Siegfried von Walheim

R=Rabbit=Bad People K=Kangaroo=Good People How is this hard to understand?

The title is the brief of it. I have 3 uncles and one aunt on my mother's side. All were horribly abused by my grandmother who beat the shit out of them on a regular basis though my most successful uncle is the youngest and the least physically abused from what I have been told by my mother. He was also "the baby" of the 5 and thus given the most attention and care by his elder siblings. My grandfather worked all day and spent little time with his kids, though I've heard he once angrily denounced my grandmother when he caught her verbally abusing my adult mother before I was born. Interesting fact: I nearly died while my mother was pregnant because my grandmother verbally abused my mother to the point where well... Apparently extreme depression can kill the unborn. But that's a tangent and a backstory. The main issue is in the title: my most successful uncle, the only one to have his own children (my eldest uncle married a single mom who was divorced twice, and though he's financially successful as a real estate broker he's very personally unsuccessful as his step kids are all either drug addicts or impending single moms. My middle uncle is almost retarded and lives like a frat boy at the age of 40). He has two sons (twins) and now a daughter. Similarly young. He's 35-ish with a wife 5 years younger than him. My mother is a (platonic) single mom and my aunt is married to a roofer (herself being involved in law, apparently a typist of some sort) and has only one child, a boy, whom is 5 years younger than me and I grew up with on and off. Here's the issue: I want to separate as much as possible from my mother's family of origin because most of them are shitty, manipulative, Democrat, cucky, verbally manipulative, and all around terrible people. My successful uncle is the best of the bunch and I've rarely seen him growing up. I don't think he's a bad guy but I barely know him and am afraid to know him because I expect a whole lot of poison to emit from him or his environs and what can I possibly due to remedy that when I'm still as of yet nobody worth listening to (at least from a life-success standpoint)? Because I want to totally divorce myself from my mother's family of origin, I also want to distance myself from my cousins. Of which I'm the eldest (if I only include biological cousins and not single mom spawns). I don't feel much in terms of obligation but I do feel a certain primal desire for connection with my blood. However I am pretty sure I will be disappointed and I am too young and too busy to willingly kick myself in the shin. I don't want to build connections with people I will barely see and most likely watch self-destruct over time. However my mother, who switches from "wanting to be a part of her (abusive) family" to basically de-F.O.O.'ed has been bothering me about it and projecting her own insecurities and fears onto me about them. Like her fear of deep connection for having it severed, specifically. I am tempted to think I share that weakness but empirically I don't. I have a great relationship with my therapist who is almost a father to me and he really does see me as a middle son (he himself has two sons with a wide age difference). However I do know that's my only real relationship. I'm not counting casual internet relationships because most of them are superficial and the ones I have gotten deep with I don't necessarily trust or see as reliable friends or whatnot. I have made no efforts whatsoever to change this since I've been in what one M.R.A. site calls "monk mode" which is basically about focusing on self-development, career, and advancement that way with relationships and most luxury activities put on hold. I know there is some truth though: I do fear making and losing deep connections. However not very much. But I also lack much motivation to make friends (let alone womanly connections--I'm turning 20 next week and I'm still a virgin and have never dated let alone touched a woman). Perhaps I ought to talk in that direction. I dunno. I do know there are more than a few psychological experts and smart laymen here on the board so I thought I'd confess this here. I do want a family. But I want my family. A family built by my own hand with people of my own choosing. I want a tribe. But I want my tribe. A tribe of like-minded rational, moral, and intelligent people. Not one assigned to me or imposed upon me. However I don't think I can just be a total rebel and expect things to work out. If I really want to go this way, I need to think about what I need to do to get what I want. I've thought long and hard about what I'll be doing professionally (as I'm doing it). That part (writer/investor) is clear (for the next 5 years at least). What's foggy is relationships. I don't like using people for utilities but I do understand reciprocal business relationships and am not afraid of making those. I think I'm doing all right as far as my readiness and ability to make co-worker or business-partner relationships, of course I have minimal experience, but here I think my mind is in the right place and am therefore able to do what I must to get what I want. Where I'm worried about is the personal stuff. The friends and lovers stuff. I intend to be all kinds of good Catholic and waiting till marriage for sex, and perhaps that's for the best, but besides that I'm pretty much winging it and that means doing very little outside work/internet/business connections. And I would be foolish to assume they're all divorced from each other. After all, I only have one brain and whatever I feed into it at one point of my life inevitably affects my mindset in other areas. With that knowledge, I ask for help. I want to know if I'm making the right decisions (as far relationships at least) and am on the path to success or if I'm walking off a cliff with a blindfold on. I have only my thanks to give. Please help.

I would never try to replace the word "evil" with anything because that's the beginning of moral relativism and determinism. Allow some people to be called "toxic" (an environmental poison) versus evil (someone who willfully does immorality or does actions that results in immorality) and why not simply go all kinds of solipsistic and presume nothing outside yourself is real and everyone but you (or including you) is a reactive robot? I know that might sound like a slippery slope... But by God aren't there a whole lot of true slippery slopes? The first step to curing something is to call out the disease by its proper name. Evil people are not "toxic" (i.e. passive agents without free will) but EVIL (i.e. they choose to do evil things). Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, you ought to view as trying to own you or control you for some purpose or another. I'd rather simply execute evil people then spend millions of tax dollars confining them. They're already doing the evil of, in this example, torturing kids, why spend millions feeding, housing, and keeping them? I'd rather they simply be killed and sent down to Hell for God to sort out. @J.L.W It's always a safe assumption to assume a few cliques of people are controlling certain regions of the world and occasionally bumping heads with similar groups. We call them "politicians" and "statesmen". Some may be covert rather than public but ultimately they are still mortal. A rare few might be carrying a legacy far greater and older than themselves, but being human and mortal that legacy undoubtedly becomes perverted or neutered over time. You simply have to accept there will always be shadowy people you will never know controlling others' in secret. And realize they are also probably keeping each other in check because 1984 and Brave New World, though theoretically possible futures, have never throughout human history occurred and it appears we're slowing sailing away from the iceberg rather than crashing into it. So stop navel gazing and being all conspiratorial and actually do something self-actualizing and fulfilling. Maybe once you're a renown talker like Stefpai, Alex Jones, or Paul Joseph Watson or billionaire like George Soros or a heroic statesman like Trump or Putin you can start trying to "uncover" and "defeat" the shadowy cliques that are the bane of civilized society. Until then they are essentially just masturbatory fears and distractions that common sense and self-protection can keep you safe from. Like getting into investing and moving somewhere safe and conservative like the Midwest (and if you're English or any other kind of European getting the frick out and heading for either America or Russia).

My advice is to read (or listen to the free audiobook on YouTube) Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kioysaki, and then come back once you have some ideas cooking in your head about how you can make money work for you instead of banging your head against a wall. Also: values are worth living for constantly because when a man's actions coincide with his values, he is happier and when he's happier he's more productive and gets more enjoyment out of things, thus creating a positive feedback loop.

The article doesn't have much substance. It just smears his early life and says a seminar he took inspiration from is cult-like and a lot of the same insults directed against Stefan Molyneux when he talks to people. Then there is a series if anecdotes saying Kiyosaki gives bad/illegal/vague advice. Well, I don't know about you, but I am inclined to ask: who is the millionaire here? And by extension who is following their own rule books? Well I know Kiyosaki is a millionaire and I know nothing about his jilted critics. I didn't bother to see if they were totally honest in accordance to their values but I do think it's worth applying that to Kiyosaki. I learned a hell of a lot in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. It wasn't vague or insubstantial. Sometimes he "said something without saying something" but I think his word choice is very deliberate because his implied saying something isn't always true. For example: Assets versus Liabilities. A house? Why that's a liability (unless you're renting it out to reliable tenants). A car? Also a liability (unless it's a cab you're renting out). What is a Corporation? A bunch of paper work that fundamentally shifts how the order of money works from personal expenses first to tax last. Therefore a corporation can be a tax haven to reinvest money into itself and potentially pay nothing in taxes. He also talked about the Socialistic mindset of the Poor and the government and a lot of stuff Stefpai talks about that I won't bother repeating. I don't discount this explanation of how the Capitalist versus the Socialist thinks because it's quite valuable. He also talks about the "rat race" of how most people increase their spending to match their income, and the result is not being any wealthier than previously. He defined wealth as "how many days I can live without working" and got that from Buckminster Fuller (if I'm spelling his name right). He taught me how simple an income/outcome and assets/liabilities sheet is and how to manage it and how to read it quickly. He used anecdotes to describe creative thinking in seemingly hopeless or poor situations. Like buy expensive houses while they're cheap from an economic crash in order to re-sell them for a significant profit. I plan to re-read it simply because there's a lot packed into it. Anyone who claims Kiyosaki is sweet words without substance is, empirically from what I can tell, full of shit like those claiming Donald Trump was a failed businessman or a warmonger or a "nazi" or a "nasty". Of course, if you have some advice for me I can use, I'd be happy to hear it. I don't want to rely on only one man's advice because I'd be liable to follow his weaknesses as well. And since there is no perfect man, it is unreliable to only rely on one man's advice. I'd be very happy to hear a reasoned argument from a detractor on what I ought to do versus what Kiyosaki is saying I ought to do.

Recommended to me by @Dylan Lawrence Moore, I found Rich Dad, Poor Dad (not sure if the comma is part of the actual title since I don't think it is but I put it there anyway) as an audiobook on YouTube. And by GOD ABOVE was it the most productive and empowering red pill I've ever swallowed! Not only did it "reveal" (I put quotes because if you've been following Stefpai some of the stuff should already be known to you--however if you're a fresh face to the real world then it's as good as any a first step!) a lot of truths and facts about society, money, and etc. but it fundamentally encapsulates the core distinctions between the Rich, the Poor, and the Middle Class. The audiobook for the book proper is only 3 hours long--I won't attempt to boil it down to a couple paragraphs because every line is worth listening to and frankly I'd do a disservice if I tried. You can find a way to break down 3 hours into diggestable bits as needed and you'll be well-rewarded for it. As a "spoiler" though I'll point out what Robert Kiyosaki claims (and I think rationally and reasonably) to be the primary distinction between the Rich and the Middle Class/Poor: Financial Literacy. Financial Literacy is essentially knowing what wealth is, knowing how to separate assets from liabilities and the wisdom to tell the difference before sealing the deal. Public School education isn't much and College Education is becoming increasingly worthless (worse than worthless actually; about a few hundred thousand dollars of bad debt + anywhere from 2-10 years of your life, potentially!) and I have to say this book as an introduction to financial literacy was worth far more than anything I've ever learned from the government schools. Even more than my ability to read and do basic math, I'd dare say. I don't care how old you are or how busy you are: you will be helped by this book and the younger and fresher you are the more empowered you'll be in the long run by this information. Don't be the Poor Dad and embody the Poor Dad's ways of thinking and being; become the Rich Dad and invest in yourself. And this free audiobook is definitely an infinitely profitable return on investment!

I totally agree. Besides failing from cowardice or arrogance, I regret my inactions. I live in a time where risk is largely minimized. I understand that very well and that's why I'm generally cool and even, and I didn't used to be. I don't want to flatter but I really mean "thank you" because you've definitely helped steer me into an educational direction and might be indirectly responsible for me becoming a really rich man (both materially and mentally). At the very least, given I have but a short life, I would like to live my life without regrets. And that's why I act!!

Read Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Don't bother with women until you're sorted out personally. And there are fundamentally 3 reasons to want a woman: 1: Sex. 2: Children. 3: Because she's a genuinely lovable person. Most settle for number 1; some go for number 2; a handful dare for 3; I aim for all of the above. That being said I'm not "aiming" really given I'm focused entirely on my own education and career. If I'm not ready for marriage I am not ready for women in general outside work and stuff like that. My penis is "off" until I flip the switch to "on" (or when fapping lol but you get my point, right?). Copying me might not work for you if you're older than 20 and this and that or that and this, but if you're young and have the time you ought to work on yourself first. And based on what you wrote above you're needy. You are attracted to a bad girl because you want someone to fill a void you haven't recognized. Right? I might be wrong, but that's my first thought and until you've gotten to a point where you realize you don't "need" anything beyond food and... sleep? Then you realize everything else is varying levels of wants and can become happier and more confident and etc. etc. etc. Of course I'm still following my "diet book" so I can't show a great "after" yet. But I'm fairly confident going into "Monk Mode" is the right way to go early on.

I think I already knew that. After all money is only as valuable as it is willed to be while good friends are, by merit, a very real asset and priceless. Business friends may not have the intimacy of good friends but they are a big reason why some businessmen do well. As I've read/heard in Rich Dad, Poor Dad, I will most certainly treat those that help me and assist me in attaining wealth well and ensure I can return the favor. I am almost certain the real karma of this world comes from attracting good, talented people. I have heard this elsewhere. Once I've finished my book and gotten my free and priceless education, I intend to make good on that. I expect I'll have to be growing my audience as well as my circle of reliable people. I am not sure yet how I will do that but I know this is a time of near limitless opportunity with solutions waiting to be conceived of. I am tempted to ply my writing talents in politics as a way of demonstrating myself; however this might turn off some people and also time spent writing about politics could be time not spent writing about something else that could be either more profitable or more eye-catching or both. I think, based on what I understand to be my talents, I should apply writing and demonstrate myself as someone worth listening to and in doing so earn traffic to my book, and with the resultant money I could then begin life as an amateur investor in a corporation of 1. I learned from Rich Dad, Poor Dad that corporations are really tax-shields as their main function is the ability to have pre-tax money to plausibly re-invest and minimize actual taxed money. I don't know if I can legally arrange it so I am the leader of a corporation of 1 that deals in writing, (self perhaps) publishing, and investing but I will definitely do my homework on the subject since I think I can really do well if I combine my writing talents with financial literacy and what I must learn in how to market and spread the word. After all, to use a paraphrase, it doesn't matter if I can make the best burger in the world if I cannot sell it. I have not, but I will now I know it exists and may be educational and applicable in the real-world for me. I agree. It is my ambition to be so successful that I am not only the breadwinner of a family of 7 but also able to not-work and spend much time raising my children (and eventually retire) for decades. That might be beyond my reach, or it might not. Depends on what I learn and how I apply it, I think. Ultimately I think financial literacy has been some of the best education I've ever received. I definitely intend to re-listen and re-think after I finish Rich Dad, Poor Dad and whatever else Robet Kiyosaki and similar types have to offer since I think that would be the best way to both ensure I get the lesson and stimulate myself to come up with a plan of action. The key, I think, is in my ability to absorb the information and make good use of it. I do have worries and hesitation and even some anxiety about applying this in the real world, but I am far more afraid of not leaving the rat race and elevating myself both in terms of assets and in terms of character. I also find myself increasingly confident as I acquire new information about this subject and attempt to apply it to my neck of the woods. I just want to make sure I'm neither excessively confident nor excessively anxious. After all, every failure that sticks in my memory was either the result of arrogance or cowardice. And I owe it to myself and my unborn children to be the kind of man I've always desired to emulate.

If a girl is working for money she's not working for love. I think you're wasting your time and sticking your neck out to be chopped. If you want love, look for it directly. I don't know how to get that beyond theory so I'll let someone else speak. But I can definitely tell you that you're not going to get it at work and trying can not only be suicidal to your career but also to your mental health.

Interesting is how it's not that complicated once it's understood (from what I can tell). I imagine the hard part is getting that first loan and getting those first few handshakes to get a job agreed upon to get done. Funny thing is you are getting it by the sweat of your brow! That's an interesting point to make. Do you mean you favor government-controlled money system or theoretically fine with a money system without government control of it? I understand this is a bit of a tangent and I'm not particularly wise as to what is best. I would assume gold is best to encourage economic investment and therefore growth but I am hardly an economist. I don't know if you intend to make a video on the subject... But if you do, I think it'd be a good one for the theoreticians but perhaps not as practically useful as the ones you've already made. That being said, it is certainly my responsibility to educate myself rather than put it on you. And I cannot adequately debate something with someone who seems to know something I don't about a subject as important as whether the money ought to be trust-based/supply-based or gold-backed or something else. Thank you. You have been very helpful already.

Thanks and I realize that plenty. Few can compare to Napoleon who was Commander-in-Chief of France's forces in Italy at the age of 20. However my fear of failure is part of my driving force since I want to live in a good house in a good neighborhood in the American Midwest. I'd hate to die here in the war zone. I understand. My first job experiences were entry level and hands-on as well as counter clerking (at once) and I was very terrible at it and because I was desperate for work I was willing to work at $2 per hour after taxes. I learned from my therapist I should work with my mind and make money on the internet because empirically I am doing poorly to the point where I'd be mad to continue working as welfare benefits alone are far greater than I was making and if I wasn't on partial welfare I wouldn't have been able to eat let alone pay rent. I have always had a fear for animals and also a hidden hatred for (especially White) animal lovers because I think they hate humans and are basically broken. I know that's only true for a minority of people but it's something I've always felt. As for writing I see no reason to stop or slow because I've literally written thousands of pages, millions of words, since I started in High School and am only a year off (give or take) from being finished what I've spent years refining. And that could, especially in the long run, make my career economically viable. And perhaps actually be of help and value to people. I know, that's why I see a therapist who happens to be an IQ 145 Russian Jew. He's been extremely helpful since I sought therapy during my later high school years. He's been very encouraging of my career and helps greatly with both refining me and ensuring I do as I set out to do.

So basically Russians? lol that's based on my experience with them. They never smile falsely or for social graces, and can be a bit awkward when they try for conformity's sake but when they're amongst their own they tend to speak few words and distrust fake expressions (like "how are you doing?" to mean anything but literally "how are you doing?" , unlike American English where the expression is typically used as a conversation starter. They typically don't do that and go straight for the point, even the shy ones). Of course the differences between the Eladrin and the Russians I assume is more than just physical, as obviously Russians don't like like traps (usually--I'm sure there's one or two) and I assume the Eladrin don't make jokes with a straight face so often as the Russians tend to. But your description does sound like Russians to me (in spirit but not in body). On their culture: how are gender roles? I don't think elven childhood would be the same as human childhood even optimally if they're basically a race of traps (I mean androgynous). Also note that's a sign of r-selection; typically k-selected species have very noticeable differences between genders and by extension far better defined gender roles. Meanwhile rabbits... Can you tell a boy from a girl without "checking"? They sound like Germans. ;-) Hmm... I like the idea for orcs being "devolved humans" (in a sense), but... how many decades is "Eladrin Discovery of Earth" from "the collapse of the universal state"? I don't know why orphans would survive the most given, to the best of my knowledge, children die far more in greater number than adults. Unless you meant adult orphans. In which case I'd assume they have the basics of the basics in understanding how to reproduce, form a tribe, and perhaps settle into villages. When I say this I mean "barbarian-style" basics of course. Here's why I think at least a century should be fit between the collapse and the discovery of Earth by the Eladrin; If the Universal State (to just give it a name for practical purposes) were to collapse under its own weight, I'd assume it'd result in warlords and warring states. If they're "well-armed" (i.e. nuclear) and more than a little nihilistic and impulsive, you have a very good case as to how Rome could fall very quickly rather than over 500 years (civil wars of 3rd century to total collapse by the 8th) AND a good reason why technology is, at least initially, far more medieval than modern. Once the Eladrin show up, they're like "hey guys: I see you have a history problem. Sit down and let me teach you something..." and then of course a minority will accept while most will, for one reason or another, reject and over time there will be a clear divide from the pockets of civilization and the bandit tribes and the downright savage orcs. I don't think the Eladrin should directly topple the Universal State--that's not much different from America toppling the Syrian government (not trying to compare the governments but rather the power disparity and the subsequent vacuum) and the result of this would be either the humans are highly dependent upon the Eldarin (thus they must be conquerors and a message to the players is that conquest to save a species is just rather than mutually destructive) or when the Eldarin pull out... Well there are vacuums and all that stuff I'm sure you heard said during the Republican Primary Debates. Therefore I suggest having the Universal State collapse into warring states who obliterate each other and then give at least a generation for the humans to reform themselves based on their traumas (and lessons learned--both the right and the wrong) and what little remnants of Rome remains for them to rebuild from. THEN the Eladrin can start sending missionaries to elevate the human races and, as far as Europe is concerned, there can be a focus on perhaps a handful of cities populated by perhaps 50,000 each and those cities will be the ones who willingly elevate (and thus become like enclaves rather than merely walled fortresses) and thus be the "starting points". I recommend 3 real-life cities based on geography for ideas: Split (Croatia, the Dalmatian Coast and facing the Mediterranean Sea), Novgorod (Russia, facing the Baltic Sea), and Odesa (the Ukraine, facing the Black Sea). I'll mention why these or something similar might work best further down. See: this I don't like because it is basically America toppling Syria, Iran, or similar. I prefer them falling naturally and the Eladrin coming in once the dust has settled. More on that above. Why the younger children? If anything they'd be the most resistant because empirically foreign adults=invaders and adults in general = unreliable and no-good. In this scenario especially I think the children would not only have had horrible war-zone-quality childhoods (see a picture of Bill Clinton with a Serbian boy. Note the face of the little Serb; note how traumatized and ready to fight he looks rather than soft and cute. You have to see the little victims of war to get a good mental picture and understanding of why they especially would be the most skeptical and resistant). If anyone should be the first to reach out it should be the elders because at least some of them would have the mental horsepower to realize if they don't change for the better (try something different at least) they'll just continously fall. The kids? If anything they want to fight and get revenge against whomever caused their lives to be so miserable. Remember: the troops of the warlords in real failed states are often youths and seldom are the forced to fight. They are often either volunteers or paid (to use Europe during the Thirty Years' War and China during the Three Kingdoms and just before that (184-260-something) as evidence). Meanwhile the elders (whom are often survivors) at least a minority realizes the trap they're in. Therefore I recommend not focusing on the explorative and curious children because such traits are symptoms of healthy childhoods not war-torn ones. And I think it's safe to say that whether their childhood was till now either visions of societal collapse or warring tribes they'll be far more prone to aggressiveness and impulsiveness. Perhaps I am missing a key point in the pre-history because I would assume during and after the collapse would be very violent while before the collapse would be both very controlled (1984 style) and very abusive (in every manner you can imagine). If the collapse was 100 years ago (100 years before Eladrin--maybe you should make a new calendar? Same months and days but have the first year be the year just after the Universal State's collapse into warring states) then they ought to be very tough but also very aggressive. If it was 10 years ago they ought to be either heavily broken (as a result of drugs) and thus "orc-like" or very traumatized (even if not directly through bad parents or warfare than indirectly from the environment). Thus, I repeat, give a century and you can "cool the turkey" as it were. Let the dust settle and let things have happened before Eladrin missionary visits and then you can jump forward a generation and it's the year 120 A.C. (After Collapse. Perhaps another acronym would be more fashionable but I think this is a good start). Paris has, throughout history since the end of the Thirty Years War, epitomized hypocrisy and decay. I don't think the moral and upright Eladrin would prefer the Parisians for their culture. Their culture is promiscuity, superficiality, lies, violence, viciousness, etc. etc. Degradation at its worst. I think you just have a soft spot for Paris like I do Copenhagen and other Germanic settlements for some reason or another. I mainly suggest certain places for geography reasons since you can just make up the culture given enough centuries to fill up in. Culturally I think the American Midwest (even now) best epitomizes the Eladrin: reason, daring, pioneering, curiosity, protectiveness, etc. In Europe there are a few similar spots but I think they'd mainly be English. Otherwise nowhere is quite "right". Besides I think the Eladrin ought to be more than superficial rabbits; otherwise why aren't they the subjugated species? Therefore if you're going by culture I can't say much of Europe beyond England, somewhat Italy, and somewhat Germany and Russia. None of them really jell like Aerica does. However I think Russia might not be a bad idea since Russians have a history of struggling, rebuilding, surviving, and maybe sometimes thriving. Novgorod is by the Baltic Sea therefore it can connect to other civilized human settlements fairly easily (assume sea monsters aren't that big a deal). Croatia is not so good but I think Split is good geographically for its access to Italy. Odesa similar but focused towards Turkey, Greece, and the Caucuses. I think... Novgorod could equal a semi-republican society in which prominent citizens (thanes perhaps? Or to go Russian: boyars which were both lords and military commanders) elect a Duke (or to really go Russian: a Duke or a transliteration of the Russian version of the word) who acts as both the civil and martial authority. His powers are dictated by a charter written originally the first boyars and consented to by their first citizens. Voters are landed citizens (i.e. they own land. At all) with the weight of the vote based on where they are in a hierarchy. The Boyars are equally on top and "made" by being married into from the Knights (or perhaps a Russian equivalent) who are made via anointment by the Duke once a landed citizen has demonstrated himself as a special citizen either as a result of great moral character, merit through private service (business, inventions, etc.) or wartime excellence. The Boyar is worth 5 Knights (and perhaps may have 5 knights owe them military obligations in exchange for not being taxed); the Knight is worth 5 landed citizens (whom are taxed by Boyars but not Knights). The "civil contract" is that the Duke and the Ducal family exemplify moral and administrate excellence in exchange for tax monies with which to both administrate and keep a small portion of as income--tax comes from the Boyars-- and the Boyars tax the landed citizens in exchange for protecting their properties from bandits, looters, vagabonds, thieves, etc. Those who don't own land are, like historical feudalism, not taxed but there is no welfare beyond charity and charity is only there for those willing to seek work. Like historical Novgorod I think an Orthodox Church should exist to act as the spiritual guide and moral compass of the citizens. This is a Roman model somewhat Germanized. Not to be confused with an American-style republic since the Dukes almost always come from established families (either wealthy or titled or both) and thus several families on high would have a history of having a Duke at some point. Also they're for life. Assume an average of 12 years per Ducal cycle as a result. Split could be similarly designed but with a more "curious" and therefore entrepreneurial culture that results in nobles effectively being little different from private citizens owning large amounts of land. Unlike Novgorod the Church would be Catholic like real life. The city in general would thrive on trade like Novgorod but more so as a result of being more trafficked and having far more emigrants seeking to stake their claim in "the Wilderness". Perhaps a "Little England" here? Odesa on the other hand would be similar to both but more militaristic and "tough" like the free Cossack nomads of history past. Far more aggressive than talkative but also highly respecting of agreed upon "rights". The Hetman of Odesa (who is as much a mayor/king as he is a nomadic khan) is an elected position by the commanders of the nomadic fighters and warriors (perhaps explorers too?) but not the citizens nor the landed citizens. Thus somewhat a military-state but since most of its citizens would be involved in the nomadic expeditions to settle the Ukrainian country (reclaim it perhaps from its decayed former self?) they would naturally have an impact on their sergeants whom impact their commanders and thus the Hetman. What do you think? Add in Paris and some other places too and perhaps we have ingredients for a bevy of different European cultures and political and social systems. Gaming-wise Odesa (or "the Cossacks") fit a semi-nomadic/explorative style and thus make good hunter, horseman (a subdivision of fighter perhaps?), arches (especially horse-archers!) and scouts. Novgorod would be good for mages (because...well, I like snow and I think magic looks prettiest when it's cold and assuming magic and intelligence go hand in hand then ironically the most rational people would be the most magical... Well that's a stretch I'm making) or at least viking-like warriors and paladins. Split would be scholarly (and thus perhaps mage-like?) and more focused on negotiating since that's they're thing. These three cities might be friends, enemies, or merely rivals (no real wars with each but perhaps competition that might lead to disagreements, some violent some not). Add in the Garden style... And my goodness does that not spark the imagination? I envision all of them having their cultures reflecting their "Gardens". The Novogordians are straight-forward and direct but perhaps a bit grandiose and thus prone to sentimentalism. The Dalmatians are verbose but perhaps prone to dishonesty, but in exchange tend to speak longer than most before resorting to fighting. The Cossacks are forward and prone to fighting but tend to be flighty and shy from prolonged engagements that they can't settle quickly. They embody both a warrior-spirit as well as an explorer's spirit with a touch of deference to authority. I'd write my own ;-) Well, I am technically but not with your world. If I were to play a finished version of this game I'd want to start out somewhere like Novgorod. Insert myself as the son of say... a landed voting citizen but not titled. Educated. Christian. With equal amounts verbosity and action. Interested in reclaiming the Great Rus (or Russia) and rediscovering our racial and cultural heritage. With the assistance of the good Eladrin Missionaries, I might learn how to properly fight with "modern" (think sci-fi FF-style swords??? :-D) weaponry and, with a hefty investment from Father, purchase a proper sword and other necessities for an exploring warrior, form a band with close friends and set out to... reclaim Saint Petersberg. Although I want the governments of the various settings I created (I don't think AnCap should be the default setting; perhaps there is one but its small and very selective of whom they reveal their settlements to. Yet as traders they come to your city rather than you going to their's ) to be fitting for the theme of enlightenment, UPB, and Peaceful Parenting I don't want to focus on them competing too much (outside trade and small bouts and perhaps tournaments?) with each other but rather focus on the world and the reclamation and the union against barbarism (the orcs? The bandits? The really bad humans trying to recreate the Universal State?). I doubt the best of what humanity has left will fight bloodily with each other while they still need each other and Missionaries intervene (perhaps threaten to cut-off trade and education with those who might violate each other's NAP) when they refuse to control themselves. Perhaps... Perhaps the Eladrin themselves have an AnCap going on? In which case...maybe a goal is to "prove myself" to them so that I might "visit them" or even "join them"? Heck there's a lot of possibilities here... What do you think? I love to hijack but I don't want to do that. I'd rather start from scratch in the future when I'm done my current project perhaps but for now I'm curious how this post will shape your's? ADDED: An Idea Plus Initial Statement of Preference in How I Play RPGs Whenever I play an RPG--even a story-heavy one--I tend to project myself into the main player character. Therefore I would try to write myself to be as true to who I am in real as possible but perhaps with a twist for interest. Like in real life I'm a genius who's naturally gifted in language but not much else. Therefore statistically I'd be high intelligence and mediocre to low everything else. I am not too sure what metric you're using to measure broadly the capabilities of main characters and NPCs but to borrow Fallout's and use "3" as "mediocre" then I'd be like: "STR: 3; PER:2; END: 3;CHA:5; INT:7; AGL: 2; LCK: 3" with a total of 25 points distributed. A fairly skillful but otherwise mediocre (and therefore challenging) character. I know traditional D&D isn't quite "SPECIAL" but I know there's some translatable elements (though I think the cap is 19 rather than 10). I would, in projecting myself into this fictional future, attempt to find people to cover my weaknesses and specialize where I'm soft. I'd assume either fellow players or invented companion characters would compliment me somewhat but otherwise I'd have/want to find some more combat-focused characters so I can stand a chance as an explorer or pioneer outside civilization. Perhaps in my scenario I'm focusing on general leadership and using my skills to both attract like-minded people and perhaps... Well, remember how I said I wanted a generational system? I think I know a way in which it could work. Fallout 4 (I know D&D has a specific system but I don't know it or am able to really "frame" for it, so I'd appreciate you "translate" my Fallout-ese here!) had SPECIAL with most characters having 21 points to distribute plus 1 to each SPECIAL. I think you could use 21 with most people having a 3-average as a "standard" and then...combine genetics into it so some people have a higher point total. Like Cao Cao (historical warlord, poet, statesman, strategist, etc) would have a FAR higher point total like around 50 out of 70 to reflect his historically exceptional and multi-talented traits. I think upper-class people in general would average around 30 total points with middle-class at around 25. Using this logic... When a P.C. (Player Character I mean) marries and has kids, the kids could, within a window, have a point total that is the middle or more or less of their parents. If they had a good childhood (plus good luck) they could have a few extra points than their superior parent. If they have a bad childhood they could lose a point or two. If they're lucky or unlucky in spite of their childhood (which could either be determined like a series of multiple-choice or be a D&D mini-scenario in itself) they could be quite high or quite low (like how sometimes geniuses are born or hobos and disabled people are occasionally born of geniuses). Then the real-life player could play on as the child once the previous P.C. "retires" or "hands over the mantle". I think this could work very well with a time and travel system. Like if my theoretical campaign takes me 10 years from age 20 (I'm 19 right now btw) to accomplish (i.e. takes 10 years to successfully reclaim the dungeon-city of Saint Petersberg and perhaps become a boyar) and by the end I've "found" (whether by chance, creation, or story-related etc.) a wife and chosen to settle down with her, my heir (whomever I choose to "inhabit" not necessarily my material heir in the property or leadership sense) would be my next player and could go on to do another life-long mission. Like maybe develop Saint Petersberg or his neighborhood to rival Novgorod through trade and securing local resources and protecting from bandits, etc. etc. Perhaps I can (though badly) have a child mid-adventure with a woman and barely have time to raise my poor children and when I have to retire (or die)... Well, I should have thought that through because my "heir" is quite a bit disadvantaged because his mom was really negligent and prone to violence! Therefore minus 5 points to the total! Or conversely I married a really good woman and she managed to maintain the point total in spite of my chronic abcense. Or I simply hold off till around 30 to "settle down". I think there's a lot of fun to be had in attempting to play through generations of a family. Time could pass based on how long it would take to walk or ride a horse from point A to point B and do various things. And through the threat of finite time (and dying before having children!) I, the player, could have that incentive to REALLY be considerate of my actions and invest in my young (because I'll be playing as one of them! Probably even form a party by default with my siblings!). I think there's a lot here that could be implemented into a truly unique table-top game. Especially if you choose to invest in the creation of stats and metrics for deciding good husbands/wives besides the main stats. Heck this would make for a good incentive for a marriage system too! Namely stats to measure the quality of women (speaking as a man for now) and perhaps how much several metrics she is and how that can be calculated to predict what kind of mother she'd be--as well as how hard/easy she'd be to earn! For example: if she's higher point-total than me then naturally I'll need to convince her why to marry down. Perhaps--as a sketch--her preferences could be measured relative to herself. 1: Agreeableness. 2: Empathy. 3: Kindness. 4: Beauty. 5: Discipline. Ranging from 1-10 with 5 being "mellow" for each, each character could have stats in these (without point total restrictions) that affects their personality preferences and behavior. Agreeableness is both how inclined to speak up and be straight forward but also tendency to be too abrasive and rebellious (when low) versus how likely they are to speak softly and negotiate but also hush up and be cowardly (like conform or abuse authority) (when high). Empathy is rather self-explanatory: high empathy means they can feel for others and have an edge in CHA while low empathy is general a weakness but also makes the character more able to do immoral or morally challenging things. Kindness is essentially reciprocity: high kindness people are kind and likely to reciprocate what they're dealt while low-kindness tend to be rude and more likely to scam and abuse. Beauty is obvious. Amplifies all stats--especially charisma-based ones--when high and lowers all stats--especially charisma and agility based ones--when low. 5: Discipline is both deferral of gratification and patience with others. Affects/is affected by intelligence and charisma. Most of these 5 stats have a negative effect even when high. Like high Agreeableness is good for managing people but bad at leading them or fighting them and possibly an indicator of someone who might abuse their authority (or be two-faced) while low agreeableness is more "honest" but can also be more self-destructive. Therefore 10 and 1 are not necessarily good numbers here. Empathy is less drastic but similarly not so easy to find an "ideal" number for beyond compatibility. Kindness is mostly good since I am trying to infer a sense of obligation and willingness to repay debts but naturally a hinderance to bad people (perhaps "Conscience" would be a better label?). Beauty and Discipline though are one-way. Higher is better.Except in compatibility (like a lazy man might not like a disciplined woman and an ugly woman might dislike pretty women but like handsome men). Hypothetically people will seek like-for-like with some not. Like a high-agreeableness woman might prefer low-agreeableness in men but a man might want a low-agreeableness woman like himself. So preference might not always correlate with held place on the metrics. Of course you could adjust the definition, naming, and all that but I think there should be something like this for finding spouses (unless you want to rely on the creative minds of the players to fill it but metrics help for dice rolls I'd assume and childhood might involve a lot of that especially when the P.C. isn't around).

Well if I felt it... lol "feeling it" is not an argument... I know it's just a wording thing I'm picking at but still wording is not nothing and you're right I don't "feel the need" to even respond right now. I want to because it's interesting; but it's not a need. I won't die from not responding. But enough feeling myself up... You only quoted half the statement. The other half involved IQ specifically while that half was mostly wisdom oriented. So reading back on what I wrote weeks ago I did separate them and talk a little about their relationship. But either way is a metric for superiority. I can't talk about every job but in mine (novelist) there is pretty much no point in talking with 80% of other writers or people in the vicinity because originality and creative thought is extremely rare while copying and pasting the norm but rewording it is extremely common. Of course I'd imagine if someone is a statistical net positive that enough should keep them valid and warranted members of a business. However the 20% that is worth 80% is objectively more valuable and precious than the 80% worth 20%. And in my business 99% is worth 1%, though I cannot say how many of the super majority make enough money for bread and rent because most of them are women depending on men therefore writing for them is probably a hobby not a job, in practice if not intended. I try my best to see if I can test whether or not it is true. First I try to reason it; then I try to find it applied; then I made a conclusion based on that. When I am exposed to such a variety of new information of a daily basis it's hard not to add and subtract things from what I think is true based on that. Being a novelist is fun and can potentially inspire people but I am not building anything and chances are at best I'll be another Ayn Rand who aimed really high but failed to affect much of a change in spite of her prowess. And that's a highly pretentious comparison since I have no reason to believe without evidence I'm that great. I am literally useless outside speaking and writing. I suck working with my shaky and moist hands; I do not like working with people I disagree with and I don't like being tacitly dishonest (i.e. not speaking up) so I am innately poor at teamwork; and I doubt I will be able to have much of an impact on an insane world in which I am probably partly made insane from. Not to mention the more red-pilled I am the more I dislike being in the presence of strangers where I am a racial, religious, etc. minority and feel (in this case I am using it to actually mean "feel") terrified and invaded whenever I'm not "closing my mind" to enter "fight or flight mode". Most intellectuals are useless this way. We make lots of fun noises and stimulate the brain but what does any of that actually do for the real world? I am the male equivalent to the pretty woman who is great for sex but useless at anything else. I might make good money if I make the right decisions, whether as a result of entertaining enough people that I'm making great sales or financial literacy, but I cannot compete with someone who is actually doing something in the real world to affect a positive change. It is "heartfelt" and obviously I don't like to admit it but I have to be honest and admit that novelists aren't a useful bunch unless they are entertaining or inspiring or both. I am aiming for both but should I fail then all the genius I have is for nothing. If I succeed I'm still only worth what I can net in a year, so while I may have superior horsepower I have to be humble and admit I am still worth less than a guy with half my IQ making similar money because I'm not earning much until I do enough that I am. Until then I am "potential" but not "realized". And of course I think about this very often because I don't want to be wasted life or wasted potential, especially since I'm nearly 20 years old with little to show for it.

I understand (though that is "fiscally responsible" since honest men pay their debts), I think. So basically borrow money to pay for something that will likely profit now because the debt can presumably be covered and the result is a net profit that would otherwise never be made. The principle sounds simple enough, though I assume it's far more complicated when it involves large sums of money where the consequences of a bad investment could lead to a hard to repay debt. I spent a couple hours into the early A.M. hours when I found the audiobook. The last thing I heard was Robert's Rich Dad's explanation of the flow of the Poor Man versus the Middle Class Man versus the Rich Man and the general creativity it requires to be a Rich Man in both the tangible sense and intangible sense. I am extremely interested in finishing this and figuring out how the advice could help me as a novelist. I understand the basic idea so far as being to secure assets (things defined as being a net profit) and taming liabilities (a net loss: including things as fundamental as food and rent to big things like a house or a bad business investment) however I am not sure how best to go about putting the ideas into practice. My first thought is the stock market (which I have not even a layman's knowledge of) since I think every "public company" has shares of itself for purchase on it (which if I understand is basically an open invitation to external investment in exchange for the promise of repaying the value of the share in the future). You've been a great help to me in becoming financially literate. Ideally I'd want to emulate the concept of the Rich Man in having my money work for me so I am making enough for a family of 7 (me, a wife, and 5 children) in a middle-class house with minimal work needed for it. Obviously if I want that I have to really figure out what's a good means of generating passive income otherwise I'm basically dreaming of an illusion. My primary skills are my writing and speaking abilities. I intend to harness them directly into writing novels (which I'm doing and have been doing alongside whatever I must since even before I graduated High School) and perhaps with the money I earn invest that into something that will at least retain the value of the money. How does that sound so far? Am I, at least theoretically, on the right path based on what I know of myself?

How do you mean, exactly? I don't want to copy those that use credit cards to shift their debt from card to card as I'll have to pay it at some point. However I assume you don't meant that but rather something else. To the best of my knowledge, middle to big businesses tend to pay for things with a note of debt, and perhaps then that debt would be "paid" with another note for another project and some other business would take on the liabilities in exchange for funding something. Kinda like a hot-potato of "I'll pay a piece of it then hand the rest to that guy who'll pay a piece then hand it over to... and so on till the original debt is paid". However I know little of business, so I am probably wrong about how debt is leveraged and paid for but I suspect I am onto something, given how the American government manages to function in spite of massive debt. It would make sense to assume it "pays it" by leveraging its assets (like its army or ability to "take on debt" in exchange for a "delaying of payment" or something) and also by being virtually unaccountable yet unavoidable via holding the world's reserve currency as its standard. Am I "on the money" or "in the red" in terms of understanding what you mean? Of course I'd like to live as conservatively as possible. But also as efficiently and effectively as possible. EDIT: I just found Rich Dad, Poor Dad on YouTube (an audiobook of course) and will be listening/reading from tomorrow morning till I finish. I may have my questions answered for me by the end of it. Quite simply mathematics is one area I am definitely not a genius in (I think I got a 110 or 115 maybe less. All I remember reading was that it was just above average), whereas verbal acuity is my 10-inch (144 and proud).

I figured that but I don't want to try mind-reading since I'd rather answer the direct question. After all there is no "your" or "my" definition of friendship; it's either true or it isn't. Let me put it to you this way: you'll never have real friends if you keep even one superficial person close. Real friends seek other real friends (better said: real people with values seek real people with values to befriend) therefore unless you meet a crazy or needy one (in which case...that's another set of problems) you'll never have friends unless you have standards. Ask yourself: do you want a bunch of fake people or 1 or 2 real people? You can't have both. Fake people fear/hate/attack real people and real people avoid/dispel/vanquish fake people like exorcists to ghosts (or vampires would be a better analogy). Note: he has Mike the Guy With the Voice But No Face who often speaks for him and introduces callers to him. THAT's a friend. I'm sure he's not Stefpai's only one but I'm sure he's among his most treasured. I don't know their age range but I'd assume they're like brothers. I think the loneliness will end once you "get it". Then you'll feel happy and attract similar people in similar circumstances. Remember: there's billions of people out there and chances are you live in a town with at least 100,000. Odds are there is a top 1% to be won. I wouldn't say Long-Distance friendships are unsustainable but rather... I'd think of it like this: if I had a friend--a real brother--for 10 years and then I'm off to war for 10 years, he may still be my "real brother" depending on whether he grew while I was away and on whether or not I ate the blackpill and became all PTSD Hitler Style or he became all this or that. Point is it's possible but rare. The stars have to align. Long-Distance marriages/loves only work if the distance is caused as a result of, say, war. Then it's possible because chances are both sides are mature enough to realize they can't see much of each other. A wonderful example is Genghis Khan (real name: Temujin) and his wife Borte. Even though he was a hound dog, he always loved her and she was extremely crucial to his rising into becoming the "King of Kings" of Asia, as there were some really hectic times and without her he might have died and without him she would have starved or died or whatnot. See "Khan: Rise of the Mongols" on YouTube (it's a Russian Movie) for details. It's historical-fiction but it's not far from reality and what is fictional is based on real stuff. However unless there's a war going on and both sides are deeply mature and committed, long-distance relationships don't last because they weren't built on a hard enough foundation. I mean, practically speaking, outside war, why would a husband and wife split for months or years? There's no good reason. A bit different for friends because male friends could have jobs that take them different places while female friends could be married to the mobile men and therefore going with them. Obviously the distance will test the relationship (especially since they'll be growing/shrinking on their own and that could mean fairly different people when they reunite) but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're impossible. Just rare (because most people don't have friends but reflections in the mirror). All in all: get some certainty and objective absolutes in your life so you can slap yourself on the face whenever you catch yourself repeating a falsehood to yourself. Recognize things for what they are so you can begin attracting good people and then when you have them, treat them as you want to be treated (or treat them as they want to be treated so they'll treat you as you want to be treated).

I hate to admit it but I can definitely see the appeal to Dr. Strangelove's plan... Never saw the movie, only saw small clips as it was mentioned in the Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone (that's his name right? I know the last name's Stone that's for sure). Of course I totally get the aim of quoting the conversation; just if RBE was sold to me that way I'd be awfully tempted. But then temptations tend to be even self-destructive, so I'd have to say know even if my monkey brain's basically going bananas over it...

Note: Stefpai said his own daughter had no "terrible twos"; perhaps you really did something wrong, you did mention months ago you weren't redpilled and wise before you were pregnant and married (I think). However like the others (and yourself) said you might be making a bigger deal than it is. I think the best way to show disapproval to a little one is simply to remove what the little one's causing trouble with and ignore pleads for its return until the little one behaves. And chances are the little one might not even care or realize what is wrong unless given a visual picture of "if I throw food bits I don't get to eat food bits".

Understandably. You cannot fail. It's not permanent but every one step backwards would need a hundred steps forward to reclaim. Thus take anything I say now with a grain of salt until someone more qualified coincides with me. Remember you are female and we are male. Rivalry to us isn't bitter or underhanded but open and joyful. It's natural for all males to compete; the difference is whether we compete virtuously (unwritten code of conduct and standards versus cannibalization) or not. I think if you want to teach "actions have consequences" and also in general that being good pays off, it's natural to favor the better acting with more good and less bad to inspire the other to outdo the first. It's not a moral lesson (because it's based on incentives) but it's a practical lesson that could be made moral when they're capable of reasoning it. Encouraging friendly rivalry I think is good because they are male and therefore they wish to compete and outdo each other naturally. To men: conflict =/=war rather a break from the boring peace. Brothers (when raised well) stand together when an outside threat emerges but in a time of peace are likely to compete to both maintain each other's metal and alleviate boredom (and at some point probably compete for women and resources, both against each other and less friendly rivals from outside the family).

It's easier for me to respond; normally I read it then break it into quote bits so I can answer parts directly AND re-read it as I'm answering it. Especially helpful in tired mornings From what I can tell, the Eladrin are fundementally meant to be good and virtuous people. The first image that comes to mind is really the Roman Catholic Church more than any empire since it went far and wide to educate and enlighten the world; not just religiously, but also in matters of medicine, food, clothing, shelter, etc. The Roman Catholic Church was also filled with testosterone. I was just thinking it'd make more sense (unless...see below) for the Eladrin to be a fuse between that ideal masculine we see on black-and-white screens (you know the big men that don't really fight with words but with fists and are generally able to otherwise settle things in an almost non-verbal way, the ones with the broad shoulders and square jaws and experienced eyes) with modern knowledge of parenting and philosophy (thus perhaps en route to creating a super species). I figure if I were the writer behind this, and I wanted to make a superior species, I'd base it on the best of mankind at mankind's best and fuse it with the knowledge we have now but didn't then. Arguably the best of mankind was in America before WWII and maybe before WWI. The best of the best had left Europe nearly a century before and made a stake to rebuild themselves in a new country, forming effectively a new race ("American") of super-Whites (just look at modern IQ averages of Midwestern States to see how the average IQ of White Americans, at least there, is 104 relative to the high 90's common in Europe) combined with the entrepreneurial and rational philosophy of the "Old Stock" (i.e. Native American from the Revolutionary Period) Americans. Applied here: I figure the Eladrin ought to at least emulate the ideal of what we're now calling "benevolent patriarchy" similar to the early 20th and mid to late 19th centuries while at the same time being far more knowledgeable about philosophy and practical stuff. The result being manly men and womanly women generally peacefully raising their kids, thus forming tightly bonded kin groups which extend to forming a greater sense of racial/special community (I put "special" since it sounds like the Eladrin are one race rather than comprised of many races. Either then they were the only race of their own species to get off their rock or they annihilated/amalgamated/assimilated them all) and having essentially the best of individualism with the best of collectivism (individual responsibility + Free Will + sense of community + ethics etc.) they are generally a highly admirable species yet even they have far superior role models and ideals they fall short to similar to how many White men/boys emulate what they think is the ideal male; whether it be the estrogen-filled beta type or the testosterone filled hero type. On the other hand, if your intention is to provide them with a fatal flaw (i.e. they grew perhaps unwittingly this weakness like a cancer) then being extremely effeminate and colonialist (i.e. conquer the world to save the world) makes sense. However if the idea is to create supermen with weaknesses that are more subtle (i.e. we wouldn't think of them off the bat because it's an upgrade relative to us) then I'd suggest pumping some testosterone into them. To refer to the Roman Catholic Church, the Jesuits didn't raise directly the children of those races they attempted to elevate. Usually just the orphans, instead they took generally an advisory role except in matters they're skilled in (like surgery and medicine). Likewise I'd recommend the elves here take a more advisory and Jesuit-style role, especially if you want them to be benign rather than malignant. Perhaps you could use Sengoka Era Japan as a model since Jesuits helped out a lot there and yet when the wars were over their ruler forcibly evicted most of them and persecuted most of the Christians (and converts). Yet in spite of that quite a few daimyo (legal warlords) converted to Roman Catholicism with even one Sorin Otomo adopting the name "Francisco" and sending a (successful) emissary to the Pope in Rome and another Kanbei Kuroda retaining his Catholic conversion secretly and another still named Masamune Date whose own daughter was a Christian convert and he made very friendly with the European Christians and merchants in spite of the laws (largely thanks to his relative power and geographical isolation). So basically they're Jesuits? I think that's the angle you should imagine the Eladrin colonials from if you want Free Will + Education without conquest. My suggestion put simply is the "Jesuit Elf Scenario", in which well-meaning foreigners come over to help us out of our barbarism and while so listen attentively others ignore. Those who listen (especially as a society) benefit well while those who ignore essentially remain barbarians to be tamed. Not enough, I should think. Remember it's only like 5% of the population that ever sees the hero as the hero and the villain as the villain. Most are either neutral or in the way. It's not till after the fact a majority might appreciate the heroes from the villains. Hence I think no more than one country (if the conversion is made willfully rather than forcibly) ought to be "enlightened" and elevated as most will be too bullish and reactionary (especially if their more "liberal" characteristics were killed as a result of the --insert world ending catastrophe of 300-3,000 years ago--) even if they're totally wrong and going too far in the opposite direction. I only objected to Paris because I'm German, but I think it'd be interesting if an IRL small country were the lucky enlightened ones. Denmark really strikes me because it is both small yet geograhically diverse with islands, forests, open plans, lots of water, and just a boat ride away from the mountains of Norway and the coats of Germany and the Baltic States. Plus they're in the middle without being in the crossfires. Hey man don't deprecate your fellow bipeds! Still not a bad idea in theory. I just think it should be handled Jesuit-style in order to make it explicitly clear they're here to advise not to dictate. I'd remove the idea of it being LARPing because theoretically magic + Final Fantasy-esque intervention would have a bit of anachronistic something that could act as a dungeon-generator/training grounds (basically what you said but differently phrased and imagined). Are you familiar with Final Fantasy VIII? I really loved their "Garden" idea. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just look up the game and "Balamb Garden", as it is both a sanctuary and a place of education for the residents (to be both self-sufficient and helpful to the greater world). A division of Balamb has a "labyrinth" which functionally acts as both a random dungeon generator and graduation test for the "S.E.E.D.S." (the player-character hero types who fight as compared to the citizens who do the peace-time work). A tangent but a personal project of mine is to write a book incorporating something like this with ideal AnCapiStan. It's just so fascinating a fictional world and creation that even though the game itself wasn't terribly memorable for me (beyond some key parts) the "Gardens" really stood out as creative genius, especially how they combined necessity and efficiency with style and tranquility. Like a slice of Eden in a cold and frosty wilderness. *Stefan/Stefpai Beyond the "Jesuits" I don't think there should be any Eladrins (because otherwise they are technically invaders and if you want them to be highly moralistic good guys they they ought to only live amongst the countries that willfully accept their immigration) unless you either do what I wrote in the thought bubble or something else. I think the best path is to adapt it to a more "Jesuit in Feudal Japan" style since you get the philosophers (Jesuits); the patients (Japanese); the willful enlightened (converts); the willful ignorant (the persecutors); and the unmet (everyone else). Plus it'd serve as a good model in imagining "micro-nations" competing (both friendly and hostilely) with other "micro-nations" and would have an air of historical authenticity to it as well. Ideally you'd have both a benevolent species trying to elevate the Earthens/Earthlings/Humans + a diverse subject (i.e. some react positively, others negatively, most ignore, and a few actually listen and adopt thus becoming the one little country that converts in a sea of barbarism) + the Free Will to decide both individually and collectively. How does "Jesuit Style" sound?

Bro WTF. Do you think proposing an alternative means of living is just something that has no connection to pretty much 100% of all that is human? I'm not talking about RBE/Communism if I'm not also going talk about its effects versus other systems and the factors that led to the pluses and minuses of each. I'm not here to masturbate about how ideally it'd work; I'm here to talk about if it can work in reality and if it can't I'm going to do my best to point out how and why. Okay I'm going to hack into the mainframe and cause an "emergency" so my goons can go in and "restore order". I also don't understand why you want humans to not be involved in their own collective well-being and why you'd trust a machine to be infallible when it's created by fallible mortals. Yes it is. You're proposing Communism under another name. You are suggesting that all the means and ends of productions be centralized by something. Presumably we cannot opt out of it and let the people who want communism/RBE live in their little hellscape and away from moral people who think robbery and slavery is wrong. What are the goals of society. Who determines it. Who executes it. Who measures it. And if MomBot is the answer... What does someone with no skin or stake have to say about a peaceful monopoly? Why should the guy who makes the best pizzas in town break up his business because no one wants to buy pizzas from somebody else? What is wrong with monopolies in general? Particular monopolies (like a monopoly on force for example) can very easily cause problems but most monopolies are very easily broken. Like to break the pizza monopoly all you have to do is make a better (or cheaper) pizza or perhaps find something shady about Mr Pizza Monopolist that would cause people to stop buying his pizzas (thus destroying his business in a flash). Oh okay. Let's gloss over every point I made because all I have to do is say "you're wrong" to win. Define "casual relationship". Given the rise in Capitalism around the same time, I suppose with only a passing glance all gains of capitalism can also be attributed to the FED. However they work on very different principles (and thus theoretically very different outcomes). FED: Forced Monopoly on currency. Try to make a new one and they'll put you in jail. Capitalism: the ability to exchange value freely without force or fraud. I know there's a hell of a lot more nuance but fundamentally it is this simple. Rapists tend to make horrible spouses; consent-ists tend to vary. However I think it's safe to say consent>rape except perhaps in the most ridiculous and insane of cases. I'm going to talk however the Hell I want to talk and point out the BS as I see it. If you really have a strong case to make, then make it. So far all I'm getting is Super MomBot is going to take care of everything and I don't trust Super MomBot anymore than Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or any other totalitarian ruler's benevolence. Explain to me how the "wehkers arrr exploited". I fail to see how voluntary lovemaking=exploitation but then I also fail to see the appeal of slavery, bondage, and victimhood. Okay. I concede living conditions improved over time and are arguably better now than ever (by a ginormous degree). My argument was that the dramatic improvement of the 19th and 20th centuries came from freedom not the State or the Hammer and Sickle or the Hooked Cross. Answer me this: does man own the sweat of his brow or does MomBot/theState/ThePeople own it? If your answer is the former then how is RBE going to work in practice. Will it be like Communism in which all resources are forcibly collectivized or do only the willing contribute to the pile and thus RBE is basically just how some people live while the Free Market is how others live. I.e.: Do I have to live under RBE if I don't want to or is the proposition that we basically occupy the same space but live in parallel systems? Ultimately the most important part is whether RBE=Communism (where force is concerned) or if RBE=Peaceful Communism (I.e. some people choose to live this way while others can freely opt out with the only practical consequences maybe being shunning or ostracism). If your answer is the former then I see no point is using words to argue with someone who wants to steal from me. If the the latter then as a Rightist I am inclined to let you do your thing so long as it doesn't infringe upon the lives of myself, my family, or any of those who do not wish it.

Someone programs the machines. Someone maintains them. Someone guards them from being hacked. Human involvement cannot be severed. How is it calculated? What is considered optimal for whom? Is everyone of equal wealth regardless of labor, morals, competency, etc? The issue isn't in the control but the controllers and how easily corruptible the system is. Especially if its founders are anything but benign. Goods are naturally controlled via price signals and natural conditions. Policemen are naturally controlled by the community and in turn the police dedicate themselves (ideally not necessarily always or at present) to stamping out active crime and disincentiveizing planned crime. There is a fundamental difference between a system in which there is an enforced monopoly of something versus a system in which any monopolies are voluntarily created. The Roman Republic elected dictators whom willingly put away their cloaks after their term was over. Perhaps it is possible to return to the Roman Republican days as far as Republican kinds of systems go. Perhaps not. However Communism (RBE=control of resources by one entity, not exactly the means of production but perhaps just as bad) Let's see: mortality rates went down enormously; technology exploded to the point where only a minority of Americans needed to be farmers to feed everyone else; government corruption was relatively tame compared to now (especially its effects); poverty was, as is, deserved for most and those for whom it wasn't they had the chance and the drive to pull themselves out (often with the support of private charities and Churches); families were stable and powerful; the nation-state was secure; multiculturalism in the modern sense was non-existent while in the real sense (i.e. different cultures not oppositional and competing cultures ) it was working well as most folks who weren't living in enclaves were assimilating (and those that weren't were not causing problems of an Islamic invader scale) and it was pretty clear a golden age of abundance was coming about as a result of the awesome combination of freedom, innovation, nationalism, a single unified culture (again outside the many enclaves like the Mormons in Utah or Germans in the countryside), peace (though the Mexicans were belligerent they were certainly not an equal to America at the time), familial stability, strong moral values, etc. etc. And then after WWII the inheritors of paradise trashed it while drinking the poison of Socialism and Feminism. Unfortunately the parents of the WWI and pre-Fed generation failed to arm their children intellectually against deceit and discord. Though it's not like there was no reactionary movement against creeping Socialism and Feminism--evidence that in spite of being under siege there were quite the robust characters fighting for their inheritance. The private sector is inextricably tied to the public sector. When in an insane system, it is sensible to do that which in the long run spells disaster because (at least for the individual and perhaps his descendants) it will work out profitably in the short run. I can't blame the players when the game is built in such a terrible way. It's like cursing extremist Christians in Europe while they are being hounded and threatened as the new Jews. They are doing wrong, but ultimately in order to stop it the fire must be aimed at the roots not the branches.

My original post was modded out of existence. To make it short: shit tests can backfire and maybe I just don't know what qualifies (isn't it like pretending to drown, proposing polyamory, and making the man wait sort of thing?) but pretty much everything I mentioned is an indicator that a woman is either an attention whore, manipulative, or sociopathic. I understand the purpose of it (would he save me? Is he a cuck? Does he have a spine?) but frankly I think it's better as a demonstration to other women because my inclination is to leave any relationship with a woman who would actually have me think she was going to die (drowning) or would be an enemy in my own home (giving me a hard time). The middle one might amuse me because it's easily revealable that it's a test just by the absurd nature of it. However the more real it is the more I'm inclined to assume by the behavior that it's a demonstration of a lack of empathy and a lack of care. If I am to be relied upon by a woman then I expect to rely upon the woman too. I'll pitch the tend and keep the perimeter free of bandits but she'd better patch my wounds, tend to my kitchen, and be supportive of my weaknesses otherwise I'd be better off marrying my hand. I know I can be a bit feminine (in my emotional sensitivity) and therefore I have to be careful not to misplace my emotions but I naturally can't be with a similarly sensitive and reactive woman. It's just a recipe for disaster. And if I can't implicitly trust the woman then I have no intention of letting her be intimate with me. However at the same time I realize it's probably not the best to judge what would be best for me when I'm still very young and have work to do before I'm marriageable.

Another armchair theory of mine: Establish boundaries. Assuming he's old enough to reason you ought to say something like "if you do not behave (specify what behavior you want here) I will not (provide necessary service here)" and that can mean going without breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner. I know Stefpai mentioned in a video that, in response to a mother's son who having tantrums about going to sleep by himself, at some point the parents have to put their foot down and use ostracism to punish their child because the alternative (in her case) was having a son like her brother (who literally slept like a baby with his dad until he was a full grown adult). Now, I have to repeat: I COULD BE VERY WRONG! Parenting is not something to be wrong about. However assuming your boy is old enough to reason at a basic level, he ought to figure out what behaviors will engender what responses from you based on your actions. If you appease him whenever he shouts then he'll shout. He's not old enough to be necessarily moral so you should assume he's testing his boundaries. More particularly testing you. I assume it's nothing against you; his surival brain just wants to know what works in your tribe versus what doesn't. If you give your boy rewards for tantrums you are promoting as a successful survival strategy. Of course if you see an obvious problem (like assuming you withhold food as a punishment and now he's starving) then you have to concede in order to keep your son alive. However I'm somewhat confident that your son will biologically get the signals of how to behave based on what behavior works. In fact I'd suggest giving your younger son rewards or slightly bigger shares for behaving well as a demonstration of what works to your older boy. In this way you'll probably nip your younger son's potential for tantrums in the bud. I'm sure this will lead to sibling rivalry but rivalry can be very healthy so long as there is a distinction between rivals and enemies. Rivals are generally friendly and competitive. There's definitely the importance of being brothers to teach when they're older but for now I think the best solution to tantrums is to demonstrate to your children actions have consequences. Not through spanking but rather withholding of loving acts or food or playtime. Something. However again I don't know for sure and these boys are like baby-toddler aged so my idea might be too extreme for them while it might be far more reasonable for younger to older children.