Siegfried von Walheim

Thank you very much. And I agree on principle that while I waver on the idea of debt I know that being fiscally responsible means knowing my limits (and by extension whether or not I can pay something off given my income). I'll be sure to get my hands on that book however I can. I don't know much about the man but given he's successful he obviously has credibility.

That sounds right. Ultimately the purpose of marriage is children, and I'd love to have as many as I can financially afford Sounds like an incredibly stupid and suicidal plan. "I will find my waifu by looking for a toilet!". I mean women who put out are trash by definition. Now I'm no MGTOW or whatever so I don't know what they really do but given how most of them are single I'm not sure I care about what they do given they don't have a record of success. The best way to screen for a wife is to actually pay attention to her and she if she has these two wondrous traits: empathy and reasonableness. Empathy can be detected by how she acts (like does she care if, hypothetically, she made me wait? Does she assume she's paying for her part of the dinner?) and reasonableness as well (like if we're having a real disagreement does she hyperventilate or does she think about what I'm saying and come up with a case to counter mine? And if I'm right, does she concede? And if I'm wrong does she look to see if I'll concede?). Intelligence is also extremely important but I think having the previous two plus speaking good English hints well to intelligence.

As far as Iran goes I know Stefpai is ultra-conservative as far as living values go. I had replied to you before on another post but it got modded out of existence. Basically I think we're largely in agreement about how society ought to be led by able men. Wanted to clarify that since I know my post disappeared. I know Stefpai strongly prefers the old Kingdom to the Caliphate (or whatever word they use to call their barbaric theocracy) which, as someone who's a fan of Christianity and Western values, makes perfect sense. Although Stefpai's an atheist he's practically a Christian. Also he mentioned lately it was his mother's step parents who were jews. So the man himself isn't the slightest bit Jewish (or maybe he is, like I might be because my father was raised by a single dad and he doesn't know for sure the ethnic makeup of his mother or her parents only that they're something around Lithuania, which could include Jews). I'm curious though: how do we mixed race Whites prioritize our "group" subconsciously? I'm ethnically part German, Irish, Italian (Sicilian), Welsh, and perhaps a tincture of English, Lithuanian and/or Jewish. I strongly identify as German-American and am not particularly close to the other components but I do notice I have unintended attractions to some of their features. I'm wondering how someone like me is subconsciously programmed to perceive his tribe. Does my brain naturally prefer people with this odd (and entirely Roman Catholic by the way) mix or is it mostly towards the dominant (German) elements? Also, admittedly I'm not sure how far Arabs and East Asians are relative to Whites (like I'm pretty sure Arabs are closer to us than the Japanese or their neighbors) but I find it easier to look at an East Asian and see "cousin" than an Arab whom I typically see as "enemy" or "rival", though admittedly I think that's partly affected by my cultural upbringing. I am not repulsed physically by Middle Eastern women but I do see the men as being like mortal enemies. Historically it makes sense; but genetically I'm not so sure. Aren't Arabs versus Europeans kinda like Albanians versus Serbs (proportionally speaking)? I know my background has made me very positive to East Asians (both from direct experience with the people as well as with their cultural and fun stuff) but I'd assume given a blank slate without history I'd be more inclined towards Arabs than East Asians based on the studies that indicate we have a racial preference for that which is most like us. Perhaps also in our brains is a cultural adjuster. Meaning even if I'm distant from one group I might rate them higher than another because we are of a similar culture or share a positive history. I'm sure the brain can keep track of all our mental ticks; what I wonder is how strong the ethnic one is and how it works or conflicts with culture. Like I honestly have an easier time seeing Muslim Arabs as allies against White Atheist Leftists. I reject both of them but I think Islam is slightly better than outright North-Korean-style Communism.

The article makes some fair points but also misses a few others. Note this is the musings of a 19 year old hermit who is just getting started with his lifelong career... 1: What are friends? I wouldn't use the word friend as liberally as most people. A friendship is built on common empathy and common desire. Essentially like a marriage but platonic. Like a marriage a friend is there whenever the other is struggling. Especially practically. The examples given were all of false friendships based on superficial connections rather than actual friendships. Friends are rare; if you can't confidently say you'd be willing to risk life and limb for someone then you are not their friend. You may be friendly but not their friend. 2: It is important to understand the nature of your relationships. If all you have in common is hobbies than your friendship is not just superficial but nonexistent. When the crap hits the fan you can't expect fellow shoppers to fundamentally care let alone actually do anything. If you were sick enough to be hospitalized, you ought to cross out anyone who didn't care enough to visit (or call if too busy with intense work or other tragedies) because clearly they don't care about your health. 3: Empiricism first. Actions speak louder than words. You may hear all kinds of sweet sounds but in the end that's all they are. If you injure your leg and a bro comes over to help out with physically demanding stuff then he's a true friend. If he does what he can to avoid you, you clearly made a mistake in calling him a friend. I think being pregnant is the first time many women discover who's a friend and who's not. The superficial trappings come undone. 4: If you don't have roots, you can't expect to grow branches. Until you're settled you can't expect to have friends beyond mere acquaintances and superficial get-togethers. Good people are generally busy. Busy with work, busy with family, busy finding a spouse, busy raising kids, etc. Busy people need routes to sustain most of these things. Therefore until you find the place you're willing to die in any friend you make is by pure accident. Keep in touch however you can but chances are it'll devolve into an unreliable long-distance relationship. 5: Remember, we're a tribal species. We naturally need each other and therefore seek each other's approval. This is both good and bad. Good in keeping people together but sometimes people ought not be together. You need to find comfort and friendship within yourself first, then your husband, then anyone else. If you aren't happy by yourself no one in the world will make you happy. Your husband is the best man you'll ever know (so I hope you chose well--beyond a certain point you bar yourself from good people). Your friends (and circles) are generally reflections of yourself. If you're superficial, expect superficiality. If you're deep, expect depth. You get what you project. Ultimately I think the best solution is to realize what friendship means and how to differentiate that from acquaintances and if you really want real friends, you have to plant your roots and project to the world the kind of friends you want. If you want honesty; be honest. If you want availability; be available. If you want X be X. It's work, and not something to be taken lightly. Again I'm 19 and have bad experience making friends as I learned this the hard way and through the wisdom of the internet. I have little time for anyone who isn't in it for the long haul; I am only interested in depth but I have little time to make deep connections and therefore I'm choosing to make none until I have time (which is when my financial situation is stable and I have roots). I can't do it all at once. I don't assume you can either. However I might be doing it all wrong and thinking about it all wrong. However still, I do trust my instincts as I have often been able to sense slow but oncoming disasters. Of course I can't expect a stranger to trust my instincts. SO remember: take everything I just said with a grain of salt.

"Kaiju"? As in like Godzilla? That sounds pretty cool! I love those quirky old Japanese monster movies! Posts DO get occasionally modded out of existence. I don't think it's deliberate because in my experience it's somewhat random. Like maybe certain key words, phrases, profanity, or whatever trigger a system (especially if there's a lot of it) which automatically deletes it. In your case: don't worry about it. But they're quite long so typing it up on Word and then copying it to here might be a good failsafe. I haven't done that myself and every time something gets modded out of existence I wish I did because often it really is just a matter of hitting an invisible ticker. Is there a time system? I think practically speaking whether there's aging or sense of time passing will probably just be up to the players. After all D&D is so open world even its rules can be tweaked if all players agree to it. The modding community around D&D is infinite! Of course I have no experience playing D&D just a lot of video games and writing novels (all but one of which as a child). My biggest beef is their actions contradict their alignment. Maybe. This is debatable. Namely they're literally caging people and brainwashing them. Now sure it's to make them moral but the act of making people moral invalidates any moral actions they might do. There's a reason why in Christianity God allows evil to exist; because if he actively purged it Free Will would be a joke. Unless they were literally brainwashed I'm very suspicious by the compliance of the general human populous. Man is naturally resistant to dictates--unless they come from credible or perceived moral and authoritative sources. While the elves could be like the Romans who fixed up everyone's civilization they conquered, it wasn't like the Romans were, especially by the end, treated as the recognized master race of whom to defer to. Now you could argue the Eladrin are basically a massive superpower and everything exists merely because they allow it to exist but I think that creates a whole lot of questions that will want answering. You don't necessarily have to--the players can answer them themselves in their sessions. However at the same time it invalidates the idea that the humans can be moral; how can a man be moral if he isn't allowed to be immoral and suffer the consequences? When immorality has been effectively eliminated from the gene pool there is no longer the ability to be moral (because there is no choice). You might be right. Hence my monarchist leanings. Humans know apes and wolves can form tribes and make use of each other like miniature civilizations; yet most of us don't extend moral standards to them and treat them like pests or children (especially if we're perverted). Personally I apply moral agency to everything. Therefore I don't feel bad for eating meat because almost if not all animals are immoral savages. Likewise... Well, to use "by comparison", the Elves might see us as savages for having ethnic warfare (or perhaps the opposite--what is the best way? The Eladrin essentially represent a species of supermen. Therefore they are either highly nationalistic (perhaps in the ethnic sense, perhaps only in the cultural sense) and hugely skeptical of outsiders or they're the Multikult that actually work), warfare in general (if they're supermen they might not even have war! Or they might only with other species. Like perhaps space dwarves? According to Danish myth, Dwarves and Elves are locked in eternal war). The Eladrin sound like high estrogen god-complexed villains to me. I know they're supposed to be supermen but I have a hard time seeing them as good for they rob the ability of the (comparatively) savage humans to be good on their own. As an American I reject imperialism (of other races at least. I mean imperialism to mean conquering foreign lands and trying to reshape them in our image. Colonialism I'm not against as it is perfectly okay to settle unowned land) and therefore, to make it real, reject the idea of invading or intervening into very distant and alien cultures and races and trying to "Americanize" them. To return to fiction: as a human I reject the elven attempt at trying to make us let them in accordance to their perception of being a master race. I also smell, consequently, a huge weakness among them: hubris. They may truly be the master species; but can they remain such? Their belief in that they can conquer entire worlds and remake them in their image is a lot like the English belief in colonial times that they could civilize savages and make them Christian. Likewise the Eladrin's world-domination will inevitably backlash onto them. Maybe even the same way modern England is being guilted to death (although not necessarily saying they're going to lose in the long run. Like England's case it could just be a kick in the balls and after the pain sobers them up they might get the message that trying to radically change the world can be evil. As is said: The path to Hell is paved with good intentions). NOTE: The fact they wish to live on Earth makes them colonists by default. Conquest in many ways equals taking land from others without their consent. By force. Who asked the Eladrins for their help? They may not have encountered much resistance but they are not in the right, if we are to continue claiming colonialism and imperialism is immoral. Using magic against people (and children especially) is EVEN WORSE than paddling! That's literally brainwashing! It may work but again it robs Free Will and by extension the ability to be moral. The Eladrin are essentially North Koreans. I don't like using Paris as the capital of Western Civilization (effectively) but that's a minor complaint as someone who is very much in favor of the capital being from his ancestral fatherland. No biggie. However if the Eladrin meddle in human affairs this much, it is pretty much a recreation of 1984 but with ideal outcomes. Like if Communism actually worked. I mean this in the sense that the Eladrin essentially are to humans what humans are to play-dough: controllers and manipulators. If the Eladrin were real I'd be the first to take up arms against them. I think it'd be far more interesting, world wise, if humanity reinvented itself and made its own leaps forward upon suffering such horrific consequences and then the Elves came to visit and trade after that. Morally it takes the Elves out of the North Korean category of totalitarian and into what Stefpai suggested aliens might do (invade with shopping malls!). I think Mass Effect 1 actually did a good job with how humanity might leap forward (though obviously they copped out on a lot since they assumed humanity would remain in its 21st century mindset for the next few centuries) and compete/contest with other species. Legend of the Galactic Heroes does even better since they actually wrote about how humanity fell and rose back up (and it wasn't pretty by any stretch) and eventually colonized the galaxy. P.S. I shrank your text because I know if we directly reply to each other using quotes it'll get really big really quickly.

No, it is subtly far more complicated because who will be controlling the flow of goods? Who will manage it? Who will say when enough's enough? The monetary system is dead simple: you work, you get a medium, you use medium to pay bills, food, and save the rest for an emergency and maybe reward yourself if you have enough. RBE requires so many checks and balances to be even functional that it is essentially Communism under a different name. Controlling the flow of goods is as much a means of controlling people as the controlling of money, perhaps even more so since historically when mediums of exchange were short (for whatever reason) goods were paid to retainers in order to act out the controller's wishes. Sometimes retainers would revolt and seize the goods and become warlords in this manner. Point is RBE is a recipe for disaster. A (bad) return to feudalism. A regression at best. The Central Banking system is definitely rife with abuse. It funds wars and government abuse. At least we aren't divided like Sengoku Era Japan where those with resources paid their retainers with resources in exchange for defense/offense, with it all coming to an end once a (relatively) centralized system of economy was established via the Tokugawa. It is pretty much impossible to escape abuse of a system; what's possible is mitigating it to the point where it's either no big deal (like before the Federal Reserve) or practically bearable (like now--that is bearable because we're not fighting a civil war or living under a totalitarian regime. Not great, but paradise to anyone older than 150).

You may be right. The main reason why I'm not studying it much is because I'm still hanging around the poverty line. I'm in no position to buy a house and the idea of putting a debt to my name when my source of income is in flux doesn't sound like a good idea. Obviously I don't want to stay in this position (FYI I have to mention my real first name is actually your's spelled differently so...coincidence? I think not!) and I'm doing what I know in my field as a writer to get out of it. Ideally my plan is to move out to somewhere Midwest. According to some site the average price of housing in Idaho (I come from Philadelphia) is a few hundred thousand dollars. Quite a lot but compared to half a million or a full million it doesn't sound like so much suddenly. I am considering renting rather than owning based on much I'd be paying in the long run and whether or not I can safely say I'd be willing to die there. If I'm not willing to die at a given location, renting makes far more sense. To be clear the point of getting past the point where interest is eating most of the money put into paying mortage is concerned is that it basically takes away from my total value (whereas, presumably, if all of it went to mortage I'm not "losing" any money because I could get it back selling my house. Basically, if I understand it, the idea is that paying interest is basically the equivalent of burning money versus transforming it into something physical or valuable I could convert back to cash or to material or something else). I am currently 19 (and a month from 20) and I made the educated decision not to burden myself with useless and parasitic debts after I learned about the college mess a couple years ago. How sound is my general plan? Basically I want to do what I can to make myself a middle-class income (annual net of $50,000 per year) by the time I'm 25 so I can then move to the Midwest. If I accomplish my goal sooner then great, and if I'm doing well enough to move sooner, also great. Based on what you know, how does this sound?

Guess how often I hear of women claiming they like to be owned? Even just metaphorically and not literally, it's still a rare thing for a 3D woman to say. So basically a functional voluntary system in which everyone benefits by everyone doing what they do best? Man takes care of the bills and ensures there's stuff, Woman turns the stuff into edibles and usefuls for both the Man and Kids, and the Kids get wisdom and stuff in exchange for being adorable and fun. Every now and then I assume Man and Woman give each other a break in the event of sickness or tragedy or whatnot. A Man needs a solid stick to stand straight and beat up barbarians with; a Woman needs a solid stick to stand up straight and use like a shepherd's staff to teach kids stuff. Is it safe to say you're proud to be your husband's wife? Like you feel a sense of womanly pride that your husband is your's? I figure a decent woman would take pride in getting the best man she can get. Therefore if you love your husband and respect him it makes sense to feel pride in being his wife because the fact you're his wife means you are considered equal to him enough that he'd marry you and not someone else. Plus I imagine on the more day-to-day stuff it's probably easier to focus on what you're good at rather than try to be a Jane of all trades. Like it's easier to let him handle money, people, work, and leadership so you can handle maintenance, the children, cooking, and ensuring your husband feels good when he's at home. I didn't include sex because ideally you're both enjoying it so it's something you both get. Meaning I can't say you have that to offer him because he has to offer you; they cancel each other out. So I assume you, being wiser than most sadly (sad in that most women I think assume their sexuality is special and not a two-way street), realize in order for him to be satisfied you have to be a real housewife and not just a toilet or a nag. I'm almost 20, and honestly I'm feeling old because I want to move up to the middle class by 25 so I can finally start looking for a good woman and make lots of babies with her in a nice Midwestern town. How the heck did he find you? Do you/did you have a lot of friends that think like you? I hate to say "all/most women" this or that but I think based on my experience and the numerous anecdotes of others that many women are insanely delusional about their own self-worth and the worth of men. If you come from some real trad city where women are actually intelligent and understand how biology and society works, I'd like to immigrate there.

Simple. It's much easier to exchange a medium than a shit load of apples for a TV (assuming the TV guy even wants apples!). That's my argument for a medium against bartering. The main problem with the Peter Joseph Resource Based Economy is that it's literally techno-communism. Whoever controls the machines controls everything. Without a price mechanism to indicate supply and demand people will abuse it (or overuse it unwittingly) and the result will be mass shortages in some areas, too much in others, and eventually a return to the stone age. Such systems can only be sustained via theft of some sort or another because they are inherently unsustainable and unnatural. Capitalism is not only the most efficient system but the most moral one. All exchanges are by definition win-win so long as no force nor fraud is involved. The result is everyone becoming wealthier thanks to everyone else's participation as an economy. Freedom has a funny way of saving lives and making everyone's life (even the deadbeat's) easier and more enjoyable. Of course freedom comes with responsibility and most bad people don't want that.

Funny thing is I thought most of this was obvious. If I'm looking for a whore can I really be surprised that I can't find a housewife? If I'm looking for a housewife aren't I retarded for basing my decision making on whether she's easy to screw while simultaneously worshiping men? If that's not a recipe for repeated disaster I don't know what is. I don't mind a woman with a high sex drive; I mind a woman that puts out and can't wait till marriage.

Yep. Bro you're White-knighting big league. This kind of thinking just defeats the purpose of being a Right-winger because it proposes the Left-wing solution of trying to cover for everyone's mistakes rather than let them grow a pair by suffering the consequences and/or being examples for others to learn from.

China: the country where Christians are regularly being persecuted, murdered, and humiliated and ironically the fastest growing place for Christians. And a bishop dares call this the "best implementer of Catholic social doctrine". Whoever that bishop is needs to be dragged out and shot immediately because he very clearly is anti-Christian and perhaps also insanely corrupt. An inquisition has to be launched immediately against the various tiers of the Roman Catholic Church to stamp out such corrupt heathens.

As am I, in part. True. But dumb people are even more likely to overestimate their own capabilities. And as Jordan Peterson mentions most smart people are highly specialized. If I wasn't a writer I'd be useless. And therefore it is of course a healthy reminder that if it weren't for farmers, teamsters, businessmen, and builders I simply wouldn't be able to write in a city. However compared to them in my given area of expertise I am most likely superior to them. And while I myself may be highly specialized I can't say that's true of all writers. Heck some of the best were quite versatile and some were even warlords. Regardless stating everyone is equal is definitely not true and also very different from "smart people tend to overestimate themselves and undercount lesser people". Which is also true as I have known many smart people and by God can they come up with BS to justify their superiority over the dumb (without directly stating it) while simultaneously covering for the fact they can't do anything the dumb can ("I'm a math major!!"). However still people smarter than them I'd assume are more likely to be self-aware and wise and those people are most definitely superior over all for both their potential (or realized) contributions to society as well as their potential or realized ability to lead and shape others. The Shepherd may not be able to survive without his sheep yet by virtue of his position I think it's safe to to say he's superior to the sheep. Sure but can a tribe exist of semi-monarchistic AnCap Classical Liberal somewhat-White Nationalist Roman Catholic anti-Feminism anti-MGTOW anti-White Knight pro-life New Right aristocracy-inclined ever-evolving-with-new-information types? I have only met some of these but not all of them together. I sometimes wonder if I am "too individual" because if I meet any of these groups I find an irreconcililable different. AnCaps tend to live in Ivory Towers. Classical Liberals tend to be Civic Nationalists. White Nationalists tend to be anti-Semitic Socialists. Roman Catholics tend to be very mixed. Anti-Feminism tends to also very vague and tend to be MGTOW. Anti-MGTOWs tend to be White Knights. anti-White Knights tend to be MGToW. Anti-Baby-Killer is also vague. New Right is only another word for "alt-Light" but is better for focusing in on Stefpai and Petersen. Yet a self-identified member named Gavin McInnes openly states the West's history is more than just White people and yearns for the chaotic times of the 80's (which is not only anti-Trad but anti-West in the long run--Although I haven't seen much of Gavin beyond this so I don't know much about him or have a strong opinion). Other New Right tend to look at South Africa and want to coddle the blacks there rather than the victims of perpetual ethnic cleansing. So New Right is definitely not my camp though arguably closest to it though its leadership is divided enough that I can't call it a movement beyond its common anti-Far-Left and anti-Totalitarian position. And finally most people who have a thing for aristocracies are either fascists or socialists or something else self-destructive. As a result I tend to see myself as a tribe of one. Especially since I can't be sure my political opinions won't change given the constant flood of new information. I identify with the Right in general because I am Christian, anti-Republic/Democracy, a monarchist, and a huge Free Marketer. However I'm prone to change in most of these and also these alone is limiting enough to shrink any potential tribesmen I might have from half the country to maybe a few hundred thousand or less. Most of which being useless intellectuals like myself (whose only value is in entertaining people through words and texts. Otherwise we could never enact or really live our own ideals beyond our niche).

Explain. How does being objectively closer to the truth and wiser not make us superior to the "common populace"? How does being measurably superior not make us superior at the same time? While we must be humble we must not be falsely humble. Humility means recognizing our strengths and weaknesses as well as those of others. Therefore presuming everyone is equal (because if there is no superior than there is no inferior and therefore everyone is either the same or cumulatively the same--i.e. guy A may be a genius but he's physically handicapped but guy B is athletic but mentally retarded and there is no one who is both an athletic genius or a crippled retard) is false humility which does not promote self-growth (both in terms of skills and personality) but rather conformity to the lesser man and whomever claims to represent him. I haven't yet. I wonder if I'm a tribe of one and will always be. Perhaps that's how it's supposed to be. I don't know. My therapist told me smart people and individuals ought not consider themselves a part of any tribe because that's not only a lower kind of people but also a potential weakness for exploitation by others.

I mentioned this question over at Reddit (Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7wne5z/humans_raised_by_elves/ )and got some feedback about how humans raised by elves would consider their own upbringing, and they run the gamut from positive to outright antagonistic. While the reality of the human's response to their benefactors will indeed be ranged, I think that the Eladrin would do the best they can to ensure that their human charges have some variant of a stable child-bringing. They would, of course, have a softer technique in parenting. They'd, of course, wouldn't even think of using the paddle. (They'd only have to read the Bible through once to figure out that the Rod is a Shepherd's Crook, not a Singapore Cane) However, they'll have their own questionable practices, such as the use of Enchantment spells (such as Calm Emotions as an example.) to guide their children into more proper thinking. Sometimes this shortcut is necessary. ("Yeah yeah, I know that putting thoughts in that kid's not an argument, but how else am I going to get him to speak and read fluent Elvish within a week? I have to get them to speak our language if we're going to teach them, right?") In my stance, I'm thinking that the Eladrin would do the best to raise their charges and even share parts of their fey culture to their foster children. This will have an effect in the adventuring outfits the adventurers would wear, even to the point of having team uniforms that resemble some Anime shows. They'd also have some traits listed in the quoted paragraph, where their aggressive natures are channeled into more productive endeavors and be more sensitive toward the world around them. (And of course, the most common lesson that an Elf can teach a Human: "I know your life is painfully short compared to mine, my friend, but there's something to be said of slowing down from your breakneck pace and taking in life every now and then. Stop and smell the roses, as the saying goes, it's good for you.") Of course, I'm just brain farting here, tossing ideas up here to see what sticks and what bounces away. If you have anything to add, I'm happy to hear it. Your input might help my good idea improve on its way to a published book. Adding on to my above response.... I think the Elves are fundamentally a superior species but nonetheless a different species. Elf x Human is really like Human x Monkey. It ought to be seen that way as well, although from the human side it might be "preferred" since elves are truly a super-evolved humanity. One fiction I came up with is that humans are result of Elf x Dwarf pairings and their eventual miscegenation led to the rise of humanity (which is fundamentally a marriage of the best and worst qualities of Elves and Dwarves). But this fiction isn't well-developed and meant only to serve as a myth for another fiction (i.e. an "origin myth"). You're assuming Elves in this world would be like liberal humans minus socialism. You have to think of them as "better humans" and that means essentially having everything we currently lack (and perhaps a perspective that naturally makes them disdainful of us). I would assume like "better humans" they have the average IQ of around 120, stand at least a foot taller, are generally attractive, are generally athletic, and at the same time are generally more manly and womanly than we are as well as more K-selected. And from here there's fun part of creating weaknesses (or perceived weaknesses) that result from this. For example elven commoners might generally see humans as barbarians to be educated but not "let in the house" similar to the English perception of Indians and Africans. I should think elves if they are so interested in the Earth would want to colonize it. I think America or some other place that's not being inhabited by the main humans of the main setting would be sensible since they would probably be in the market for a piece of land that's the biggest bang for its buck and also have the least hostile locals (or at least locals they can easily throw out). Of course if we're going down this route there has to be ethnic and special conflicts that result from it. I mean chances are most humans aren't keen on being ruled by extraterrestrial overlords who see them as little more than dogs or monkeys. And on the other hand I'm sure there would be elves who, in a somewhat patronizing way, see humans as a "protected class" that "needs guidance" similar to Leftist Whites and Jews with Black people. Of course that's if you want to go down the route of elves being colonizers of the Earth, which I think inherently results in conflicts just because we have a superior species coming into an inferior species' land and ordering them on how to live and behave. While I'm sure, like those conquered by Ancient Rome, many will happily accept the enlightened foreigners' rule many others will want for independence. And among the latter there will be people who range from out-right xenophobes who want to exterminate the "invaders" (and may have just cause depending on how you write the history. If the Elves were generally kind then this xenophobia is blown out of proportion but if the relationship was less kind...) to those who simply, like the Meiji Japanese, want to get along with the Elves and learn from them without being dominated and/or owned by them. Also note the humans: I don't think it makes sense to have many modern-like humans simply because chances are they'd have been killed, resulting in only the most redpilled and perhaps cold of humans surviving. While Elven patronage would certainly elevate them like the Christians to the pagans or the Romans to the European barbarians, they would still remain as they are. If I were writing this I'd envision the gender/racial/cultural time period to be more akin to the 16th century than the present time. Which means race and gender aren't really "an issue" compared to religion and cultural values while ethnic relations are somewhat foggy as they may be "gerrymandered" and the people living on the black lines might be on the fence as to whether they belong to this group or that group. Also I'd imagine given the general homogeneity of such a world modern issues of continent-based race would be largely inconceivable as culture would be of far greater concern. Like the Bavarians of this fiction might really not like the patronizing matter of the Republican English and the Republican English might see the monarchical continentals as "enslaved" similar to how the "Free Greeks" saw the Ancient Persians. The semi-anarchist Greeks saw the monarchist Persians as a "race of slaves" to be freed and liberated. I would imagine similar thoughts would permeate the minds of the various Europeans and perhaps be a cause for conflict (as the path to Hell is paved with good intentions...).

Here's the golden question: why is the UDHR the true way as compared to say, Islam? It is rather difficult to objectively define what is moral without resorting to pragmatism. I.e. murder is wrong (besides because definition) because we fear being murdered. What murder is relative to killing becomes gray since murder=Immoral killing. What is "immoral killing" versus "allowed killing"? Practically speaking "immoral killing" is basically violating the NAP while "allowed killing" is self-defense. However I have not been able to give an objective measure for what is right or wrong beyond what is practical towards achieving my societal ideal of the Peaceful Parented NAP Roman Catholic AnCapitstan. Or its next best thing the genius/20% aristocracy over the masses. Perhaps morality is only morality if it is being compared to an ideal. I don't know. The best I can come up with beyond that is essentially whether or not I could justify it to God or my conscience. However if I was an atheist and lacked a conscience, why not do away with morality and use it to bind others for my own supremacy? I don't like to refer to "this text is moral" because unless it has an objective proof for it, it is essentially no different than "because God said so" but at least "God", real or not, has come the closest to getting to what's true than any known mortal. Therefore I am inclined to take "because God said so" quite seriously even though I am not sure he exists.

According to the Wisemen this was foretold by the disastrous interventionism and "quantitate easing" (into the anus I imagine) of the Obama Administration. Since I expect our anuses aren't quite penetrated enough to really constitute a "withdrawal" from the Statist cocaine, chances are things will get worse before they get better. The President might cuck up the economy for a few years to ensure his re-election and perhaps to kick the can to whoever comes after him. Especially if that person is a Democrat. Personally since my income is derived from people who are readers having expendable income this isn't a big deal. However those who work for others, especially in the labor and business entrepreneurial world, will most likely have . a hard time so I'd recommend investing in whatever's good now to protect against inflations and crashes.

What's the point? Pseudo-science has been endemic since the dawn of time. At least it isn't the Miasma Theory or the All Men Are Equal Theory. Is the trueness or falseness of evolution really that big of a deal? Is there something I'm missing or is this like a fun thing to debate for you?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! +1-million While I am not yet wealthy enough to even get a loan to own a house, that part of my life isn't too far off. If I hadn't heard this video I might have gotten sucked up into the "we all do it" cult of stupid self-enslavement. I don't intend on doing much studying on the best way to finance my future house until I both have the money and the location (I don't intend to die in my current city that's for sure) but I definitely thank you in advance for potentially saving me decades of my and my future children's lives.

When I was in the 8th grade my (apparently "19th century anarchist") history and literary teacher had me take an IQ test twice. The first one I basically broke (it went up to 120 on its 3 measures and I beat them) and the second accounted for me an IQ of 144. Which I call 145 to round it up 1. Basically my brain penis is nice and thick to compensate for my actual penis. All good, I'd say.

The fun part. Perhaps you should if you want to make UPB a practically applicable thing. But I am apparently quite rare in that I usually project myself into my player-characters and try to act as natural to myself as possible. Also familial dynamics and the long-term dynasty-building are also huge areas of interest for me. I know these kinds of table-top games are open ended, but I'd think having a sort of "age system" and "inheritance system" would result in a vastly different kind of game in which long-term survival and reproduction become of central importance alongside whatever self-chosen or outwardly-imposed goal the P.C. (I'll use that to abriviate "player character" in this case) has. I'd presume either they were farmed like domestic animals or regulated. In either case there can be wildly different outcomes. Either due to being "bred" they become dependent like animals on their extra-special (the adjective to species I mean) masters or, assuming the outlanders are a truly superior species, into a form of what we'd consider "superhumans". In the latter case however I'd assume it'd work as well as English colonialism worked for the Third World. Only minor improvements in the long run, otherwise the cultures/genes remain largely the same as before. Given how many ways a world can fall, I'd argue you should leave it as vague and interpretive as possible. Personally I suspect the most likely worst case scenario is neither 1984 nor Brave New World but rather a repeat of the Fall of the Roman Empire and the return of the Dark Age. But then I suppose it doesn't matter if humanity was essentially nuked into smallness. Anyway can conceivably get it. I'd focus around Denmark simply because it has the most geographical variance and lots fo water (and therefore micro-continents) but that's just my preference. I think this is a cool idea but I'd try not to rename too many things. Not only to avoid confusion but also because realistically most modern cities and countries have their names dating back to the Paleolithic age (whatever that means--science is not my forte) so I'd assume "France" and "Germany" would still exist even if in the sense of being "continents" rather than "countries". America's not a bad idea to me simply because, if you want to have realistic diversity, almost every race in existence lives on some square inch of America. Whereas I'm sure Europe will eventually go full-Nazi even if they don't initially intend to. You can only poke the bear so many times before it goes berserk. Plus it conforms, in this fiction, to being a potential reason for the global reset. I like this idea. I'll talk more about the institutions at the bottom. Basically we're on the same page, though I'm sure given we're strangers we may differ on how to get things done politically and what's more likely to happen in XYZ scenarios. Though since I consider the "Far Right" to be ultimately anarchist (in the Stefanist sense) and the "Far Left" to be ultimately authoritarian (in both the Communistic and the Fascistic sense), and since many historical Rightist movements were on the side of Capitalism, Classical Liberalism (minus republicanism), property rights (to the point of aristocracies), etc. I think it's safe to say we're Rightists. What's "the wilderness" exactly? Also as a history lover, I'd want you to be scarce with your mentions of Kings and to provide some sort of legitimacy. After all we White folks never kept a ruler we didn't consider legitimate and in general legitimacy meant some combination of popularity, papal endorsement, endorsement by other legitimate rulers, and merit. For example let's say the alien-elves anointed an Emperor in (to keep it Western European) Amsterdam or Brussels to act as the world-ruler restrained by, I'd assume like in history, a local aristocracy, a clergy (whether Christianity or something else---though personally I'd want to see Christianity pop in somewhere given how central it is to European civilizations and just how ingrained it is in our fiber), and of course local unions (like thanes and guilds and various associations). By extension perhaps every "race" (think French, Dutch, German, English, etc.) is ruled by a "King" and every "sub-race" (think Walloon, Neustrasian, Prussian, Bavarian, etc.) is ruled by a "Prince" (or if you want to retain that for the "big ones" then "Duke" and you can effectively have the "Dukes"=Small, "Archdukes"=Medium, and Grand Dukes=Big), and every sub-region is ruled by an Earl or Marquis, and below them a Count and the bottom every landowner both knighted and not. Of course if you want more than effectively one spider-web system then you can implement a republic as well. Perhaps in England (as they've always been close in spirit to it) or the Netherlands (and move the Imperial Court to Aachen or Geneva). I'm also curious how you'd portray them. Like how realistic do you want to be and what do you think would be "realistic" given the conditions? Like if a superior species really radically reformed humanity then I'd imagine this hypothetical "empire" to be pretty much a utopia where badness of any kind is rare. This might take away from potential villains and conflicts though. Of course I'm assuming the Elves here are actually quite good at being parents and perhaps even genetically enhanced the humans, and in particular these Europeans. In which case what we think when we say "government" wouldn't apply here. If anything the "governments" here would be no different from organized charities and the real "power" would be devolved amongst landowners (hence an aristocracy to represent and protect them). As something of a monarchist (or whatever word might apply to a wanter of a land-based aristocracy) I am deeply interested in this side of the discussion. EDIT: I shrank your text boxes to make these responses appear shorter. I'd appreciate if you did the same in responding to me since I expect the page to get pretty cluttered otherwise.

The biggest problem is that women will never grow up if they are allowed to be children forever, and that means the men they raise will suffer accordingly. Women used to be womanly just over a hundred years ago before Feminism sparked what oil there must have been from prior misdeeds and in so doing set ablaze Western Civilization. White Sharia's biggest weakness is that it becomes no different from Islam in the long run. And I'd rather see the White races die from this Earth than become inbred amoral savages. Better to die as a lion than live on as a rabbit; better to be the only Christian in Communist China than one of many sheeple hailing the "great" communist agenda. Better to be the only man among boys than to succumb to hedonism and let ourselves be dominated by outsiders. So and so forth. The point is that White Sharia essentially destroys that which makes the White man White in the first place; his moral character, his sense of agency, his love of liberty and the responsibilities inherent, and his sense of justice and guilt. Without these things I don't give a damn about the future of Western Civilization because fundamentally it won't just be dead the Earth itself will be salted like Carthage by Rome. Now I do agree women ought not to be leaders of society--so few are capable and there is nothing worse than promoting incompetence and stunting competence (which I know is an exaggeration but in the long run it leads to the truly worst things)--however they must be allowed to grow up. In the current system most women are forever children and can continue to be children for their basic survival needs are guaranteed. This is true for men to a lesser degree as well but this topic is about women and I think Jordan Petersen and the Great Stefpai do plenty to explain the infantilization of men and the subsequent problems. I think the best way forward is to abolish the welfare state and let bad women suffer and let good women prosper. In the long run the fence-sitting women will act good and the good women will dominate as they used to. Same for men. For now I recommend doing what ought to be obvious: focus on ourselves, i.e. wealth and character, and eventually find a good woman in a good town and settle down and raise the heroes of the next generation. One great woman can raise a dozen great men if she's capable enough. At least 2 is greater than most. And I firmly believe that by demonstration and moral uprightness we can win the culture wars and eventually throw out Leftism for all eternity. So what do you think @Fashus Maximus ? I may have misunderstood you so I'd appreciate your wisdom on the matter. However I do think in the long term embracing White Sharia in the West will be like defeating the National Socialists in Germany only to import their brain cousins in England and America.

As a novelist I strongly recommend going into piano playing even if you think it isn't really much in terms of political effect. The least you'll do is stimulate the ears and minds of those brave crusaders for truth and that's far more than most. Don't sell yourself short. Of course FYI I love honest bragging (i.e. it's not really bragging because it's true!) so don't be afraid to sell yourself highly as well. In my case I'm a ways to go but I think I'm making great progress. Especially for a 19 year old competing with Generation Z-ers who are blowing their future incomes away at College or in the hookah den.

CAN A BROTHER GET A "FREE WILL; ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES" IN HERE???!!! Which is to say, Hollywood could only exploit that which was vulnerable; they could only set fire thanks to the oil known as "bad men/women wanting a justification for being bad with no/minimal consequences". I've grown up in a Multikult yet I am as far from the Left as can be imagined. Clearly my independent Free Will trumps whatever conditioning may be in the wind. I only respect people who actualize their free will in spite of the culture, not those people who like children coast on the culture and simply act as they are told.

I don't know a lot about D&D and my closest experience is with video games inspired by D&D, I still think I can give a few ideas. Let me know if they help. 1: Backgrounds. I don't think peaceful parenting should be a "plus" anything; rather no negatives. Instead I think bad childhoods ought to carry minuses (except maybe in some cases like being a nomad of some sort would most likely make one more observant and therefore a better survivalist however this is compensated with a subtraction to charisma (lacking the same people skills as the PP guy) and maybe intelligence (if he was roughed up a lot, he ought to lose some IQ. I think 1 point (out of 10) is enough). On the other hand I think really good childhoods ought to be a sort of "easy mode", unless they have flaws. Like if someone was practically bubble-wrapped then they ought to be mentally and physically weaker. Of course that's not really a good childhood but probably better than say a warzone or abusive tribe. 2: World. I think depending on what you're going for, this can be pretty varied. If it's Fallout style then it depends on "how" the world ended; if it's by nukes then a few centuries in the future is enough. If it's by civilizational degeneration then I suggest a thousand years or so, as a way of giving enough "empty space" for players to imagine what happened and therefore come up with a reasonable explanation for say the return of Dark Age medievalism. The weakness of a few centuries is that chances are SOME people will remember "the good times" and SOME fragments/remains will be poignant enough to require accounting for. In short, the extremely distant future makes for a good clean slate. Anything can happen in 1-2,000 years. Whether it be immediately after the world's end, within a few centuries (rebuilding), or a few millennia (rebuilt but perhaps not for the better or a mixed bag), I suggest being creative in the creation of countries, nations, ethnicities (especially perceived ethnic groups), etc. since I'm sure if America implodes it would be totally different geo-politically 1000 years from now. Even if isolated from the rest of the world. I'd use 48 independent states as a baseline and create fictional ethnic groups based around the states. Perhaps name them after their old Indian names. Like the "Deleware Ethnic Group" could be a sub-division and culture of Whites while the "Lower Michiganers" could be a sub-division and culture of Blacks. And the more time you have the more diverse you can make them. Like hypothetically in a thousand years a hypothetical black ethnic group could be as smart or smarter than Whites or Orientals. Likewise the opposite. Of course genes are important to factor in but the more time you put between the present and the fiction, the more creative freedom you have. 3: Themes. I don't think, if you're a red-pilled Libertarian, AnCap, Nationalist, Classical Liberal, or whatever, that this is too hard. Base it on real cause and effect. Fictional countries that are heavily promiscuous shouldn't be doing well unless it's a recent trend, in which case they ought to be on the decline. Keep the fiction real (so to speak) and I think it becomes more believable, educational, and most of all interesting. Beyond all this I think it depends on your intent for these 3 above factors. If you've got a world in which medievalism has returned and America is essentially like Ancient China (a bunch of feuding states sharing a similar language but vastly differing cultures and beliefs with a central leader who is supposedly the supreme ruler) then I'd have different things to say if it's basically an echo of the present but in different costumes.