issues are this: what if he mutilated his boys? What if he doesn't realize the shit he suffered from his evil mother and beta cuck father? Ultimately I can't reach his children if I can't reach him, and I'd rather cut off that weight and build my own family anyway. I think this would have been good to out-argue him last (or the one before that?) Halloween but frankly it's not particularly interesting to me. I consider all drugs to be equally problematic because they're all brain-damaging vices anyway. Of course your point is arrest-rate vs. drug potency vs. ethnic preferences of those drugs, but I have no intention of convincing him that the racism isn't there because... I'm not interested in building a relationship with him. I mean, I never knew him as a kid, I'm not particularly interested in knowing him as a buck. Very much agreed. Personally my main and primary focus is my career as a novelist and moving out to the glorious American Midwest where crime is low, culture is high, and conservatives are flourishing in record numbers. P.S.: In the past few days, I've noticed the time it takes for me to get moderated has become FAR less then it used to be. Maybe it's an internal system at work rather than a person reading all my posts once per week to decide whether "Yea" or "Nay" (and 99% of the time it's "Yea" so I don't usually worry about getting modded out of existence).

What are you talking about? You mention grammar preferences about active vs. passive voice and punctuation. Context really is everything. And I think it's fair to repeat that statement because what's true in one case will always have a time where it isn't in the world of writing. Even proper grammar can find a time where it's sensible to be non-existent (like the mind of a crazy person or an illiterate). I agreed with everything you said after and didn't think it necessary to say so, as I'd basically be repeating myself as you agreed with a statement I made and thus my agreeing with your agreeing is... masturbatory. The new point was that it was a sort-joke. That's what I responded to. Maybe but I'm pretty damn sure I saw it. Unless SnapSlav is just a common moniker (it doesn't count as a typo where Stefan Molynuex's name does) originating from something else, in which case it's probable. Something I already know well and exploit quite often. I use the expression "temporary schizophrenia" for a reason; because I am, in the moment of writing from the perspective of any given character, that character with all the mental strengths and warts, desires and repulsions, courage and anxiety, etc. etc. Early on the most obvious example is Alois versus Lia; Alois is very goal-driven and tends to break off only when in transience. On the other hand Lia is far more likely to tangent away from what's going on and visibly clam-up rather than focus on a given thing.

I think you are far too solipsistic, judging entirely based on how abstract most of what you wrote is and how passive you are describing yourself. Naturally I think you'll struggle to marry a decent woman because...decent women like a little Genghis in their man, and to be Genghis you need to have grit, ambition, conviction, and a means of making it happen. You are a self-described loser. Why are you a loser? What do you do for a living? Do you have any career ambitions? What kind of woman are you looking for (I mean specifically what personal needs do you want satiated in a romantic relationship)? What do you have to offer such a woman in return? How old are you? How much time till 30? Why are you internet-dating and not face-to-face dating (not saying you're wrong in doing so, as a virgin male who am I to judge, but unless you live in the ghetto chances are there's a decent woman within a few miles radius of where you live)? And lastly: what kind of man do you want to be and what are you willing to sacrifice about yourself to become him?

Except I didn't pause until "achieved", so in terms of actually portraying my mouth sounds on text, it was accurate. Yeah but I am not one for joking too far in text as humor is not a skill of mine while taking it literally is more interesting. Context is everything, bro. I can't remember but I recognized the avatar and SnapSlav moniker and, at the time, wondered where and why I recognized Artorias of the Abyss as an avatar and the the name "SnapSlav"... and then I recalled FDR. I'd say I applied the practice of including junk to conceal the plot-relevant in the mental mind of the characters. It's a first person epic driven by two primary characters and an ensemble cast of secondary characters and the ones that become narrators are the ones you'll get at least a glimpse of the minds of. He said he liked the story, especially later on, but I haven't had the time to ask him for more details. Last time I spoke to him I focused mainly on his opinions of the various characters and as I said he likes the men for the most part because they're doing things and responding to things far more than the women who for the most part have it comparatively easy. I mean generals and knights =/= princesses sitting comfy in an ivory tower in terms of tests of grit and fortitude. Yep. I've repeated my email address enough and if you're interested you know where to check.

What do you mean? If God is before the fatherland then it is important that this is remembered in politics. Practically speaking the clergy ought to be very concerned about state affairs because... well, wouldn't it be cruel if a doctor turned away at the sight of witch doctors performing savage acts in the name of healing? Likewise the clergy is supposed to be the moral compass of the fatherland. Without the clergy, what separates politics from mere advantage-seeking? Man needs God, so the State, which is composed of mortals, needs God too. Since the clergy is supposed to learn and understand God's will and teach it to people, it makes logical sense they could be politically active as well. It's only been since LBJ that the clergy has been silenced in America. You can't go a week without a church saying something in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, or any other non-atheist Western country. If "Caesar" is divorced from God, then what stops "Caesar" from being wantonly evil? That's not even a hypothetical question. Just compare Christian Kingdoms and Empires to modern secularist states in terms of death counts, corruption, and extent of depravity and it becomes quite clear that when Christians divorce morality from politics, that politics becomes amoral. And you can't have morality in politics while simultaneously having clergymen bury their heads in the sand like God-forsaken Boomers. Otherwise you just have modern-day sophistry with only throw-away references to God and Christ. There was nothing holy about the National Day of Prayer in the White House; there was no objective morality, rather a mere "what floats your boat is fine with me" subjective amorality.

And women aren't? This actually wasn't the first sentence I typed by re-reading I thought this comment was deserved since I have a hard time believing men are especially more visceral than women when women are the ones plowing their faces in gross stuff to look like they're having a permanent orgasm and pursue guys that look like they're simultaneously boyish models and meaty barbarians at the same time. Of course "Not all women" and all that but I'd be astounded if my future wife wasn't as much a visual whore (meaning having the desire but not actually acting upon it) as I am. Well, you know more than birthing than I do and I can't say it's a big concern (marks and all that; I am a clothes kind of guy anyway) but because I don't know I'm inclined to assume the worst. I'm not particularly worried about enjoyment of sex later in life since chances are that'll be the last thing on my mind even when it's practically first now; besides it's not like there's any shortages of stuff nowadays (especially combined with imagination) to make recreational sex eternally pleasurable so long as both involved are remotely physically attractive. Well, you know more than birthing than I do and I can't say it's a big concern (marks and all that; I am a clothes kind of guy anyway) but because I don't know I'm inclined to assume the worst. I read the post after this one too, and I'm actually not surprised that being in a hospital while giving birth actually makes it harder since... well, anecdotes from my mother combined with how beyond a midwife I don't think women historically tended to give birth in front of dozens of strangers.

I think AnCap, as described by Stefpai, is best but not within arm's reach of attainability because it requires a moral, reasonable, empathetic and culturally homogenous society to make happen (at least from what I understand; I haven't listened to or read about Stefpai's ideas on AnCap in a while so maybe I'm wrong about what he considers requirements but I at least thing those 4 things are required). Therefore, within the realm of governments, I consider monarchism of some form to be ideal. Disclaimer: I don't think it is possible for a government of any type to last forever, be incorruptible, or otherwise be free of excess and abuse. I do however think each form of government has a window of how good it can be versus how bad it can be and where it tends to hang around. Disclaimer II: When I speak of what I consider superior forms of government, I am speaking (unless I specify otherwise) in the context of people with a culture and/or ethnic background like Americans, Englishmen, and other Anglosphere places/races/cultures as I don't think there is a universally preferable or ideal form of government for everyone. I think ultimately every race, culture, IQ bracket, etc. has its own best form of government tailored to its own strengths and weaknesses as a people, culture, etc. And let my (brief) case begin... What I am arguing for ultimately is a system where there is a hereditary ruler from an elite family checked by other hereditary rulers of other elite families. In other words, a Holy Roman-style of monarchism where the aristocracy is largely to voting base while the emperor is ultimately their "final vote" or "last say" to push things one way or another when the aristocratic cliques are politically tied. I would want to incorporate a Roman Republic-era aspects such as required military service for males as well as elected representatives to form a group of think tanks and suggesters to lobby the existing aristocrats into voting where they think this best--not make decisive political swings. I think only people who own land ought to have political say, and anyone who owns land (even if it's just the land under their house) ought to be considered "noble" and held to "noble" standards, with greater political sway defined by martial service, title, and wealth. So a, to pretend America was a neo-Roman Republic, the Duke of New York is worth more in voting than the Count of Pittsburg or Count of Cheltenham or whatever. A simple, tiered system of some sort where the lowest voter might be the families that own their house (vote based on family, not individuals) followed by families that are knighted, families that are counts, earls, dukes, princes, kings, and finally the imperial family. I won't bother to offer any more detail into my ideal of monarchism because I believe, ideally, it would be composed of WASPy Christian Conservative types who thus vote based on that general set of moral and civil principles and therefore the trend would be towards civil liberty, lawfulness, virtue, and capitalism rather than collectivism, atheism, multikult, socialism, etc. I offer 3 advantages I perceive this system to have over Western republicanism and 3 disadvantages. All of this is assuming we're talking about America as much of what I will say may not apply elsewhere. 1: With only the competent people with bloodlines composed of successful and productive people allowed to vote, there will be little chance of a resurgence of modern easy welfare and a generally above-average and thoughtful voting base that can't be outbred or mobbed. I think this general principle applies everywhere; I think even Saudi Arabia is better off with (whatever they have) over liberal democracy because chances are the average Saudi aristocrat is both more moral and intelligent than the average Saudi citizen or countryman. 2: Because only land-owners can vote, people are unlikely to make votes that would harm the value of their land as their children are going to inherit it and have to do damage control while in a democratic system most voters don't own the land under their feet and a large minority of Americans actually consume from the labors of productive Americans, the theft sanctioned by a government a majority comprised of a greedy and voracious minority voted in. Because the poor can't vote to steal all the money from the rich, it will be far less likely for the country as a whole to collapse as a result from the short-sightedness of the lower classes. 3: Because in general higher IQ=more likely to be moral=more likely to be conscientious, combined with a heavily Christian and morally-humble culture, having a group of people that is most likely to be pretty decent folk in charge is likely to have the best results. At least compared to having hobos, thieves, deadbeats, and losers hold the same voting weight as professors, professionals, businessmen, generals, and inventors. Having stated these 3 advantages, I will concede 3 disadvantages as I know them. 1: Over time I think the bloodlines will become less and less competent on average, thus leading to a time where leadership is in the hands of the average but lucky rather than the competent heirs of similarly competent people. However this might be correctable if a noble can be de-nobled via losing his wealth and status. I don't know of any monarchial system where there isn't some form of "you're out" in terms of kicking out no-longer-noble nobles but I assume over time cliques will be formed to cover for the slack of increasingly incompetent nobles. So the older the bloodlines, the more likely they are to be receded to the mean of the population. 2: America was once formed by this style of voting; there's a decent chance that unless we have a Never Again moment with popular enfranchisement, that we'll just follow old habits and destroy the theoretical empire. 3: High IQ people can be capable of great evils when they lose their morals and their consciences. High IQ atheists and moral relativists are perhaps even more dangerous than low IQ atheists/amoralists. I mentioned a few policy ideas, so I'll state why I have them so you can understand where I'm coming from. Required Military Service: To be clear, I'm not saying we should be fighting people all the time. I mean we should spend at least from age 18-20 getting trained to be good soldiers so when war DOES happen we're ready for it. And in peace time it'll help people on average keep healthy by at least having an example to learn from. Plus it'll make men across the country more brotherly with each other as ideally the drilling years will involve rotating around the country, thus exposing the men to all of America's regions and cultures and making them more empathetic to their fellow Americans rather than "regionalists" (as in "against people of other regions"). Families Only Vote: Either this or Male Only voting. I think women shouldn't vote no matter what because they aren't at risk of being drafted and generally suck when they fight in wars as well as turn the males against each other on the same side. There's a reason why militaries throughout history have been boys clubs and keeping even prostitutes was in many places illegal in the military; it's because men are better at fighting and protecting each other when they aren't competing for women among them. I am not sure whether votes should be based on the weight of families (and thus within families, the majority of males= the family's vote) or if it should be just Male Only. I don't think women should vote or hold public office because most females vote with even more carelessness and sentimentality than most male voters and also most female politicians suck even more than most male politicians. I've even seen this in female vs. male rulers as well. See Queen Victoria I, Elizabeth II, and Saint Isabella of Spain for more on this. Hereditary Family Rule: It seems pretty conclusive based on the history of European and Asian ruling families that they tend to act within a window depending on the family. For a great example: see the Tokugawa Shogunate, especially the descendants of Hidetada Tokugawa. For an example of how they can generally suck, see the Tokugawa shoguns that descend from Hidetada's younger brother after Hidetada's last direct descendant died without successors to choose from within. For more moderate examples: see the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Hohenzollerns, and House of Luxembourg. Family definitely matters in terms of their window of how good vs. bad they can be; the Rurikids of Russia tended to have a lot of radical princes/tsars while the Habsburgs of the Holy Roman Empire tended to have very moderate and neither especially bad nor good Kaisers/kings. Conclusion; I am a bit tired as of writing this, so I might not be arguing as well as I could be, but in spite of that I think I've provided a good case for monarchism (Roman style) over republicanism. Please criticize me and debate me on certain points as I want to make my best case for the future; so far I believe monarchism to be generally superior to republicanism and therefore a good transition before anarcho-capitalism.

I hope this all works out. I hope North Korea's not as bad as experts say it is. I hope Kim Jongun can be a reformer and transition North Korea out of Communism (or "Juche" or whatever). And I hope Korea can be made great (again? Not sure if Korea was ever a swell place to live, relative to to its neighbors as Korea's has had a history of evil rulers, more so than most places I've researched). However hope is a paralytic for those with the power to make change happen and an opioid for people without that power. But as one of those people without the power to "save Korea", I earnestly hope for the best since Korea's been in Hell since pretty much the time the Manchurians slaughtered the Chinese and built an empire off of their corpses. Nowhere near as bad as now, mind you (this is in reference to North Korea; South Korea is objectively doing better than it ever has); but Korea is one of those places where good times are, by our standards at least, seldom and all too short.

:-P Maybe, but context is everything. I'd have to show you my work for your comments to have real weight with me; because you could be diagnosing me based solely on me right here and now and not me when I have temporary schizophrenia writing as several different characters. Also, I think, given the context, it wouldn't have matter what voice I said that little sentence in because it would be equally uninteresting and mundane. Ultimately: if it is interesting, it is interesting. If it is good, it is good. If it is both interesting and good, I would spend more money on it. If it is neither, then I am not interested regardless of the details. Fallout New Vegas, I think. Very long ago; as a console peasant I mainly read the Steam forums because some of my games have active discussion there for when I feel bored eating something or want something to wake my attention up to (like early morning). I think as a rule of thumb, context is everything. What spoiler is worth covering for isn't always clear; like would it be a major deal if "we" returned to that castle later to defend it? Maybe, maybe not. If there's a war going on and Alois needs a place to command from safely, then it's obvious he's going to find a castle sooner or later unless an enemy army appears to disrupt his plans. Now by focusing on real-estate to sit in, the reader might have forgotten about the enemy army that is hopping around while Alois is making house calls! Or, perhaps, figuring there would be danger, the reader was anticipating it and wondering whether Alois would be able to respond correctly to the danger or if the saga will meet a premature end. For him, at least. Maybe, but context is everything. Like I have a lot of little details in the early part of my book which both describes the world, describes the characters, and what they value (often without directly saying they're into this sort of thing. Other times, very directly and self-admittedly saying they're this way) which may or may not be pivotal in the long run. I was a bit heated last Summer and spoke about something I'm glad he moderated because my political opinions have changed since. Being young and radical, while common, is still embarrassing... On the plus side; it gives me the opportunity to re-read what I post before anyone sees it because sometimes I say something I want to retract, clarify, or emphasize. It can be annoying but other times it's like having a guardian angel. I am prone to making mistakes, and so I have to watch myself. Perhaps once I've demonstrated consistent maturity they'll let me do without moderation anymore... Exactly so. I wrote stuff when I was a kid that I am embarrassed to re-read but at the same time and impressed by how far I came and with what fertile soil I came with. Overall what matters is that I create something I want to be remembered by and enough people want to spend money on. My therapist recently finished my current-version (unfinished, but 500,000 words with an ending at the end is judge-able) and he's said he would be willing to buy it as a consumer. I've been speaking with him about what he thinks since reading it last week; in short: he's impressed by my characterizations, plot, and linguistic style with the only flaw being my tendency to focus more on dialogue than description. However he was extremely impressed by the characters, especially the main ones. He was bored by the girls however, as to him they're simply women and support characters without much to do with the main plot. My mother thinks almost the opposite because her tastes are more towards characters while my therapist prefers things happening and characters demonstrating themselves that way. No, but few men in today's world are so remarkable. Any man who is I respect by default because he has achieved, what I want to achieve by 30, by my current age of 20. Btw I actually edited the above sentence. Initially it was written "Any man who is, I respect by default because he has achieved what I want to achieve by 30, by my current age of 20." but I changed it to the comma after "achieved" because... well, it seemed to fit better.

I ought to mention, though before I do I ought to also mention I am ignorant as to what is proper discourse on the part of clergymen, but the point is... ...I think priests talking about politics is actually a good thing. I don't think they should just hand out the answers (they're supposed to teach you how to find them, right?) but it makes sense to me that they speak about politics because that's where moral principles are applied rather than kept in theory. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure a-political priesthood was only a thing since Lyndon B. Johnson's persecution of priests amendment (i forget the proper name: basically if a priest speaks about current events they can lose their tax-free status. I think President Trump actually abolished it early in his term, so that's a good thing!) and priests talking political (even when it's a stance we vehemently disagree with) is actually a return to form and, what I'd call truly, progressive. I think you ought to challenge your Leftist church speakers; as a Christian you are obligated to speak the truth to shame the Devil, and I can't think of a better and more powerfully regular time than Church congregations. Churches were the historical sanctuary of debates, after all. It wasn't like everybody kept hush-hush on Sundays; you couldn't go a week without a Hussite debating a mainstream Catholic back centuries ago! Or Martin Luther, as he became a thing, with other Catholic priests. To be clear I am about as far away from the Left as a man can be, but I am actually glad the clergymen are speaking politically because that's where they can do the most good (and harm when they're wrong) and it can be just the final kick in the shin to wake up the sleepy boomers, millennials, and the people in between with their heads in the sand! Of course that's just half of it; the other half is YOU and anybody else who disagrees speaking up. God did not give man a voice so that he may be silent, after all.

And it's far from too late. I don't know where you are in terms of progress, but it's never too late to be productive about your dates and relationships. The sooner the better; I mean, can you imagine hypothetically marrying a woman you knew little about in terms of values and so years later when--surprise, surprise--the glamor effect of youthful attractiveness wears off and suddenly you don't recognize the woman you married? I think lots of guys marry faces and them project what they want into them rather than see them for who they are. I think it's the male-equivalent to girls who think they can change a hot bad boy or make a hot/smart/both guy who is lazy, ambitious, etc. etc.

Personally I intend to make them First Date questions (at least the values part) since I figure that way I'll be cycling through quicker than if I spent months between them. However since you're in it, you might as well figure it out because it could be good for you (at the very worst it is a teacher for future relationships, at the very best you know your future wife/mama). In terms of figuring these questions out: you could either ask her them directly or ask her questions that implictly give the answers. I prefer the former but the latter can work if you know how. It's how many women test their men: "what are your aspirations? Why are those your aspirations? How do you plan to achieve them? What are your politics? Why are those your politics? What is important and not important in politics? etc. etc." are examples of more subtle ways to answer the values and standards test. In fact most bosses when they want to know if you're someone they can employ do the same thing often with the same traits in mind (that is: self-motivated, thoughtful, and proactive at the very least).

That sounds good. I don't have the inside scoop but I'd try to emulate her assertiveness if I were you since that's surely impress her and keep her confident in you. Especially as the older one. But then again she might like you for your shyness (which is very rare, as it's usually the man that likes the shy woman but I'm not saying that's not the case but I assume as a late-teen/early-adult she's not very experienced with men). I think if she can catch up to you in terms of wisdom and you can rely on her to make her own decisions (like not do stupid crap like interviewing a celebrity in his hotel room kind of crap, or abusing money, etc. etc.) then I think The Bad might be worth crossing out. You're welcome. I like to share. I can't argue much about c-section vs. regular birth because I don't know much. I mean, isn't a c-section like cutting into a woman's stomach to pry out the baby? That's got to leave scars physical and mental and... Well, I don't imagine you'll look at her naked the same way again. But I might be wrong as to exactness of the procedure and effects of it. I assume either way the chances of child mortality in both cases are extremely low. Still important to keep an eye on the doctors and be as informed as you can to minimize the risks though. At the very least you don't want some crazy fundamentalist mutilating your babies when you're not looking. Preference isn't necessarily a rational thing; like I prefer to read physical books than digital books (I'm fine either way though) and the reason isn't totally "rational" because it's really just because I like to physically own my things. Especially with video games since that way they can last forever. (But this is a tangent). However... I assume with birthing methods, there's more objective risks and benefits than mere personal preference going on. But I am too ignorant to argue for or against c-sections beyond that it sounds gross and unnatural. Which is a very poor argument. Overall I think the next thing you want to look for is how she weighs certain values and disagreeing with her. Like would she permanently end a relationship over, say, global warming or pollution debates? Would she end them if she had a big difference like Left vs. Right? Would she end them if the other person was dishonest and manipulative? Would she cut herself off from toxic people? These aren't easily testable especially assuming she's 18 now. I don't know about her family of origin and I hope for the best but they may be your future parents-in-law and it's important you get to know them and come to a point where you have to decide whether you'll enter her family, have her only (if she's willing to effectively leave her family), or move on. I think this is where her age will be of biggest concern because she still (I assume) needs her parents and if they really are bad then I doubt she'll just leave them. Having said that you ought to have a certain line for what constitutes "defoo-worthy" as obviously if the warts are comparatively small like the mother is a tad bit neurotic but generally stable and reasonable, and the dad's foul-mouthed and combative but not abusive (especially with their kids) then I assume you can work with that. On the other hand if you got people that'd put their kids high on the ACE score then you'll have a serious mountain to cross. But I don't know for sure where you should go next. I think values are #1, expectations of each other are #2, and then how you're going to live as a family ought to be like #3. I am assuming she's a truly honest, assertive, decently intelligent, and faithful woman and if so then you might be able to move onto #2 (which arguably IS #1 like how #3 is number 1, but I think you get what I mean: find out what she believes in versus you, whether she's willing to yield to reason and evidence and stand by herself when she's right (and by extension when YOU are willing to yield to reason and evidence and stand by yourself when you're right), and then figure out whether you'll have a traditional family structure and where you'll live and whether you'll keep close the extended family or not). I think my question now is: where are you with these steps? Can you name your main values and confidently name hers? Does your experience match that (like does she follow her spoken values, do you follow yours)? Are there areas you are both okay with disagreeing with because you consider them minor? And if so (almost certainly so), how do you know when they're minor? You don't necessarily have to answer me since I don't think I'll be of much help to you beyond pointing where you might ask questions and figure it for yourself. And these questions are almost certainly going to be the main hurdles that, once made, will smooth out the foundation for the rest of your lives. Get the big arguments and conflicts done now so you can both sail forwards with confidence in each other and reasonable expectations.

Expressed calmly=/= being emotionally vivid and for real. Shouting and being firm =/= being sophistic, namecalling, ad hominems, etc. She's signaling some serious red flags and clearly is testing you as a man. You can ignore at your own peril but you either have to put your foot down and be a man or expect to be cuckholded/divorced (I know you aren't married but you are kind of living like a married couple so bare with me on the terminology). And I'm not PUA. I'm a good Catholic boy and all that. But I would take the PUA's seriously because even though they tend to hit the slummy side of town they still have far more understanding of gender relations than most people do. And it doesn't take a PUA to figure out that women like to subtly test their men to see if they're worth breeding with. And if I were a woman I'd be cheating the crap on you for not calling me out on my B.S., not being emotionally present (you said you didn't scream, yell, etc. etc. to imply your anger so I assume you did the calm, teacher voice with her which I would take as patronizing), and worst of all not punishing me for my willfully bad behavior. I would most definitely not bare you babies let alone raise them. Especially if I am the breadwinner (do you work? I assume you don't because you didn't mention you driving her late making you late for work) and having to rely on you to be the stay at home dad. I want a MAN raising my kids, not a boy. Now, I get I'm being blunt and probably hurtful, but you got to see it from a woman's perspective. You're reeking of beta and that is the female equivalent to, as a man, having a woman that flirts with random men, burps, and acts all kinds of viscerally gross. Note that where men tend to value reasoned words, women tend to value primal emotions. We have different brains and therefore weigh communication methods differently... So saying you're upset is nowhere near the same thing as clearly expressing anger and frustration. So she gets 75% of what you and her make combined? (I guess I this part answers my above question). That's not fair by any means and surely she knows this and is getting secretly pissed that her man, that she's known since age 19 (5 years you said) at least, is basically just a worker bee without a will of his own. Come on man; I used to walk a mile to work everyday and I got used to it (and eventually did better things working at home), it's not that hard. She's a big girl and can handle herself. She doesn't need you to drive her and you shouldn't drive her if she takes your service for granted by making you wait all the time. You're just proving to her you're a utility, not a person. And that's a huge red flag for a woman. Now, I don't know if she's the one for you, but assuming she is you have to man up or expect all kinds of shit when you get older (or in the next few years once her desire to have kids really hits and she begins to wonder whether you're father-material or still a high school kid just aged 30). And ultimately I think the big shit test is "will this guy keep taking me to work if I keep making him wait?" and you are failing that one Big League. It's never JUST about being a taxi cab versus a helpful husband. It's simultaneously about whether you can be competitive, committed, have integrity, or if you'll be a pushover and subject to the most dominant will in the room. And you're signaling the latter by not giving her real consequences for her actions.

It would. Do it.

You're facing a series of rather obvious shit tests. Stop being a beta and tell her to get her act together or you're leaving. Don't do her any favors or gift her anything because she owes you a large debt and she's well aware of it and wondering if you're man enough to collect. She'll be far more empathetic and caring once she actually respects you.

As a Roman Catholic; God is the creator of all our common ancestors and the architect of the universe as well as the ultimate judge of whether I'm a half way decent human being or a sinful degenerate. I don't know if God is real but really I do not care. What I care about is the moral lessons of Christendom as well as the weight God has on the souls of those who believe in Him (and by extension how that weight is often enough to tame the behaviors of those who naturally lack consciences). Personally I have always had at least a superstitious belief in a god and therefore had no trouble at all accepting the idea of God. Even though I don't really believe in God I still feel something within me that does and demands that I behave rather than be evil or something between evil and okay as well as something that tempts me to be good. There was a time where I was a proper atheist: that is to say someone who considered it moral to destroy God and any memory of God as well as impose the "rationality of atheism" upon the world. Not coincidentally it was while I was in my Communist phase. As I outgrew Communism I returned to God and began to really appreciate Christianity and how that created the conscience of the West and became the foundation for even the moral codes of those who claim to be without God. And well... ...I self-identify as a Roman Catholic more for the code than the ultimate justification of the code (i.e. that the code is moral because it is to the greater glory of God) as well as more for the values than where the values are said to come from. I am definitely willing to keep company with strong religious believers so long as they can reason their faith and are willing to ultimately answer an "I don't know" when they truly don't know. While religious folks come in many varieties the ones I've been exposed to have been generally humble and wanting to do good even if they don't/didn't believe much in God Himself. This is a massively stronger culture than the decadent and irresponsible atheist who has no values and beliefs and is therefore not even an individual let alone a realized human being. To respond to Nietzsche: man clearly cannot become like God, therefore we must revive God and return Him to command lest man continue to wander himself off a cliff like a coop of headless chickens.

The bubble one is highly inaccurate. My recent ancestral family lines are mostly criminals and union workers yet I scored as if I was in the upper-middle class for several generations.

Answering the question with the assumption you actually want to live a life a K selected person would consider worth living: the American Midwest. Throw a dart on the map and chances are you won't find better in the world. It's got the best demographics (White, conservative, Christian, high IQ--rivaling Japan and China, low crime, etc. etc.) and great geography that makes it pretty much impenetrable in the event of war. However my answer only applies to Kangaroos. Rabbits... Well, I'm not going to bother because I eat rabbits.

I think I understand better. Man to man? I just turned 20 and I've never had a girlfriend and am of course a virgin. But I have had attempts at getting girls but I was very awkward and well... I suppose it was a good thing I was because I was really just thinking with my wick and I would have surely gotten it burned if I had the balls to actually go through with my teenage desires. It's important to break the ice for ourselves since we have to get comfortable speaking directly with and about important (personal especially) topics with women. However you ought to know you aren't dating a woman; you're dating a girl. That means you are most likely quite a bit mentally older and wiser than her and there's hardly a guarantee she'll ever catch up with you or even be moderately acceptable. She's at a point in her life where she pretty much has to become who she will most likely be for the remaining 60+ years of her life. Now depending on what kind of guy you are that could be good or bad. I lean towards the latter but I can make a case for the former. The good: you can educate her and potentially "raise her" into a marriageable woman for yourself. This is really only possible if either she is uniquely intelligent and individualistic (i.e. she's humble to reason and evidence and is not a dogmatist; though you may have to put up with a lot of crap early on it may be possible to help her become a decent woman) OR she has/had a good father and mother to raise her in the right direction (thus you don't really have to do anything. She'll just become decent on her own). I would not bet on either of these things though; I'll get to that later. The bad: you'll most likely always be wiser than her and if you're anything like me (I think I'm exceptional in this way but...) then you'll probably grow to resent her because she cannot ever be of help to you when you need her yet you'll have to be there for her nearly always. The relationship becomes both possessive and parasitical (and therefore unhealthy) when there is a significant knowledge/intelligence gap and that weak-spot is further widened when you both have different methods of getting your beliefs. If your's is reason and her's is peer pressure (or vice versa) then you two will surely crumble even if you agree in the moment (and I know you do not). Therefore I suspect that unless she's truly intelligent and reasonable (or at least was raised to be amendable to be that way) she'll just be nothing but trouble for you and God knows many a young man loses his youth to bad women. I can't say whether she's peer-pressure or reason based because while she disagrees with you in terms of lifestyle (and probably by extension values) she does appear willing to use evidence to back it up (thus the article above). That's a promising sign, I think. I don't know her so I might be totally wrong but if she's willing to argue (that is with reason not with insults and threats or whatever) then she's capable of growth. If that's the case then you might have a keeper on your hands. If not... then I suggest you mentally take pictures of her behavior because it'll be a valuable learning point so you can spot unreasonable girls in the future. But again: she seems reasonable because she's willing to argue with data rather than insults or avoidance (but I don't know that: maybe she does that crap in your life but you didn't want to type it here or maybe not. Remember: I'm just some guy and I don't have the full picture) and if I'm right about her being reasonable then she could be the most outrageous Far Left maniac and still become a good woman because she's capable of being de-programmed and thinking for herself--and therefore she's capable of being of as much help and service to you as you are to her (presumably--I am assuming you're a decent guy who is trying to help her rather than use her or whatever). A final note: in general it is best to assume that if a woman is arguing with you it is not about what she's literally saying but something else that she isn't saying. I would argue such women are dangerous and too much trouble but... most guys would not agree with me. I am not saying your girl is like that but if that's the case you might want to take that as a red flag (meaning I'm saying you ought to think of what she might really be angry about or protecting--assuming she's doing either of these things rather than calmly sending you links and urls) for later dating. In all though: I pray you found a good and reasonable woman but do not let optimism or "your-first-real-girlfriend-buzz" blind you from seeing a bad one.

The pastor that dared to say they "participate in false religions"... was he a Protestant by any chance? Most Hispanics are Roman Catholics. Most Asian converts re also Catholics. Either way I strongly suggest you push back in public during the sermons because that's what the Church is for: debating and arguing. "Speak the truth; shame the Devil" should be inscribed on your belt the next time you go to that sinning church.