Siegfried von Walheim

First is Alpha R, the second is Alpha K. Basically the difference between Genghis Khan and Charles Martel.

Just a half hour ago I read some devastating news. The President approved of the bombing of Damascus and other places in Syria. The Russian Government is necessarily taking this a declaration of war. The Syrian Government is surely not going to roll-over, though unlike the Russians they cannot strike America proper. I am truly fearful of our country's future with this. The wrath of the unjustly tormented is a wrath without restraint. I feel a sort of guilt for this war and almost want to offer myself up to the next Syrian that comes my way as an apology for my nation's actions. I don't have the words. What do we do? What can we do? Should we just focus on escaping to the better parts of our countries and prepare from there for the worst of the years or do we take some sort of political action (assuming that's even viable for anything anymore)? The Left has sunk its hooks deep into the American Government to the point where I don't think they can ever be pulled out through the political system. So it seems logical what we have to do is wait it out, fortify our communities, strengthen our bonds, and pray to God that we will be spared His divine wrath. I freely admit I am greatly saddened and weakened mentally by the news. I suppose I already have my answers ("do nothing. We cannot do anything. All we can do is head out for where it's safe and likely to remain safe and prepare for the worst.") but... I want to hear what others have to say.

Well, if she knows what she wants, then why are you trying to stop her? Especially be referring to the borg? If I were you I'd sit down with her and talk about--practically speaking, day to day and week to week, what being a working mom actually means and how that affects the children. I'd prepare some data since some of it will probably require proving rather than just imagination and empathy for one's future self and children. If she truly believes she will be happiest as a breadwinner (because she can't be the active mother and the breadwinner at the same time--make sure she can do basic math to figure that out at least) then either, if you plan to actually marry her, you have to become the "househusband" (or stay at home dad) or you have to simply move on since she presumably knows what she's getting into and if you want a housewife as a working man while she wants a househusband as a working woman... You are not both going to get what you want.

I am no theologian so I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean why do Christians refer to it as "Original Sin"? Well "sin" means to "miss the mark" or make a moral crime; it is "missing the mark" to use free will in a way that is against God's wishes and the circumstances involved were what theoretically led to mankind having such as a thing as temptation (for more beyond necessity) and that temptation can be a cause for evil. Practically speaking; I think the purpose of the concept of Original Sin and the failings of Adam and Eve are meant to be a sort of "memento mori: remember you are mortal" and thus be an eternal warning that all people are capable of being corrupted (relative to being pure, upright, moral, sensible, and compassionate). The reminder that there are no one that is 100% perfect beyond any flaws, weaknesses, and temptations is a good one because without idolatry becomes a real threat (and from a secular standpoint the problem of idolatry is to worship individuals as if they were beyond condemnation and thus have those individuals be used as propaganda or, similarly, for those individuals to use themselves as propaganda for why they are right. I think the differences between Occidental Despotism and Oriental Despotism demonstrate this concept we Whities have of "memento mori (remember you are mortal)" versus what the Asians have of a divine superman beyond reproach (like the Mandate of Heaven in China for example, or the Divinity of the Japanese Emperor as another). While Western sensibilities regarding man as mortal rather than divine precede the rise in Christianity, I think Christianity has done much for the West in emphasizing the fallibility and mortality of mankind. And I think the practical result in the very long run is scientific method, respect for the law, and (at least the desire) to keep governments within reproach.

They're both obviously in the wrong. I don't know if your mother is more wrong because she compensated by raising you (I assume poorly but I'd love to hear the story of a changed woman actually be real) however since women normally have weaker libidos they normally have more control. However I'd argue knifing you in the belly is far worse than raising you as a single mom. I am glad to be alive, as another spawn of a single mom to another. I can't say she's more in the wrong than your father but I can't say she's significantly less either. Presumably they were both horny and stupid as well as reckless and evil but your mother actually did raise you whereas your father didn't. I don't know how well she raised you (like it could be really, really, really evil like an Arabian prison or it could be half-way decent if she did her role right enough to not abuse you and keep you healthy and alive) but that factor naturally tilts the scale considerably. I'd say she's worse than him if she abused you but if she was half way decent then she made up for it somewhat.

Legally equal? Obviously not. Biologically equal? Sort of. Men don't have to be pregnant but women can kill their babies just by feeling depressed or angry enough and can hold them hostage if they are evil enough. However assuming a not-evil woman; women are obviously at the mercy of those around them while pregnant. They can't really do much for themselves and at the very least need an income provider since they cannot work (and when they can they're nearly useless) for money--especially at the level of a non-pregnant woman or a man. However it is the men that usually pay for the woman. The equality in biology is mainly like this: if the woman wishes she can kill the child. If the man wishes he can stop giving her resources (thus if they cannot get it any other way they will die slowly). Obviously half-way decent people don't threaten to knife their own babies or threaten to cast their pregnant women into the streets but there's always that potential should one side abuse their power. With new laws however the power of men to stop providing resources is revoked while women can kill their children far more easily than ever. They can also use their children as legal leverage to milk the man--something I have yet to find historical precedence for. The closet equivalent is a "shotgun marriage" but that's far easier to dodge and also far less cancerous in the long run (and may even be moral in the right circumstances--though it's always damage control for bad parenting i.e. immorality.) Therefore modern men have to learn to abstain or be monogamous with good women. We have essentially become what feminists claim women were; caged animals/animals on a short leash. We actually have to copy how women used to behave about sex; we have to be very careful about being accused of sexual assault (like say by leaving doors open and keeping friends/strangers in ear shot like how women used to be very careful about ensuring people knew she was a virgin. Well being accused of sexual assault easily equates to being not a virgin for a woman), impregnating (versus being impregnated as a woman), and being legally forced to pay for bad women (like an enslaved concubine). In good company these precautions aren't necessary; however most people do not know what good company looks like let alone have good company. Therefore I recommend to all young 18 to 20-something bucks to be abstinate until marriage (and be very careful about marrying a woman! If she's a thot or a trot than you better not put a ring on her!). I also recommend not being alone in the same room (especially a bedroom or a place that could be used as such) with a strange woman or female co-worker because you're pretty much in the same position as women of yore but instead of fearing accusations of virginity loss you risk accusations of sexual assault. Be good boys and be smart and you'll be fine.

Where did you find that exactly? I couldn't find it under "Materials".

Note that it focuses on the happiness of the mother over a course of 10 years. So the negative effects of negligent parenting didn't really happen (I presume) for most if not all the women studied. Also note it is happiness measured not whether or not it is actually good for the family (and you know how easily most women's perceptions of happiness can be altered with a few sweet poisonous words). I think (as a total amateur) this study is worth considering since it doesn't appear to have any fatal flaws in its own intended purpose. Perhaps most of the women studied came from the same general area and perhaps the full time mothers felt generally depressed because of how they're treated by other women OR they are in general crazier and more likely to pick bad men in that area. Lots of little factors that might not be accounted for. Also I would presume most lazy women would be happier to totally outsource child-rearing then actually have to mother during the initial years (especially if they have no idea what they are doing and beat their kids or yell at them) and I would assume good women would have the opposite effect (meaning a smart and moral woman would love being a mother because she's a Spock enthusiast--never read him but I heard he championed peaceful parenting and other things like that--who refers to a whole library of parenting books when in doubt). Strangely there's a lack of hard numbers (like how many worked part time versus full time mother versus full time wage slave) and also "part time" is defined as between 1-32 hours per week (which is a huge difference, especially if those hours are spread over 6 days rather than condensed into four 8-hour work days--assuming the high end for that example). The lines between a "full time working woman" and "part timer" are blurred a bit. Therefore while this may be true for certain types of women from a certain geographical area I do not think it is true for all women everywhere (obviously but I mean "in general"). I don't think the study is particularly useful because "not-all-women" and all that. Some women are genuinely good workers and suck at being a mother while others totally suck working and would be better off committing to motherhood and then there are women who just suck in general at everything. And then there are really great women who are good at both work and home (though obviously they will suck if they try to do both at once). Not to mention the level of individuality and wisdom of a given woman is likely to affect her ability to be happy and effective in general at anything. If I were you (@TC) I wouldn't bother debating with my girlfriend about a study but rather ask her why she even cares. I mean, isn't she a self-actualized woman or is she just a part of the borg? If she's a real woman then she ought to know what she wants (or at least admit honestly she doesn't know) and therefore studies of what women generally prefer ought not interest her. If she's a member of the borg... Well, I haven't watched that Star Trek episode so you'll have to watch it for yourself to see what happens when you try to assimilate into the borg.

You most certainly CAN post links and I wish you would do so more (like in your signature) since I had a hard time finding you on DriveThruRPG (I skimmed in a full preview your 5th edition and was... impressed by a certain rabbit class I'd probably lol a lot with...).

In many ways we are who we act. I have always valued straight-forwardness and honesty growing up and as you might imagine, considering that, I really suck at deliberate lying and mischaracterizing of others. However given the eye-for-an-eye nature of survival in politics and all things connected to its tentacles it is necessary some of us (like Stefpai, Jordan Peterson, or Cernovich) get good at getting low-down and dirty since it is necessary to win over the low IQ types that are more darwinistic and mammalian than the bookish or high IQ types. As a rule I treat like for like but I do not deliberately engage when I know it's not going to be a "fair fight" as it brings out some of the worst in me (to use sophistry on one hand or be tempted with force in the other) and I'd rather keep my hands clean when I am not literally in a fight (as compared to a private or public or semi-public debate).

Since virtually everything I post is moderated, it is normally around every Wednesday/Thursday that they're passed for public reading/response. Like now is Tuesday so I suspect you won't have to wait long to see this, but you might have to wait a week and a day otherwise. Hey man, being old enough to own your own home, be married, and a father is "OLD" relative to a young buck like myself still stomping about trying to find his way forwards. I more or less figured this out when I researched it but you explain it better than most. I think it's a bit pedantic to look for because context is everything. I typically prefer the first person in the past tenses across multiple different characters and thus different personalities and ways of thinking/feeling/describing. I don't know if you plan to email me at [email protected] for a copy of my current draft or not but either way I think I can use two characters who may or may not embody a preference for active versus passive voice. Alois is a generally confident and outgoing young boy (later man) who generally prefers to resolve things in the here and now and hates to delay and hates those that either sell themselves short overmuch. Therefore his language style is generally active and about doing things in the moment rather than meekly describing things as "having happened", rather he's "doing them". To use an example off my head but not in text (because I don't feel like combing hundreds of pages for a simple example): if he for some reason decides to box someone, he will describe the situation as it happens and with himself as an active agent in creating (or at least reacting) to it rather than passive act like it just happened to him as if he was some sort of meek little determinist. In contrast, initially at least, Lia who is just a month younger than Alois, tends to be herself a passive agent in situations and therefore tends to describe things as having happened to her rather than her causing them to happen. However she might not be the best example of passive voice in my memory because (as it is written from the perspective of presumably much later in life) she has a somewhat different personality and mindset as a narrator of herself than she did in the moment as a kid. ...Honestly I assume I use active voice a lot simply because when I read passive voices I just feel a different personality talking to me than when I read examples of active voice. Since most of my characters are speaking in the past tense from the first person (and therefore are generally wiser and better than when they were younger) they tend to speak in active voice. I think. I don't look pedantically at things like this because I tend to evaluate the quality of a paragraph, sentence, and chapter based on whether it "sounds right" especially relative to the narrator's personality and whether or not the "flow" of the words and sentences are easily digestible or drawn out too much (or in contrast too little as to be too ambiguous). Unless I deliberately intend for them to be in such a way. Like I said: context is everything. I'd hate to read him lol. I tend to do very little describing of anything beyond actions and dialogue as I am a firm believer of "Chekov's Shotgun"; if it doesn't have a purpose, either in the long run or in the moment, don't bother describing it. Like if Alois passes by a castle I don't think much description beyond bare bones (like it's big, well-fortified, and mighty or the opposite of that) is necessary (or warranted/desired) UNLESS that particular castle is going to be explored more later as either a seat of residence or as a bulwark in a "documented" (i.e. someone's going to talk/recall/describe actions from there) defensive/offensive siege. I don't know. When I read myself typing, I think I am prone to active voice by default because I like to speak straightly and concisely unless I think description or qualifying is necessary to either avoid confusion or predictable questions. For example: if you asked me how Johan Johnson is doing; I wouldn't just say "not well" because you'd probably ask me to elaborate on that. Therefore I'd say "not well; he's got food poisoning from that rancid meat he ate from the back of the fridge that he didn't want to waste". Thus I am answering 3 plausible questions at once. How is Johan doing? Why is he unwell? Why did he eat rancid meat? ... Get me? I know what you mean! I can usually overcome it if the content is interesting (btw I found you on a few Steam forums as an anonymous reader (since I myself don't own any Steam games but like to read what people have to say about games I like that are playable on Steam)!). However I do take reader reviews seriously because they're ultimately my potential/existing buyers. Not only that but I think many "writing advice/techniques" are either unintended/intended traps to professional success (i.e. to keep people from actually finishing and publishing their books) AND/OR the only way to really get good at writing is either from natural talent or that plus experience. Like I know I was a far worse writer as a pre-teen/tween than now as a young man. However the part I was far worse in was not in creativity but in execution. That's to say I had a much smaller vocabulary (and thus either had to explain peculiar things in a long and drawn out matter OR not describe things because I couldn't as well as have the problem of repeated phrases and lines across characters and chapters. Getting to hear more people, dialects, and getting more exposure to the written word has enable me to say basically the same things a dozen different ways to represent different types of people. I mean, shouldn't a pretty woman sound different than a gruff but ugly man? Or a gentleman from a prostitute? Etc. etc.?). Also I was much more naive and misinformed, thus while I might have won over contemporary Leftists I wouldn't have convinced critical thinkers or grounded people of anything about my fiction. I essentially had a lot of good clay and decent ideas but little skill in actually enacting them. Now, at least by comparison, I have great/good ideas and perhaps good or great skill in executing them. Whether I actually do or not I cannot say for sure because the people that read me never complain about my style or verbiage but rather certain plot points (or in one case the genre) while I am generally given props for my characterizations, world-building, sense of realism, and ability to give emotion and taste to words on paper. I think it was a period placed into a "(())" rather than "...)." but re-reading it now the context for "...) ..." makes sense. Either you fixed it already or I was simply too sleepy or energized to read it properly. I saw something that wasn't there, I think. I forget; it was weeks ago, wasn't it? Anyway I'd be glad for you to email me since I trust you will make a good judge of my quality and I need as many judges as possible since, though I am still fairly far, I am drawing close to completion and therefore want someone to let me know if I'm doing good, doing bad, or a mix at different points.

...Having said that all, I do feel a little bad for him since he probably was sheltered from real masculinity as a kid and was isolated and ill-prepared for adulthood even as a fully grown man. There's a lot for others' to take away from this though. Among which being to "man up" in the sense of figuring out what masculinity actually is (not what the Left says it is) and becoming that as well as finding good people with a straight forward, honest, and rational character to both rely upon and be relied upon. Every man ought to build a network of other men of a kind, especially the good kind. This way we can prop each other upwards and forwards rather than regress into becoming both the housewife and breadwinner of a lazy and selfish single mom.

The caller was the dictionary definition of Beta Male. My God. All I could do was laugh at his self-inflicted suffering. He was so spineless his self-admitted standards were lower than Single Mom With 2 Children By 2 Men... And he has the audacity to think he deserves custody of his maybe child? He only got the inevitable return of an obviously shady investment... He belongs with the woman. He was right when he said they were compatitible and made for each other. When alpha f__cks he's ready to buck. To all young men: don't be the caller. Don't be the detestable Beta Male that feeds and sustains the bad behavior of bad women. Be an Alpha Male and set a good example with an Alpha Woman while all those r-selected betas screw and starve each other to death (without the welfare state to loot you of your earnings of course).

The big hypocrites that come to mind are Ghandi the anti-semitic pedophile and Martin Luther King Jr. the whoring prostitute-beating welfare-state advocate. I cannot say I have ever been inspired by major anti-war figures since they were usually hypocrites or morally dissolute. However on a smaller scale I was/am inspired by Stefpai and the President himself as well as Micheal Flynn. On a fictional level (but personally potent) is Yang Wenli from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Heavily inspired by the Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin.

So far the only possible similarity he and I might have is being book smarts without being real-world smarts. Otherwise he couldn't possibly be more different than me if he tried! Seriously his whole story stinks of deadbeat loser. What did you see in him?! I mean I may be highly conservative and speaking totally in theory right now, but I sure as heck wouldn't be shy to kiss to death my hypothetical woman and stick it in there once we're married. I may be a gentleman consciously but I have a beast within! :-P That being said, I understand what you're saying and I think lots of people like myself who are prone to caution and critical thinking may be tempted by inertia, inaction, or ideological self-destruction. That's why I'm writing and doing things as compared to just talking about it or thinking about it. And also why I'm open to ideological, moral, etc. criticism because I don't want to be the blind man walking off a cliff. Thank you for the anecdote--though I seriously wonder what kind of girl you were because it sounds like you had really terrible taste in men until your husband came along. I am basing this off of this story plus in which I think you said you dated briefly a polygamist Muslim while you worked at a daycare center. I might be misremembering because I know a Swedish woman with a far worse track record as one of the callers as well as a Russian woman so I might be misremembering some stuff. I apologize if that's the case but assuming I am remembering right I think you ought to... I don't know, for your sons and potential daughters at least, teach them and prepare them for crazy women/men so they don't repeat your mistakes.

I already replied to the above privately so I'm not going to re-type it all here nor copy-paste since I think a lot of it was more about mutual figuring out rather than actually going anywhere. I think readers in a similar spot might benefit from here on out though. I don't want to. I'd rather not try. Especially if he circumcized his boys. Well, my conclusions have changed greatly over the past 5 years. If I choose people based on conclusions I'll be bound by them if I want to keep the people. I know from experience and others' wisdom that methodology beats conclusions when looking for people. Confused. Lol I'm not some snowflake. I am very open about my ambitions and welcome any naysayers. If they have something worth listening to, I take it to heart. If they're just petty people, then I can recognize them in the future as such. In a way, being open about my ambition is a shit test. Well the "biological cage" is currently for the best. Children don't choose their parents but that often beats being cast out into the wilderness. The best we can do is make that cage one our children would choose willfully rather than be forced into. Sounds like a chore. But I look at the clock frequently enough to tell. I am almost always thinking at least in the back of my mind about the future and getting things done. I'm rarely totally divorced from that. However only for an hour a day give or take do I dedicate to critical thinking. Often when I exercise since I get bored doing that and figure I might as well do my planning/worrying/self-reassuring while I'm exercising since it sends a positive loop into my head that I'm being productive rather than inert. I don't know what you mean. Do you mean to ask myself in a given moment whether a certain fixation is actually helping and productive to me or if it's merely wasting time and hurting me? My therapist told me to ask myself 3 questions. 1: Is what I am thinking true? 2: Is what I am thinking productive? 3: Is what I am thinking making me happy? If the answer to any of these is no, he says I ought to drop it and think differently. In practice it helps quite a bit to filter out what I cannot control or cannot do yet and instead focus on what I can achieve and rejoice in. I don't know. I have no reason to assume I'm a bad judge of character but I really just don't want to be pushed into making friends with random strangers. I'd rather befriend people of common values as I find them. I do know in my case it helps to be pro-active since, as Stefpai points out, when we need something from someone we cease to see that someone as an equal and that someone may be prone to abuse of power. As a novelist I plan on building a network come late Summer so that by the time I'm finished I have people I can plausibly rely upon for this, that, and the other thing as well as be reliable so that I can have a good reputation among other positive loops. Simple: if being a success story means having friends and I say I wouldn't want to seek friends until I'm a success... Come on, it's obvious when I put it this way, right? Therefore I quickly realized I'd be best off making friends based on shared methodology (when possible) and values (otherwise) so that when we (or some of we) become successes it won't be like we were mutual gold-diggers, rather we had/will-have genuine connection and therefore trust. I honestly don't know what your trying to ask. Or what you're way off or on about. That I'm planning and doing while I'm young rather than head-long going into friendships with hobby-centric values? I guess. It's not a put down if it's correct. I'm as internally slutty as any man but it's no accomplishment to be virginal. Anyone can do it, and often the less desirable the easier it is. I'm a fairly handsome guy but I'm no hunk or Donald Trump (i.e. wealthy + good looking. Speaking of him when he was in his 30's) so it's rather easy to be a virgin since no one's throwing herself at me. It's really hard to say. In short it's an epic about great champions of differing ideals colliding with the world as it exist and eventually with each other, but in detail it's hard to describe in short. I suppose dynasty-building is a part of it but not the focus. Equally parts but not entire focuses are friendship, brotherhood, fatherhood, motherhood, sisterhood, apprenticeship, business, politics, games, hobbies, and more. Bigger parts would be war, love, hatred, religion, atheism, monarchism, republicanism, etc. A whole lot is going on and it's hard to generalize like it's about this thing or that thing. Rather flatteringly, Jordan Peterson refers to such confusion about creation as a sign of true artistry. If it is such, it will be such. If not, I will learn why not. But I intend to really make this my early life's best and most glorious immortal work, as I believe it is very unique to both Western Civilization and modern times. I have the summary of the premise without delving into pre-history or themes, so that's where the reader can expect to start. However where it goes from there I can only say for the first book (which I'm half way done the whole process but close to finishing the story-content) or two of the series, the ending and the events between now and then are still foggy and ever-changing in my mind. I think it'll be one of, if the, best books written in my generation but I cannot say ultimately whether it'll be a force of good, evil, good against evil, or something more subtle and earthly. If you want I'll email you the current draft. That's "extra polite" lol we don't do signatures though false endings are annoyingly common.

I'd gradually expose myself to dogs until I got over my fear, which is somewhat what Im doing. That being said I'd probably say "Hell no!" even if I had no fear of dogs because I don't want animals running around my expensive (hypothetical) house!! But if it's big enough I'm sure a compromise of some kind can be made. Especially if one of my boys or girls can truly demonstrate aptitude for raising an animal and actual love for the animal. Plus if the animal's genes make it tame and generally kind, I will have less and less reason to resist. And I'd want to mimic Stefpai and raise my kids to be good negotiators, so that of course means me relenting to good arguments and all that. In short I'd probably relent unless it's a clearly dangerous and untamed animal and/or my kids are unable to care for an animal (or there's a conflict of interest among my kids). However I think a compromise might simply be (assuming my kids aren't uniform) to have my children that want a dog to visit the dog elsewhere from the main place of living. I think cats I'd be more amenable to because I actually find them cute even if they make me a bit nervous. I think gradual exposure is everything. I'm not as fearful as I used to be but I'm no animal lover either. I think (jokingly but maybe part-seriously) animal-love is another "White Man's Disease". But I'm a White Man and I have a few White Men's Diseases... (to stretch the Asian saying) :-P

Leap-frogging off what you said, I pretty much have always seen it that way since it's virtually impossible to be good if there is no ability to be evil. I have also seen it as a "test of free will", and the result was that given free will humans will make mistakes and sometimes make big mistakes. Sometimes they will willingly sin and commit moral crime. Other times they will be productive and moral champions. And then there are the people that have varied merits and sins to their records. Ultimately I think Garden of Eden story is essentially one of "letting the kids go" or "letting the birds fly free" and seeing/watching what happens and letting history be written from there.

Thank you very much. I'm glad to see returns on investment! Here is a big "I'm not sure". On one hand: it's not like men are totally logical without emotion nor are women totally emotional without logic (though I'm sure some are and vice versa). On the other, I don't really know the value of "emotionality". I mean I know the value of individual emotions. Happiness breeds more happiness and pleasure (but can weaken one's guard against evil); anger breeds resilience against adversity (but can open up new adversity if left unchecked); sadness breeds sympathy and passion; passion (that is emotional drive for something) breeds action; etc. etc. etc. I think my problem is most particularly my inclination to self-doubt and self-attack. I have definitely taken on some of the bad womanly traits, I think calling me a bit neurotic is accurate. Assuming you mean "prone to fear for the future and those around them". However... I think I've got it largely in check relative to back when I was a kid. I still worry about politics and executing my life plans, but I think I've resolved myself with the former and the latter helps push me towards continual re-evaluations and development--so long as I ensure I'm not only re-evaluating and "developing", since obvious too much of that equals inaction. But... I am not really sure whether I'm "ready" or not emotionally. I mean I am pretty sure I cannot sustain a relationship with a woman who is frequently worrying and needs me to assuage her. I regularly bicker with my mother whenever she does that to me. However I would be attracted to a "masculine" woman because frankly I find male traits attractive. If Stefpai were a woman he'd be perfect. The big question is whether or not that's healthy and attainable; can I continue to discipline myself and "masculinize" myself while turning towards women with masculine thought processes or... what? Do I simply not appreciate femininity enough? What's unique to women that I ought to appreciate (besides biology)? I don't know. I sometimes wish I was gay (and could impregnate another man) or was a woman because I think I'd make a great woman. The best woman, possibly. But then I am either thinking too highly of myself ("as a hypothetical woman") or too lowly of women. Or I am not understanding women. Like a woman that speaks softly and serenely; one that is well put together and generally calm and sincere, that is a woman I find most highly desirable. I am turned off (emotionally not sexually which is different) from highly emotional and neurotic women. I just find them... Well, frankly I think they reduce themselves to mere sexual objects for value. Again though... either I simply do not understand the value of a woman, or I am "right" insofar I am better off taking the woman's role in the emotion versus logic regard entirely because I strongly prefer the philosophical to the solipsistic. I am not exaggerating in saying if Stefan were a woman he'd be the hottest thing on the planet (so long as "she" wasn't bald, manly looking, and butch of course). I am (as far as keeping attractive men around to emulate), if I count my therapist since I am inclined to emulate his extremely masculine level of emotional self control and logical mind. He's big, physically well built, and regularly exercises even as a late forties' guy. You're right in that I'd rather stay a virgin than willing date without plans for marriage or pump and dump. I've got plenty of drive but I can satisfy that without a real woman. And I'd rather not perpetuate that society-destroying cycle anyway. Frankly I'd rather return to arranged marriages, but then I'm sure I'd change my mind fairly quickly and am admittedly finding it attractive as a sort of cheat code (which naturally "breaks the game" anyway, but I think this shows where my mind can go and I don't like it). I already intend to wait till around 25. More precisely, until I am wealthy enough to move out to the Midwest and settle down. So waiting for the serious stuff is certainly already on my plan. I just don't know why I'd want female friends unless they are unicorns (that is to say, logical, rational, and moral creatures) and if they were unicorns I'd be inclined to put a ring on one of them rather than simply remain friends. Oh I get that. Even as a man I appreciate talking to sooth inner anxieties and fears. That's why I don't think I can be Mr. Logic and Resilience for a similar woman. But I think a difference might be is that I tend to find my own solutions and my own weaknesses as I express them (i.e. my own self-contradictions and catch 22's). I haven't tried to get a girl since my beta days in early high school (and you know I failed because I aimed high and shot very poorly). I don't plan to until I'm "ready". The question is how to get there. I know exposure and acclimatization is one way, but I think I need more than that because I don't want to make peace with the average woman but rather find a special one that fits my unique character. EDIT: As a guy, I actually like to tease and pick. In fact I regularly "pick on" people I'm close to as both an unconscious test and as a means feeling close with someone. I don't think I'm incompatible with female teasing and "verbal playing". I will do so for sure. Last time we mentioned this, he agreed with Stefpai's approach of treating it like a series of job interviews and cycling through. He also mentioned I'm likely to do best with older, wiser, and more experienced women since I am interested in maturity and level-headedness. However the context of that was different and months ago, so I do think this is a topic worth revisiting since it's a bit more prescient than politics, Stalin (he defends him somewhat, not saying he's a good guy but that he did some good things and some of the bad was highly exaggerated),etc. You may be off from 100% accuracy but I think you're on target. Obviously i can't expect you to know me as well as someone who interacts with me regularly and in person. But I think you have a lot of major points I have to work with. For now my plan is to keep "taming" myself and building myself up so I can be more masculine as far as emotions go. However I am still more attracted to "manly" women than "feminine" women. I mean that in terms of personality, of course. Obviously I am into all kinds of 36-24-36, six feet tall, hip-length hair, etc. etc. Thank you. I take what you say very seriously since I'm still a kid inside as far as the adult world of marriage and gender relations go. I think I understand it plenty in the abstract and in terms of "other people" but I am very much the newbie as far it goes for me, myself, and I. I'd appreciate feedback aimed at my desired preference for women and whether I'm undervaluing femininity relative to myself and my own logic versus emotion balance. Or in general. I think this is, along with topics brought up by barn and Snapslav, is a key issue to be solved. EDIT: Perhaps a better question: what is "feminine" and what does that have to offer a "masculine" man? Perhaps I am really undervaluing women outside utility and therefore am undervaluing (if not totally misunderstanding) what femininity means and why it's of value. I am pretty sure I understand fully well the romantic virtues of masculinity because... Men are awesome! At least manly men are. Every time I see something, I have a man to thank for it. I think if I understood better what women as womanly and feminine have to offer I'd have a motive to fit a more traditional role and would not fear something that either isn't there or would only be there in extreme circumstances (or with bad women). Also it might help me figure out where I am on the spectrum of ultra-masculine versus ultra-feminine in both the good and the bad. Like I am very masculine. I know I am. But with one (big) caveat: I want my emotions to be tended to more than I want to tend to others' emotions (maybe? Honestly I'm not even sure of that. I do not feel anger or contempt if I am giving comfort and advice to even a man in need. It's just my idea of comfort is to drag his ass out and slap him with a wet fish and give him practical steps to solve his dilemma. I'd also treat a woman the same way. Perhaps the problem is less me being too feminine but not understanding things? I don't know). However, at the same time, while I value the wet fish slapping against myself, I also value the maternal comfort only a good woman can provide. I find that infinitely attractive, alongside rationality and all that. The big thing is that I don't want to have to "manage" a woman like a child. I want her to be self-sufficient as a woman and only need me in regards to building a family and supporting each other in our gender roles as provider (me) and steward (her). I think I might be confused or misunderstanding more than anything. I'd appreciate your take based on what I'd added in the "EDIT". To be clear my biggest fear with women is being exploited and not loved as well as being owned and abused. I don't want to become my father or grandfather (on either side). And to stress it: I think my issue is lack of understanding more than anything. I have never seen a good woman modeled to me outside fiction. I can imagine a great and wonderful woman but I have never seen any woman like her, just in pieces (i.e. parts of that great woman I have seen in normal or "met" women). ADDED: I did a cursory internet search on "what makes a woman great" and "what does a woman offer a man". I hate to say it but for the former there was nothing direct and for the latter the answer was universally "nothing" or "sex". I don't think that's true... But I fear that being true. It may be true for most women since feminism though. I really don't know. But I want you to understand why I am attracted to masculine traits over feminine ones in women because whenever I research the topic (rather than rely on my imagination) I never find anything good. Hopefully the majority is just deluded and good women actually have something to offer. Maybe femininity actually has good traits. The first that comes to my mind is protectiveness and then caring-ness. However... Is that uniquely feminine? I don't know. Frankly I think I might have to drop "masculine traits versus feminine traits" because... All the good traits wind up being labeled "masculine" and all the luxury (i.e. unneeded but might be fun) and bad traits are "feminine". So either I am totally lost among the world of MGTOW... or... Well, maybe... it's less a matter of uniquely gendered traits but rather how they manifest and their priority. I don't know. ... Like Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher. If either of these women were young, I'd totally go for them (based on what I know of them). So perhaps I have answered my own question? Or are Ann Coulter and Thatcher "masculine"? As far as I know Coulter is a straight forward, genius, honest, and wise woman. Thatcher was a bit more soft spoken but otherwise smart, wise, and heroic (in a very true sense). I really like Ayn Rand as well, in spite of her major faults. Perhaps I ought to seek the next Coulter/Thatcher/Rand?

I had a lot of fun reading all this! Please, feel free to pick and quote me for examples of where I go well and where I go wrong. Unless I'm writing professionally, I tend not to think about my syntax because I just do it naturally well (I think). I type how I speak, generally. Like I type what I hear myself currently saying in my head. Which, of course, works and doesn't work depending on whether I lose my train of thought. And I DO make very long asides from time to time, which occasionally requires restructuring, because I am prone to tangents and explaining them at the detriment of the original point. I don't restructure too much in informal text such as this, because I know it's legible and not too hard a read--you can probably imagine this as me speaking directly at you, which is the point. In fact, I have given plenty of examples of syntax in this short reply. Please pick apart and praise, pound, and promote! That's to say: tell me what you see right, wrong, and where I could do better--at least if you were writing it. ADDED: I actually found some minor errors in your original post! They're minor because they didn't break my mental procession of your voice in my head nor did it distort your intent. At least, I assume it didn't, otherwise you're a terrible writer! :-P

In other words you wanted to signal you read me so that I kept paying attention?? :-P Honestly I have the mental impression of... Well, it's a bit insulting. I imagine you kind of like a cautious monkey who picks and pokes to see what triggers what but is old enough and savvy enough to flee or move on if the subject is either hostile or inert. Of course that might not be insulting at all if you take it as a complement. Which frankly makes me more interested in you since I think most people would be insulted by that, however the positive angle is that the monkey in question is clearly very intelligent. He naturally turns off the shallow and the dull but simultaneously stimulates the interesting and the smart. However it also comes off as some kind of defense mechanism. Like you're wearing a mask. And if you're a totally honest man... Well, that makes me more interested in you. lol when I read this I had the mental impression I was some kind of war hero (or war villain). I kind of like the mental image but at the same time don't like it because... Well, I have vulnerable and fragile angles but when I am that way I tend to appear cold and resolute. I will admit I was a bit angry when I initially typed this up because it was after cooling off when I argued with my mother about the subject. I didn't like the fact she kept wanting to show off the new born even though I kept saying, in different words each time, that I wanted nothing to do with her extended family. No, I mean like she didn't do enough of some things and too much of others. I was very bubble-wrapped growing up. I never went to a friend's house or a party of their's or whatever. I was very isolated though I had plenty of acquaintances as a kid and a few kids found me really interesting, and I felt happy rushes whenever someone paid me interest. However I had the nasty tendency to "erupt" and "self-sabotage" my potential-friendships, and I am trying not to do the same thing. Like you for example: I am feeling increasingly close with you because you are trying to help me and allowed yourself to be vulnerable with that history. Also, you're taking interest in my bluntness and attempts at simplicity and directness. I am trying to be attractively direct; not unattractively. And I am pretty sure there's a difference. I think the difference lies in knowing and respecting boundaries. For example, if you had a certain soft spot or exposed a soft spot, it would be very autistic if not cruel of me to dismiss it or poke it intensely, especially if I detect it. I think I over-think things, but at the same time am prone to missing beats. Yes. I had no modeling of that middle ground between aggressiveness and passiveness: assertiveness. And being able to stand up for myself, even when wrong, was an improvement to passive-aggressiveness and over-aggressiveness. I stopped prostituting myself for money. I.e. I stopped valuing the money gifts so much that I was willing to put myself in a place where I know I was going to hate it and knew I had to falsify myself to keep the peace. And guess what. I happen to be old enough where, gradually, I no longer need to depend on people I don't like to survive. I still need "other people's money" but now I can responsibly get that through loans and being productive rather than by being a prostitute of sorts. How do you mean? Do you like my use of language or personality? Or do you tolerate it because you find me interesting? Simple: love. I love those I respect; I fear those who are bullies and valueless powermongers. I did not mean what I said in the sense I became a bully rather I became assertive and recognized when I ought to leave a scene. Like I never had a fist-fight in High School. The wannabe thugs were afraid of me physically because I had a natural ability to inspire fear into them while the real deals I kept a safe distance from because I have a natural survival instinct. I made friends with both peers and teachers because I was honest and took my work very seriously. I wasn't a straight-A student but it was clear I spent hours doing my International Baccalauerete work because... Well, I often emailed the teachers for stuff I missed and kept tabs with my classmates to get things done both personally and as a group. I may not like everything about the program in hindsight, but it did teach me a lot and help me mature. I learned to depend on other's and be reliable for other's. But it was a rocky journey and it wasn't till the middle that I was really in it versus a self-isolating automaton who tried to do everything himself and please the teachers. By the end I was debating freely with my teachers and classmates. Then I became redpilled, and then I fell into a deep depression and anxiety and coudn't continue school... In the end I needed doctors' notes to get my diploma. I failed I.B., and barely graduated High School. I sometimes wish I didn't have access to the internet until after High School because having it at home for the first time meant researching a whole mess of things with no one to guide me or help me. It was like learning I was in a matrix (a move I never watched but I think I can use the metaphor) and that some stuff was totally wrong/false while others were true/good but without the ability to tell the difference. I learned about White genocide in Spanish and History class... And that was the most bone-chilling moment in my life. Learning about all that stuff and having no clue whether... Well, it was scary. I never felt more alone. Like I said above, I think you misunderstood me. I know. I am very drawn to confident, bold, and intelligent people. Power not so much by itself because... Well, it can be meaningful if it's earned and deserved but it's meaningless to me if it's stolen or unjustly acquired. How do you mean? Are you upset that I presumed to guess what your response to me might be? If so... well I cannot apologize because I do not feel like I should. I think you ought to simply correct me and assert yourself rather than withdraw, but then again I understand why you might want to. I think. After all not asking but rather guessing is a sign of coldness and a lack of empathy. In which case I actually am sorry because I don't want you assuming that (hey, doesn't that mean, if I'm right, that you're doing what you may be criticizing me indirectly for? I shouldn't try to read minds this deep... I don't know if I'm right and if I'm wrong it's more than just awkward). If there is more you want to say, tell me. If there's not, I want to know why. I want to be attractively direct and forward, not unattractively so. I want to be a champion , not a bully. I dunno. I guess I am turned off by false friendship (i.e. I don't like being spoken to as if I am someone's good friends when I don't know them. I'd rather they be straight with me and then treat me nicely because then it feels like I earned it rather than I'm being toyed with it). Perhaps this is a cultural barrier? Where I'm from, or at least with me personally, I am naturally untrusting of those that try to sweeten their words and honey their tongues with over-politeness and caution. However if you actually are English (and not Spanish) I would assume in your culture it's the norm. I'm sure you misread me to. The difference is, I think, I'm actively trying to state where I am confused and might be giving a wrongful impression. Or where words you say might have a double-meaning with me. No it doesn't. It comes off as raw, genuine, and human. I am naturally more attracted to the man (or woman for that matter) that directly states to me what he thinks while at the same time expresses curiosity on moments where confusion may occur. Which is common when two different kinds of speakers are speaking. Like I am sure we've misunderstood each other a few times already because we're two different kinds of speakers. I prefer bluntness, you prefer softness. And you might interpret my bluntness as coarseness and apathy while I might interpret your softness as manipulative and insincere. Which is why I try to openly say when I could interpret things that way because I think we're speaking two different languages and need to bridge the gap to really understand each other. That wasn't a metaphor. My father is missing his right arm and right leg. Thank you for telling me that. I was in a good and light mood when I first read this, but I am always yearning for someone to give me sympathy when I am in pain or having a moment of sorrow. I don't want to belittle you in this moment: thank you. Thank you for saying this to me. Only my mother and therapist have said this to me thus far. It's not the drugs fault. It's his fault and my mother's fault. I never blame inanimate objects. Yes. He wants to quit smoking and be the best man he thinks he can. He seems sincere and I believe him. I just don't think he can because he's weak and needy and I don't think anyone can give him enough propping when he has barely the spirit to prop himself. I really do love him. At least, I think I do. A part of me yearns to see him do well and really pull a 180 even though I know he most likely will not. I guess I don't love him per se but the man he wants to be and the man he could be if only... Well, if only he was wiser when he was younger and made better decisions. If only he was a better man. Based on listening and paying attention. I know he fears losing me. Honestly I fear losing him. The idea of him at least. Frankly he lives on, that is, his better and idealized version, as the father of one of my protagonists. I so dearly want a father and I try to be my own father when I can. Imagine myself as my own son from the perspective of an already successful older version of myself. With an idealized version of a wife or mother as well. In many ways I live in my own head because when I'm down, I have imaginary characters and personas to speak to. I guess it's like Stefpai's described "Mecosystem". In fiction, I love the heroic and the virtuous the most. Almost always have. Especially characters like (fictional) Liu Bei, (fictional) Nobunaga Oda, and Luis Frois (a real missionary). I always have a soft spot for the heroic man who fights on against evil, as well as the wise father who guides and is stern. I even like the somewhat superhuman anime heroes that are good and single-minded, like Natsu from Fairy Tail or Edward Elric (not superhuman but a bit single-minded) from Fullmetal Alchemist. I also have a soft spot for delicate and attractive women. Particularly albino ones. Undoubtedly as an idealized victim-version of my mother. Well... Despise is too strong a word unless I am really face-to-face with the after-effects of those bad kinds of people. But I do believe it necessary for me to "speak the truth to shame the Devil". Well... I want to be a champion. I want to be heroic and beloved by the good. I want to be the best man I can be. Even if I fall short, I'll still be a decent man worth respecting and remembering. I think so. I am literally a genius IQ-wise, so my mental penis is big and fluffy. :-P But I do worry that my... well, I think I get too emotional and am prone to being abusive if I'm not careful. I don't want to be the emotional tampon of a woman nor do I think I'm solid enough to bear the emotional rawness and bipolarity of the average woman. I think I need a "manly" woman in terms of how she handles her emotions. Like ideally Stefanie Molyneux would be best (that is a female version of Stefpai). But I think she'd be a really high quality woman and I don't think I'm there yet. I need to work more to be worth more. I don't get it. Do you mean to say there's actually more women that meet the basic requirements of rational, empathetic, and logical than I think? I hope you're right. And that you'd rather I make some friends and be productive as a man before attempting to sire the next generation? I agree with you. My hand is my wife for now lol. :-P I'll reply to whatever you add in a separate post because moderation and impatience.

@twinklingwinter please email me at [email protected]. We haven't spoken in months and I cannot DM, so if you want to reach me, email me!

Good to see you too old man! :-P If I could I'd DM you. You can email me at [email protected] . Well, I am hugely skeptical of writing advice since most writing advisors make their money primarily from advising about writing rather than from their novels. That being said, I could always use feedback from a reader's perspective because ultimately the job is to please the reader not other writers. If you want I'll email you my current draft of it. Email me and I'll know who you are. Of course I'll probably have to state I have little memory for what "active language" and other terms mean anymore since literacy class bored me to tears all my life. I'm guessing... I dunno, using actions rather than descriptions of actions? Like instead of saying Johnny Johnson is smart, demonstrate how he's smart? I don't know if that's "bad news", because I was actually hoping it was that way. I suppose the challenge is the ordering of me doing things. More on that below. Which makes sense. I know people are becoming increasingly isolated socially and I'd admit myself as a prime example of that. I don't really talk to people in person beyond my mother and therapist. Makes sense. "Networking" and all that. I have a vague idea on how that works, and plenty of ideas on how that's helpful, but I don't know how to build one. I mean, is it as simple as go to places (in person or online or something in between? Or both?), find people I can talk to, then see how well we connect in terms of values and beliefs, and then from there we have a link? I'm not addressing it at all. It's "only" been an issue once, but I found a way around it (namely stand behind the counter and remember there's a leash) when I was foolishly attempting the rat race. I have plenty of imagination as to how this weakness can go badly. Like, say, if I'm inviting a bunch of friends and friends of friends to an event... and one of them brings a dog... Or if I'm pursuing a woman... and she's a dogf__cker... well, you get the drift. Now I don't like pets in general. I fear them at least a little but dogs in particular. I think you're plenty right in saying I have to find a way to tame my fear of dogs. For now I'm just winging it, figuring I can just kick myself in the shin should I ever get fearful. I do have a way of "easing myself into it" as occasionally there are dog walkers en route to where I'm coming and going. Hypothetically a means of easing myself is simply to walk past them without purposely hiding behind a car or whatever. I'll be sure to do that next time... And I know it's a connected thing. Well, English-English are the second biggest native speakers of it and while barn's thing says he lives in Spain I could just assume he's an English speaker who immigrated to Spain or lives in Gibraltar. Canadians and Australians and the rest are pretty few in number compared to nearly 100 million Englishmen (especially if you include their neighbors) or 300 + million Americans and loiterers. Tease! If you want to chat with me, email me using the address above. Like I said, I cannot Direct Message since I'm under moderation since around this time last year. Or maybe not that long, but it's been many months and I haven't kept track. I'll have to check her out to really know. I mean, who's to say she hasn't arrived at her conclusions simply because she had an initial bias in favor of Rightism? Of course that's probably rare (or maybe not--I mean, how many women can freely admit to being Rightists without being ostracized for it? Or more precisely, while caring about ostracism?). However... I don't know. Personally I'd rather wait until I am wealthy before I go do something I fear I will have a lot to work on before even contemplating. Like my friendlessness for example. I doubt I am in the right mindset and possessed of the right character traits to be a good man to a good woman. And I hate settling. So I gotta improve! Oh that's not a distraction! Not at this point! I don't really see him at all. Like once or twice a year at family events (that I no longer go to). However the last time I spoke with him was Halloween of 2016 or 17. And what we talked about was racial realism and white racism. He claimed there must be white racists in government because marijuana is more highly prosecuted than cocaine, which apparently are drugs favored by blacks and whites respectively. I don't remember much else, but I do remember us being very distant on the political spectrum, and he was too busy to have a real conversation with me (and I chose to do more probing and listening since I wasn't sure where he stood). Frankly I don't want to reach out to get to know him. However I have no reason to believe he's a bad guy. I just don't want to do the work to get to know him. I understand the idea of having categories since no man's an island and an "big individual" like myself would have very, very, very few friends if he only chose people he considered virtuous and admirable. At least that I know of... Hopefully I'm wrong, but nothing worthwhile is built with hope. I am perfectly willing to tolerate people I disagree with substantially to work with them--just not closely. People I disagree with minor-ly... Well, who cares if it's minor? However if it's fairly significant (to borrow your example) and I think he's nuts, but at the same time he's surprisingly level-headed and smart, I might actually enjoy his company and speak with him. Even if he isn't in the "close" ring he's still in the "middle/friend" ring. And I think I have to grow that ring if I want a network. After all, as an entrepreneur, I have to get to know people if I want to grow substantially. I need people for advice, promoting, brokering, and for advising. I need someone to help me publish (or decide if I should self-publish), someone to help me promote my books, someone to help broker deals once I use the profits for investment (as a corporation? I got an idea from Rich Dad Poor Dad to make myself into a corporation so I can reinvest profits and thereby pay minimal taxes on my earnings), and advise me on whether I'm going straight or heading off a cliff. I think I have character to offer. As a writer I have at least books (product) to offer and am therefore a person to potentially invest in. However beyond that... I don't know. I think I'm a decent, loyal, and reliable man but I'm a bit rough with words and don't like to BS and may be a bit anti-social for it. I agree. If I meet a good (seemingly anyway) man who appears to be on the wrong side, I'm inclined to try reaching for him. I don't think that's my uncle (well I don't KNOW) but I don't really care. I want to clean my slate and build something new on it. However, I am a completely newbie to business and friendships and how they intertwine. I might be ahead of the curve since I'm studying privately and working on my career while most are indebting themselves in college, but I am lacking the people experience that comes from college as well as the tolerance for BS and networks that might be formed be being with the diamonds among the coals. What do you think? Am I thinking right? Should I make friends after I've finished my book (and would therefore need them) or should I make friends first? Or around the same time as each other? Or... Should I make friends naturally as I try to self-promote and get published? Like should I build networks with fellow travelers who are going through the same process? And record them over time based on what I can gauge from them and their histories? By default, that's basically my plan. Finish book. Learn how best to publish. Publish. Promote, and invest with the profits from what I've made from my first book (and before that, copyright it and all that) and during this entire process keep tabs on the people I meet as I go from step to step. How big of a network do I need and how much energy do I have to expend maintaining it? Do I just need a half-dozen reliable people or do I need a few families worth of people I can phone/email as needed? Something in between? A lot of questions, and I'm not sure where to begin. By default, I am writing my book and studying off the internet while I have free time. I'm not really connecting with anyone outside FDR and I generally try to be as self-sufficient and island-like as possible. But I am pretty sure there's a better way of doing things and there may be value to be gained by reaching out to people with similar interests and paths but they might be doing something different yet complimentary to what I am doing. And I think one way to find them is to search forums that novelists/wannabes hang out and look for ones that have similar interests and politics as myself and try debating with them. Alternatively I could instead reach out to political websites and try debating with them and thus make connections with people who are of a similar view but not directly doing what I am doing. I don't know. At this point I'm inclined to repeat myself in a loop. Take the baton from here!

Hey man you're being too subtle for me! Be straight with me bro! :-P Like, am I the beggar and you the guy giving me the handout and you saying I'm asking for something I really shouldn't be asking for? Too subtle! I'm confused! I can interpret this a hundred different ways but only one of them can be right! Got'cha! Chances are this reply will accompany my big reply to your big reply.

How have you found it emotionally engaging yet ambivalent? Less a question for the topic but how I wrote it. I knew you were English! My mental image of your voice isn't far off. Having read it, I can certainly see the similarities. In my case I don't think it's as bad entirely because my mother tried to limit my access to her family of origin to "only" thanksgiving and Christmas. Which frankly I don't think was limited enough because I seldom had a Christmas (at her parent's) that didn't end with some kind of argument where her mother played the victim and bullied my mother before all her siblings and in-laws. Which was why eventually she stopped going to their celebrations and it was just me. I was never embarrassed in such a way (except one time, there was a dog and I am/was extremely fearful of dogs. I say "except this one time..." but it was a pretty big deal. My mother slapped my shoulder as if to hit me for her mother, whom I kept from opening a door because I was hiding outside from her son's (my successful uncle's) dog. I have never forgotten her apology afterwards where she confessed she pretty much defaulted to being her mother's daughter before my being her son's mother. Which was a big part of why my mother's actively avoided her own mother since)... But I have argued with her parents and siblings, but unlike her I have always done so confidently and rationally. I've impressed my mother more than once since she was "shocked" I could argue with her mother (and little sister and brothers) without cowing or wincing. I can remember quite a few emotionally volatile moments, actually. So while I was never "embarrassed" I can definitely say I've never enjoyed visiting my "family" for Christmas/Thanksgiving. I chose not to last year, and it was the best Christmas/Thanksgiving in a very long time. I also think my experiences have made me prone towards being overly confrontational and aggressive. When I was younger I never wanted to be a coward like my mother and as I grew older resented myself for cowering before the teachers. So eventually I stopped cowering and demanded respect. It worked out better than I would have assumed; I had better teachers at the time and they enjoyed my frank and straight-forwardness (with one huge exception) but I was going the wrong way (towards Socialism/Communism). I also gained my first "friends" (both real and not real) whom also enjoyed my frankness and directness since they were used to wishy-washy sweet-tongued types. In fact my one old friend, an Objectivist who read Atlas Shrugged, especially enjoyed my company because even though I was a die-hard Communist with open intentions on establishing a totalitarian state, I was open to argue about how I could be wrong and he could be right. And eventually he won the argument as I slowly left Communism for Fascism then Minarchism and now a sort of Monarchism/AnCapitalism. However I haven't seen him since I remonstrated him for taking a join in college. Well, I honestly don't know how useful it was. On one hand I can definitely see the similarities; on the other you don't have a history of successfully working with it and then making something meaningful happen (i.e. get a wife, a house, and begetting a bunch of kids). You're old enough to be my father, yet based on the fact you didn't mention marrying and having kids, I assume you aren't really a man yet. You're still in you twenties as a forty-something year old man. Frankly I consider you an example of failure, and if I were you I'd be doing whatever I can to change that ASAP. I understand the argument you might have in response: it is better I am healed and prepared then "go in" still injured. However my reply is this: your injuries are not tangible. You don't have a literal hole in your heart or soft spot this way or that way. You may have a few problems but I think you could have solved them at my age (19-20) rather than spending decades masturbating around the globe (I don't know what you did but I can assume it was a major waste of time. Again: a waste of time relative to becoming a family man. I criticize my therapist for spending thousands of dollars on vacations rather than investing in his retirement, but his reply is that he values the experiences he gets doing so as he makes a lot of money doing what he does and works very hard, so he wants to "relax hard" too. But then, I suppose, is the conflict of interests: I am not interested in expensive vacations nor "worldly experiences"; I am interested in laying down foundations and building dynasties). Of course I think I need to stress: while I am criticizing you, I am not doing so with anger or a desire to drive you off. I see you as a potential future for me, and I do not want that future. I know I have issues to work on but I think I am good enough to do what I want to do in life as it is in front of me. Namely, I believe I am prepared plenty to have a successful career, build wealth, and begin looking for a woman. Now actually having and breeding with a woman? I could use some more lessons for that. And of course I could use supplementary lessons for my career and wealth-building as well. I just think I am at the point where I can act, try and fail and learn from my failures so that I win in the long run. Again I could always use more information and better methods so I can do what I am doing better and more efficiently. It's just the difference between practicing how to bike-ride by actually bike-riding as compared to needing training wheels and an instruction manual. I could always listen to some pointers on how to bike-ride better but I am good enough, I think, to start riding and wobbling until I eventually "get it", though again, repeating myself for the third time or so, I would appreciate pointers so I can "get it" sooner--and with fellow travelers who might make friends, perhaps. You know this sentence breeds doubt rather than assurance, right? :-P I understand, but I think you're too careful and delicate with your words. If I wasn't used to your speech-style I'd assume negatively about you based on how gently you're treating me. I prefer the gruff, stern, "walk it off!! -Stef's childhood coach" types myself. I don't know. I can make guesses and assumptions but I don't know and really I don't want to know. If I make a hundred guesses, I'm bound to be right with one of them and even if I'm wrong it's surely another. From what little I know, she's like his mother. His mother was a little tyrant who beat her kids with a wooden pan. Nope. "Silent observer" is the type he seems to want to emulate. I don't know if he's stupid (my mother's IQ is 139, supposedly--she took it drunk) but I can assume he's average at best and would rather cuck out like a little bitch than be a dominant alpha wolf. Shocking for you, predictable for me. To be clear I meant my successful uncle has 3 kids. My retarded one is an eternal bachelor without children. She hasn't had sex since my conception. She tried twice to replace my father but neither stuck around because she wouldn't put out and my father wanted to get back in the picture, scaring of the first guy and delivering justice against the second guy (who was a little slimeball and thief. I told him off when I was a friggen pre-teen since I heard him verbally abusing my mother. I was scared at first but when I saw him talk back to me, I felt more confident and basically told him to f__k off without cursing it. He was eventually beat up by my father since neither my mother nor I had any care for him and he was a little prick. The first guy I actually have fond memories of since he resembled my father but with both arms and legs. However he eventually left as my father tried to come back. And when my father came back, it was a nightmare. My mother was always trying to prevent my father from using the welfare money to score heroin while my father vomitted in the toilet and all walked out to do whatever in the great beyond. I have no positive memories of my father from back when he lived with us after my mother let him back in, and I was happy when we finally "escaped" into our current tiny apartment owned by my aunt's cucky husband. And yet unlike all my mother's family of origin, my father actually actively tried to reach out to me a couple years later after rehab. I greatly missed him and so I would call him at around 8:00pm almost every night to talk about school and politics. As I grew older and wiser though, and started to remember the past, I distanced myself from him and as of now... Well, I did call him a few months ago since I had nightmares of both missing him (crying and all that) and fearing his physical return to my life. I told him everything and while he was understanding I did not feel secure or safe; what's this old deadbeat who sired around 8 children with 3 or more women going to do for me? Why do I love him? Really the only answer was because I wanted to see his face and I wanted a father in my life. My therapist has in many ways replaced him. And unlike my father, my therapist isn't afraid to call bull-shit with me and educate me. My father, with me at least, has always been a "listener" type. Meaning he listened but had nothing meaningful to reply with and avoided disagreeing with me. What I have always found attractive, perhaps as a result of all this, are men (and women) who are straight forward, honest, and not afraid to disagree. I despise cowards, idiots, and cucks. I love champions, geniuses, and protectors. However while my IQ is high, I cannot call myself a wiseman and am a far cry from a champion & protector. Perhaps as I write and perhaps when or if I become more political and speak publicly, I'll fulfill my desire to be a champion, but I fear I am too soft on the inside to be a protector. More precisely: I'm afraid I cannot get a good woman because I want my emotions to be tended to more than I want to tend to her emotions. I would want her to be the logical one while I am the emotional one. A reversal of what is normal and I don't think that's good. I either have to lower my standards/desires or simply become great enough to warrant a unicorn. At my young age I'm trying for the latter but if I fail I'll have to make compromises. I assume because he knows it is/was toxic and therefore distanced himself largely from his family of origin. My mother might have his phone number but he lives very far away and I don't have any means of getting there, beyond public transit and some maps maybe. Plus he still has a dog that I am afraid of. No, and yes. There cannot be a moral Leftist because Leftists fundamentally violate the principles "thou shalt not steal" and intend to violate "thou shalt not kill" via the welfare-warfare state and voting for people and importing people that would love to see me in a concentration camp for being White, male, full of testosterone, and a Christian Nationalist. I cannot read minds, and therefore gauge intent--I leave that to Almighty God. I can, however, read cause-and-effect and judge people based on whether they side with anti-White, anti-Male, anti-Christian causes, whether they're pro all this stuff, or cucking in the middle. "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions"; assuming the best, I would see a Leftist as misguided. I am willing to speak with Leftists and try to reason with them but if I cannot or it goes one ear and out the other or whatever, then I am dropping them from my considerations. However, in regards to women, I do consider their methodology (can they reason? Do they have empathy? Do they have sympathy? Do they care?) as more important since, as Stefpai stated, it's better to have a woman who starts off with the wrong conclusions but has a solid methodology than a woman with the right conclusions but a bad or weak methodology. Like I'm willing to debate a Leftist woman to the altar if I can rationally convert her to the Right and if she can demonstrate conviction and integrity--both in her values as well as in accepting when she's wrong and deferring to the better. And I may have to debate a Leftist woman to the altar since I fear Rightist women are just as likely to be passive weaklings as the average Leftist woman. What do you mean "binary" lol? I am an outtie, not an innie. I am a Rightist, not a Leftist. I believe in truth, not falsehood. I value honesty and integrity, not lies and cuckholdry. I have a lot of such binary beliefs and characteristics. I do not think, in many cases, there is a true middle ground since, for example, what is the middle ground between "thou shalt not steal" and violating that? Stealing a little? How about "thou shalt not kill"? Beating half to death? Of course there are times where there is in fact an Aristotelian mean but I am inclined to recognize and speak out when there isn't. I hope so. I especially hope thousands of future fans agree. After all I have made the decision to enter the world of ideas and beliefs and try to steer people by informing them, stimulating them, and entertaining them. Via writing novels. I know... I know. But evolution has made us nostalgic for our cages for a reason. However, for the most part, I think my cage is not a good one. Therefore I'm best off building a new and better one (since at the moment there is no replacing the cage as biology demands it for the children's sake). I would say I think more optimistically about what I'm heading to versus what I fear, if that is what you mean. As a kid I idealized being a warlord and waging wars for supremacy and peace. Like Nobunaga Oda, or Cao Cao. As I've grown up, I idealize becoming a writer/investor and making both myself and my tribe richer and wealthier and more powerful. I especially idealize the image of living in a Japanese-style (or Roman villa-style) mansion with a georgous wife, six feet tall, long platinum hair with the Japanese princess cut, 36-22-36 or whatever numbers=hot, with a voice like serene waves and a temperament to match; a motherliness that makes me curl like a baby, and by her, 3 sons and 3 daughters named Siegfried, Siegmund, Felix, Sieglinde, Irina, and Yulia. All of whom loving of their father and mother, and well on their way to become the future kings and queens of the next generation. And of course a secret vault where I store beloved old video games, and a comfy room with a great view of the interior-garden, where I can play video games when my little ones are asleep and eventually fully grown. Oh yeah, I get it plenty. Sometimes, I think, I'm too hard. And sometimes I forget! I have a tendency towards selfishness and narcissism, perhaps solipsism as well. I am always on guard to prevent myself from becoming a hypocrite and a wastrel. I don't want to get to know more people at the moment. I want to build! And I want to attract people as I show off my creation and work on profiting from it! I don't want to get to know Philly kids without futures! However I don't know where to look for for decent people around me. I think the best thing is to either find people I share a common interest in or a common work field in. Like here, for example. I think my social needs are satiated plenty by interacting on this forum and with my therapist. I doubt I'll be finding a wife here or on the internet though. However I'm not ready for a woman anyway. I get that plenty. I totally get that. However I don't want to make the effort to reach out because I'm not as of yet a man living as a successful example of my values... ...And I found a contradiction. To be a successful example, doesn't that include friends? I see the catch 22 I might have put myself in. My solution at the moment however is simply to put making friends on the distant back burner and rely on making them as I try to sell my book and invest the profits next year. Of course work-friends aren't exactly the same thing as personal friends, but I think I'm far more likely to make a meaningful friend by bumping into them on the common road of either writing or investing. Well, like modern women, I do feel the stress to be a whore. However I guess I'm better at resisting it. Like that's really an accomplishment. Oh yeah I'll be sure to self-promote here once I'm done and having it sold somewhere. I assure you it'll be the best thing Generation Z has ever laid eyes upon and put to shame the older generations of nihilism and hedonism! To give you a brief idea: The series follows primarily two characters and those close to them: Alois von Adlerheim, and Roland Heike. Alois was raised in a brutal orphanage until he escaped as pre-teen with four other children and spent 2 years getting educated at a church. Eventually, as a child laborer, he was discovered by a nobleman he was delivering a book to and that nobleman recognized him as the son of Haraldr von Adlerheim, the Hero of Copenhagen who saved Denmark and won great battles both as a guerilla and as a general during the Forty Years War. Alois is sent off with his albino girlfriend, Lia, to be raised by his father who secreted him in the orphanage to protect him since the capital was under assault and many noble children were secreted and hid as common children so not to be taken as hostages or killed. During the beginning, he spends his remainder years of youth in the arms of his father with his little half-sister, makes new friends and explores abstract ideas as he's destined to marry his cousin the Princess of Denmark and succeed her deceased father, Frederik the Great. His oath with his four friends remains strong as they regularly exchange letters from their thousand-mile distance accross the sea--from "Adlerhafen", in Lapland, to Copenhagen in Denmark. Meanwhile he makes new friends and crushes as he explores the Free City his father built, where "Man For Man" is the motto, property rights are sacred, and entrepreneurial spirit dominates the zeitgeist of the German settlers. Roland Heike is the grandson of (I am writing his story, which is parallel to Alois's, second so unlike Alois is pretty much done his 2/3rds of the first book--I mention this because there are a few things in the air) the illustrious Marshal Roland Heike, the Thuderbolt, "He Who Never Retreats", and the son of the less famous General Stefan Heike, who served under his father. Being born towards the end of the Forty Years War, Roland grew up in the tense and grim Dutch Democratic Republic as it was assaulted on all sides by the French, English, and North German rebels. As he's grown into a man, he's wanted to follow his father and grandfather's advice on becoming a civilian but has no idea what to do as a civilian. Meanwhile, since the French King was assassinated by a radical republican terrorist, the D.D.R. has been active in attempting to reform France as a republic while the nation is torn in four as several cadet branches seek to reunify France but with foreign backing causing them to conflict. With seemingly endless war and increasingly tyrannical government, Satanist groups are infiltrating the system's institutions and are becoming increasingly visible and radical amongst the lower classes. Meanwhile the existing Liberal Nationalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party are both losing favor to their more radical youth wings; the Radiant Cross Party and the Militant Citizen's Party. Wishing he was not forced to choose between two extremes, he struggles to maintain moral integrity as his republic falls down around him, and alongside his brothers, father, and uncles seeks to restore the order and relative peace of the Pre-War Republic. ...That's my brief for the beginning of the two major heroes. Both champions who represent different ideologies in the long run. You're welcome. Whatever that means! Lol what am I having that you wish to be great?! :-P Just a "Russian joke" since I've learned there are no such expressions in Russian while you English-English have an awful lot of "polite" expressions! Even more so than we Americans! :-) EDIT: What do you mean by "syntax"? I looked up the definition so I guess I have some idea... But I'm fishing for compliments and specifics.