Siegfried von Walheim

As a Philadelphian raised by a single mom since the age of 5, I am definitely feeling the weight of this presentation. I am sure I have higher than normal cortisol since I know my emotions are easily swayed and not easily controlled without me actively trying to reign them in. I'm sure my testosterone is higher than my peers, but I doubt so high as the men that came generations before me. What can I do to help myself? Is the solution chemical or practical? For now I'm just making sure I'm being productive so I can eventually escape this Leftist cesspit.

Actually it's perfectly rational. It's much easier to submit than lead. I strongly prefer women who can lead when and where I cannot, but a woman who is honest about her desire to submit rather than lead is superior to one who wants to lead or thinks she can lead but cannot or will not I'm curious: What exactly is the dynamic of your marriage? My mental image is a cross between a TV-depicted pre-Feminism America and 16th century Japan. I.e., you take care of the house and make sure your man's ready to take on the world and do his work while at the same time maintaining a relationship somewhat akin to a father and young daughter rather than a man and adult wife. I don't want to mischaracterize you; but when I imagine "putting me in my place" I imagine a less than equal relationship as far as level of maturity and wisdom goes. Is he much older than you? Or are you roughly the same age but you prefer to be "owned"? Also does this apply towards mental capacities and maturity? Like are you basically a child in an adult body or are you perfectly mature but simply enjoy deferring to him? I know my questions don't sound sincere but I want to assure you I am genuinely curious. Very rarely does any woman openly state a preference for being told what to do.

The most obvious logical gap is "how does zooming out from the here and now suddenly make every eternal (and why do you spell it the obsolete way)?" and "how does something that change by definition not also eternal? What do you mean by 'eternal'? Theoretically if someone lived forever they would by definition be 'eternal' but they could also change." Therefore if something can be both eternal and changing, then the fact the world is ever-changing cannot be used as evidence nor proof of a creator. Though frankly I don't give a damn as to the origin of the universe because "muh finite universe" and "muh eternal universe" is not an argument against Christianity, morality, or anything of real substance.

Well technically it's not making us smarter rather it's filtering out the dummies while simultaneously genetically elevating the average black IQ. I guess it's theoretically possible in the long run for American blacks to be mixed out of existence since they are numerically still only a fifth our numbers, however this assumes most blacks want to have children with whites and therefore by extension want to undergo a "soft extinction". While this may be true of smart blacks that want to get out of their racial community (similar to how some whites want to marry East Asians to get out of their own racial community) this still has largely minimal affects on the demographics. Race-mixing is only significant if more than 1-5% of the population does it (and has children through it) and in the case of blacks they are only elevated if more than 60-70% of them do it. On the white side, assuming it's largely low IQ whites who mix down, it doesn't do much for us beyond "filter out" the low IQ whites from the gene pool and "whiten" the American blacks--which has statistically thus far made them "super-blacks" relative to the retard-level-IQ of African blakcs----So there is some validity to the theory that if race mixing becomes increasingly prevalent it will work out more for the better than the worse because higher IQ and more K-selected genes will statistically dominate the lower IQ and r-selected genes. However I wouldn't apply this to Islam since while their IQs may rise on average (assuming race mixing takes place for a significant amount of time in Europe--I expect crap to hit the fan, for better and worse, and all kinds of things to happen before this has a chance to be statistically significant) they largely retain their totalitarian cult-like religion. Only Russian Muslims (the Tartars) can be expected to be, on average, the "good Muslims" because they are mostly from a special sect of Islam that basically follows the "don't poke the bear" policy in regards to ethnic Russians and the Christians and as a result are far less radical on average and far more amicable. Also they have their own "ethnostate": Tatarstan, based around Kazan and the historical Kazan Khanate.

I don't like the push towards government interference in infrastructure or the continuation of the endless-war either, however there can be no country without in group preference (nationalism) and since protectionism is the default position it's not something that can be easily receded (though I am no policy expert, I think it makes sense to lessen protectionism in regards to friendly countries willing to do the same). The Left can never be an ally of the Right (the libertarian Right especially). They crave power and their useful idiots bark on command. I'd sooner support a neocon bent on world domination then a Socialist. At least the "colonial empires" fall bloodlessly and largely at no cost to the ruling population; the "Reichs" however stop at nothing in their own self-destruction and the Left, if allowed to succeed in even the tiniest spots, will happily have our necks choked up by a noose. Practically speaking there is no alternative to the Trump-Republican Party, as only the Trump way can lead to a prosperous, stable, and orderly nation. And only a prosperous, stable, and orderly nation can lead to a free society. Without strong borders and the expulsion of aliens and parasites, the welfare-warfare state will be the death of us all (or at least a Soviet Union-style half-century prison that its inhabitants will have to outlive if they want to see the brighter post-2000-Russia-style nation-state again). ' Again, I have a lot of criticisms against Trump but the good he brings (and may bring) strongly outweighs that of the alternatives. And also, I would never ally myself with a snake no matter how desperate. The Left is the enemy of humanity and must never be seen as anything other than such, otherwise we see what we're currently seeing in modern America and Chile; a reversal of all the free market policies from the now-distant past and the return of the rope that we once cut ourselves free from.

I think the lesson he's trying to tell you is that if you accept the premise that most women lack agency then you'd start, at least subconsciously, to rob agency from yourself, your future daughters-in-law, and any future daughters you might have. Choosing to do nothing and/or live in the moment is still a choice. I had a rough background and could, if I was so inclined, repeat the Millennials (apparently I'm too young to be one--I'm "Generation Z"!) and check out on living life to the fullest. Instead I strive to actually be someone I'd respect enough to open the door for, salute, and perhaps best of all be the guy I'd shine the shoes of. I mean, as a man, I dig the idea of being so great that other men become like children to me! I take away the frustration by disconnecting from them (as much as practically possible) and focusing on the 20% that are statistically responsible for 80% of the good in the world and strive to be worthy of the top 1 or decimal point percent. Same for me with most guys. I might like the same video games as John or have the same beliefs as Johan or the same disposition as Jonathan, but if they don't have that "inner voice" or "self-control" that makes them exceptional and potentially great people, I just lose interest. As a man I think it's a lot easier for me to be a hermit. Fundamentally all I care about, as far as people go, is finding a wife, impregnating her until her plumbing breaks, and raising the wonderful children so that they can outdo me in every way conceivable. My wildest dream is to be the grandfather of the American Emperor, whether that be literally or figuratively, I do have the biggest dreams for my descendants and want to facilitate any and all kinds of meritorious and virtuous success they may be inclined to grow in. So long as I put in the work and use my mind, I am confident in my success. The key is actually doing it, and I think my biggest weakness is hesitation and fear of failure. However I know the cure to these things is experience and the confidence that comes from having actually done something worth bragging about. Yep. When I was younger (and far less wise) I thought I was born in the wrong time period. I thought I ought to be riding horses and commanding lesser men to battle and conquering the world. Or at least a small part of it, and defending it from barbarians. While I'm sure my environment played a role in this fantastical urge, I think biology is also a factor. I have always seen the "greatest version of myself" as a self-made nobleman with a wife, a few mistresses, and a dozen or so children with a massive palace and almost in spite of it all a level of self-discipline and wisdom to rival the most dedicated of monks and scholars. Now I don't actually expect to become a nobleman or be so great a man multiple women of similar quality would effectively marry me nor do I expect to be able to raise a dozen or so children let alone afford a palace and simultaneously the time to study history and become like a philosopher-king of sorts. I do however think I can become a very successful patriarch and family man. And that's satisfying enough an outcome for me, and I'd like to remembered after death as a "benevolent patriarch" and a "wiseman". My point about what I said some paragraphs up though is that I find myself far happier when I don't dwell on the little people and instead think about (and pursue) the big people: the people who live to their fullest potential as human beings and inspire others to do the same. The men that make me want to be more of a man, and the women that make me feel a greater desire to persevere if only for the sake of claiming such a woman. Studying history has always been an inspiration in this way. Even if history before the last century isn't 100% accurate it doesn't mean there weren't great heroes, champions, and villains to be conquered. In fact two interesting women are the mother and wife of the Genghis Khan, as they played a huge role in raising/assisting him in a time of seemingly endless strife and ethnic wars. Of course we all know the ending of the story, but it can be easily argued the goal that Temujin (Genghis's real name) fought for (world peace through unification and a massive inheritance for his children) was successful and there is some slack I think he deserves when one considers the world he grew up in and how cutthroat it was in the barbarous lands of the steppes and declining empires (particularly the Jin-Chinese one).

Hopefully folks who like Jordan Peterson also listen to Stefpai because, at least as someone who heard and read a lot of data on how horrible it is to use force against one's own children from Stefpai, Mr. Peterson obviously isn't perfect and makes big mistakes like what you're pointing out. That being said he IS a genius and I'd take anything else he says very seriously, especially what he said how--as a motivator--to imagine a "Hell scenario" of what (my for example) life would be like if I fail to do what I must within 5 years versus a "Heaven scenario" of what success looks like. Very easily an equal or perhaps even superior to Stefpai, at least as far as debating and speaking skills go and their shared ability to make sound and correct arguments. Perhaps they ought to debate this subject. I'd like Stefpai to school Mr. Peterson a bit so he can rough out his edges.

I can definitely relate. I don't think it's the best solution but I think I have a good one; Celebrate the values and treat the stories as value-teachers rather than facts of history. I don't know how real Jesus and the Biblical stories are but they do have a whole lot of value and teachable-moments to them. I'd consider doing what Stefpai does--teach them as stories to be learned from rather than historical fact. If your sons ask "Hey Mama is this Abraham fellow really the father of nations?" then you might honestly reply "I don't know but does that really matter? Something happened thousands of years ago to inspire the story and (insert value/lesson learned here) is certainly something applicable to modern times". I'm a Roman Catholic, but I'm not a religious Roman Catholic in the sense that I have a firm belief in God and the infallibility of the Church. I think there's a whole lot to be learned and I don't discount somebody for having a firm religious belief so long as it isn't irrational (i.e. they don't just say "because X told me to" or "I would be beaten otherwise" or whatever kind of consequentialist crap they might have) but I'd tolerate a lack of an answer (i.e. they don't "know" why they believe but simply do) because that's a significant step towards honesty and humility. I don't have a lot of family I'd want to see involved in my future family's lifecycle, but I might have in-laws I would want to see. If they were especially religious, I'd be all right with that so long as they don't bully my children (or give me any cause to believe they would). It's fine if "Grandpa" teaches the story of, say Abraham, as historical fact and I treat it as something that might be true and highly exaggerated because this teaches my children that I am not infallible and don't have all the answers--and I'm humble enough to admit that. Simultaneously I'm not rejecting the good value that can be learned from these culturally foundational stories, just opening my children to the very real possibility that they're either false or exaggerated. And ideally, I don't care if my children are Roman Catholics or not; what I care about is them having solid and correct moral values with the clarity to see how they can be applied to everyday life and plausible workplace, school-place, or whatever environments. It's not the faith in God, Heaven, and Hell I care about it's the wisdom of having the lessons derived from them. However I am making this "general plan" with the impression my children will have an IQ around 120, as mine is 145 and assuming my future wife is at least 120 then most likely our children will be smart if not geniuses. If my children are unlucky and are born with average or poor IQ however, I might have to rethink the above plan because they might never be capable of abstract reasoning to the same degree we can. Of course I seriously doubt this bad hypothetical will come to pass (as a man I'll greatly reduce the chances by both selecting a smart woman and also making sure no one damages my children IQ via beatings, bad food, or whatever) but it's not impossible. I suppose I ought to ask, how intelligent do you think (or know) your sons are? Are they smart (110+), normal (95-105), stupid (-95), or something above or below? I don't know if it's possible to accurately guesstimate a toddler's IQ but I think you could get a rough estimate based on your's and your husband's IQs and how easy/hard it was to each your little ones the basics. I am mainly asking because you may need to be extra careful about exposing your children to wrong beliefs/opinions because presumably a smart child could figure it out him/herself.

What part of this warrants a downvote??? I wait a week to see my posts appear and often go unreplied to. I'd get it if I had to glaring mistake or rule-break in the post but after re-reading it and no one paying it any mind, I have to assume whoever downvoted me is just some asshole without integrity enough to tell me why my reputation deserves a hit for such an apparently terrible argument.

Ditto. I care a lot about my reputation and would care to know why someone, seemingly, just scrolled down to downvote people he doesn't like. If there's a good reason let's talk about it... I have abided by the forum rules and standards and have avoided ad hominems and the like, but if reputation is just going to be treated like a childish game then I might as well throw in the towel and stop coming to debate here.

A good woman who is actually good wants a good man. A good man is at least these 3 things: he possess a stable source of income, enough for 5 in a middle-class home and neighborhood; he is/will be available to take an active role in the raising of children after the age of reason and lastly; can be counted upon as a sturdy, rational, and dependable individual. I don't know what kind of women you or your friend are dating. I think others have established how many women seek far more than they are worth. However I think if you keep bumping into them you're searching in the wrong place and/or doing it wrong. However I do think you'll struggle to find a good woman if your source of income is in flux and cannot be relied upon to sustain a family in a middle-class environment.

This was a very powerful conversation. I used to have severe anxiety attacks months before I came to this forum (2 and a half years or so ago) and barely made it out of High School. Before I became anxious and depressed I had "big plans" to become the first Communist dictator of America (or at least a Communist author and advocate). As I ate some red pills and grew more adult responsibilities, I pretty much "overdosed" and retreated into my head and, realizing I couldn't live the rest of my life as a nervous wreck who couldn't even shred 30-something hours a week at a public school and expect anything great and rewarding like having a family or moving up to the middle class. I sought therapy and self-knowledge with the aid of FDR and have sense improved tremendously. I, needing to make ends meet, job-hunted for the first time a year ago (and landed a "job" repairing technical stuff that paid less than half of minimum wage after a month of "free training") and eventually decided, with the advice of my therapist, to use my writing skills and make a career out of that. I had always enjoyed writing novels for fun but it was then I really and truly committed to doing it for my livelihood. I don't want to say more until I have something to sell to the great and wonderful FDR community, but I've definitely come a long way. Realizing just how bubble-wrapped modern times are and how protected we really are (in the sense that I could theoretically fail at everything and still live comfortably as a welfare whore as compared to a century ago where I'd be lucky to eke out an existence as a bum) and yet how great the opportunities there are for entrepreneurs (THANK YOU INTERNET!!!)... Well, minor worries become ever more minor as I realize just how big and plentiful the world really is. There may be horrible slow-moving disasters but the fact they're slow moving means they will, by virtue of some one or some group, be eventually solved with or without me, and there may be horrible racist barriers to entry for many vocations but the ease in which a man can become an entrepreneur greatly compensates for this. I encourage every young man navel gazing whilst questioning whether they should "take the leap" or "play it safe" to think about this: 40 years from now, looking back, will you be satisfied with your life if you "play it safe", live as a coward, marry a slut and raise someone else's children, or will you curse yourself for not "taking the leap" and making a successful man of yourself, marrying a good woman, and raising great titans begoten from your loins? I sure as Hell know I'd curse myself if I didn't at least try and fail. Therefore since I'm either gonna succeed or fail (because quitting is not an option), I may as well do my damndest and fight my hardest to both succeed and succeed well. The purpose of a man's life is almost always to either be an example of success or of failure. I damn well am tired of failures. I sure love successes. Therefore, in my desire to both be and associate with successes, I am going to strive to succeed and move up to the Middle Class both financially and geographically (i.e. move out of the big city ghetto and into the nice suburbs in the Midwest).

No, I mean as an alternative to currency. I don't care what we're trading as a medium of exchange so long as it's stable and doesn't make my hands stink. Any proof of that? Money always goes into the hands of the most productive (or those that are the best at stealing from the most productive, like most governments and gangs) therefore those without are either lazy deadbeats without even the ability to con/guilt for it or were robbed (and therefore are deserving of support and assistance) by some gang or another. So far currency is far superior to the old bartering system. Can there be better? I don't know. Bitcoin (virtual currency) might be the future. Still a currency though. My question to your answer is this: are you including ANY conceivable kind of currency (from metals to bank notes to stores of rice to whatever) as a problem or just fiat money? On the same note what exactly are your problems with currency? I'd like it in a bullet-point format with very concise and direct complaints. I'm not interested in the hookah you're breathing. I think the most important questions that need answering, both individually and as a society, are thus; 1: Race and culture. Do we try Civic Nationalism (i.e. no race politics) even though only White folks seem willing to do it en masse? Do we try Ethnic Nationalism (therefore we either have Russian-style ethno-states or a Chinese-style system where one race is over the rest or a European-style system where every race has a country named after it)? Do we try something else, like "Cultural Nationalism" where we hail a common ideal of what man ought to be and a common moral system (like Christianity for Europe, which was arguably one of the big reasons why White folks started to feel bad killing each other instead of seeing each other as mere competitors for regional hegemony)? Or do we keep our heads in the sand and hope the Multikult works out? I'm inclined towards #3 (Cultural Nationalism) with a back-up plan of #2. 2: Wars of Intervention: Do we keep meddling with other races/cultures and their politics or do we gtfo and only meddle when we're sure they're up to something against us and have warships on the read? Do we strive to become old-European style global hegemonists or so a more soft-domination Chinese Empire-style of regional hegemony through economic and cultural hegemony? Or do we build up our walls and focus inwardly like the old Japanese and only interact with the outside world for trade? I'm inclined towards either Japanese-style isolationism or Chinese-style trade and cultural exchange but without the movement of (large) numbers of people from the outside world (especially if they fit the definition of "barbarian" or "savage") and also without the arrogant Post-Meiji Japan/Colonial-European attitude that it is our sovereign duty as freemen to liberate the enslaved world. 3: Religion and culture. Sort of like race and culture but more a focus on religion's role in our culture and whether we ought to do this or that about it. 4: Gender relations. Need I say more? 5: Creeping Socialism. Cancer is cancerous. 6: Unreachable and infallible government. If we're not starting a "civil anarchy" (perhaps a general term for AnCap?) then we may as well rope in the current government and consider replacing it, whether it be replacing the system or just the people is another question. 7: Voting rights. Whether it be by financial worth, gender, IQ, race, etc. we ought to ask ourselves if universal suffrage is really such a holy right...In fact I'd be willing to argue for the abolition of republicanism in favor of an oligarchical monarchy given the basic premises I haven't spoken of. Point is "who gets a say in what our government does" is a very pertinent question. 8: Demographic decline. Related to number 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. ...And probably some more I'm forgetting. Point is whether we ought to have a currency is like asking whether we ought to have to work for a living. Once we've focused on the very real threats on our futures and livelihoods we can go back to the ivory tower, smoke some hookah, and contemplate whether a money-less system is preferable to a monied system. ...To be clear I'm not dissing the question so much as it's priority. I think it's more important we focus on our survival and prosperity before we focus on the "intellectual luxuries" i.e. I'd rather talk and be active about this sort of thing once the barbarians stop lugging big rocks at our city walls and once the deadbeats stop trying to skewer us in the name of "egalitarianism" and once children are no longer being beat and drugged by their parents and authorities. Once we've secured our great-grandchildren's future in a peaceful, orderly, prosperous, and morally upright society we can talk about how to make it better. Or perhaps we can really go to the podium with this once everyone's got a steady job, the nation-state is no longer committing murder-suicide, and the culture at large no longer casually jokes about the murder of babies and raping of children.

Not sure. Depends on what you mean. A truly honest debate (i.e. one aimed at the truth not a "personal victory") is objective--at least as objective as the participants can be. Humans being fallible, "total 100% objectivity" is impossible but functionally we can get pretty damn close and therefore have a pretty small margin of error (which is of course significant when the subject is significant). I don't think it's possible to determine what is universally (if this means EVERYONE including sociopaths, the retarded, the comatose, any human being with a pulse) preferable but I do think it's possible to determine what most people of either a given area, society, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. consider (within) universally preferable. I'd replace "universally" with another adjective like "nationally", "culturally", etc. to fit that context. The problem however is, if I am correct with the premise that it is impossible to determine what EVERYONE prefers on something, that even if it is possible to determine what a group prefers it is by no means a stable ground for morality because morality is objective while all individuals are fallible and, by virtue of being limited to only their own minds and mental/biological tools, subjective. Therefore is my logic chain is valid, the conclusion is that it is impossible for mortals to truly capture morality BUT possible to reach an approximation and dance around the truth over time. The problem, practically speaking, is who will do to moral deductions and with what measures? I HAVE NOT finished UPB therefore I won't attempt to refute what I am still ignorant in. I am half-way through but honestly I know barely more than when I started (either because I am not paying enough attention, I already understood the argument, or the argument is written/described in an intellectually convoluted way that is too great for my mind) therefore I can't argue UPB but rather my assumption of what UPB is as of being half-way there and the responses of those that claim to know UPB where it is relevant to what I'm talking about. In other words the only thing I understand is that UPB's measure for if something is moral or not is based on whether it is ALWAYS moral/immoral. I.e. murder is always immoral by definition. Stealing too. On the other hand charity is not always moral because immoral examples can be conceived of. However charity to the good is always moral because it helps the good--no bad scenario can be come up with. It's by definition. However I might be wrong about what I THINK UPB is, and that's why I waver (perhaps even weasel out) of debating UPB because I don't want to argue something I do not understand. However still, I might understand but assume I don't because.... Well I don't know. Perhaps because I assume Stefpai, being far wiser than me, is right and I am wrong therefore if I am coming up with problematic conclusions it's because I am wrong in my use (and understanding) of the methodology---the measure.

Christmas and the season around it is now over, so I decided to stop using Christmas-y themed stuff. (The avatar itself technically isn't but the game came out around Christmas some years ago and that's when I played and had fun with it, plus the color scheme worked). Simple. "Honest debate" doesn't require a commitment to the truth, rather to whatever standards the participants consider valid. Therefore if I, a stupid person with a club, value the objectivity of "might makes right" over argumentation then I will universalize this principle by submitting to whoever beats me with their club, and vice versa. Of course not everyone follows "might makes right" but neither does everyone follow "by-definition honest debate". Therefore what an honest debate is depends on who is saying it and what they think it means. By-definition honest debate, as far as I understand it, isn't subjective since it requires both sides to (literally) be honest and open to being wrong, and therefore requires that level of humility and functional intelligence the retarded barbarian might lack and therefore shun.

Well your post is poorly edited, long, scattered, and sounds like desperate cries rather than arguments. Also the answer is obvious; Someone's gonna give in, or the gooey haze of slow and sticky annoyance and tedium will be the name of the day until the flames get so hot the s__t boils up and all America gets buried in it. My guess; the Wall gets built but DACA is preserved. 8 years later; rinse and repeat of the old "one step forward; two steps backwards" trend that is the Right versus the Left.

Practically speaking I think libertarianism requires a centralized authority and ideological framework from which all it's proclaimed adherents adhere to. We don't have that. Well, I don't even know if I'd call myself a libertarian because of how heavily bastardized it is. A monarchist, sure. A free marketer, definitely. A liberal? Depending on the definition. Classical Liberal=Yes. Modern pseudo-liberal=HELL NO. As someone with my beliefs, I fully intend to organize and write about them and eventually come up with an ideological book of sorts from which "Walheimism" (or whatever I call it) can find its concrete foundation and perhaps some people of actual importance will take it seriously enough to implement it. I'm far from doing what the ultra-pragmatic Temujin nor the ultra-idealistic Jesus of Nazareth are capable of. However I don't want to die without leaving an intellectual handprint on the world, and if history has proven anything just about anyone with a pen and lots of paper can create an ideology to last for all time. Because libertarianism/AnCap has no central authority, even among branches (except here on FDR), I have to personalize and individuate what I "think" a true libertarian ought to do versus what they're doing. Stefanism's goal is AnCap via peaceful parenting and sound mating selection. Not difficult, but very slow. However I do believe that, like Christianity, what started as some bearded guy's ideas with a couple dozen strangers could result in a new world order and religion. And what made the Christ so successful in it's imprint on the world, is in part its focus on children and child education. Peaceful parenting + good mating selection is very educational to their children on what to look for, who to marry, and how to raise their own children. However Stefanism lacks anything to do outside of this, and that may be fine because fundamentally the individual without the grace of the collective is ultimately powerless. However still, it is up to the individual to win over the mob and therefore become powerful. I think in American politics, simply voting Republican (of the Trump variety) and calling out the establishment whenever they back-peddle or waver is pretty much the best most people can and will do. And that MAY be enough. Show the Leader our support and the Leader gains proportionally more power. Currently DJT is the Leader. Therefore if we want anything remotely rightist, we must back DJT and only criticize him when he is doing something harmful towards creating a suitable environment for peace, order, and prosperity. I think trying to found a country in the Gobi is an ultimately suicidal plan since once it becomes anything worth a something, either the Chinese government or a neighboring one will seize it and overthrow it (and I doubt there are enough red-blooded AnCaps willing and able to fight millions upon millions of sophisticated, well armed, and ruthless Chinese). Likewise hiding out in a neutral country greatly weakens the effectiveness of an ideologically-based voting base. However it DOES provide safe haven to practice Stefanism and perhaps in the long run convert the neutral country and possibly even make the neutral country a contender for regional supremacy and perhaps over time become the next America, Germany, Russia, France, (insert historically big and important country here), etc.

It is difficult to discern morality without relying on either someone else as an "arbiter". Which is why I think in all honesty most people ought to have morality discerned and taught to them rather than be expected to figure it out themselves. If an IQ 145 (mostly verbal based) like myself struggles to discern morality from merely preference or whims, how can someone of average or dumb intelligence discern virtue??? I need to finish to know if you are correct in your knowledge of how UPB works. Hypothetically if "everyone" killed who they "perceived" to be an aggression than the world would be populated by trigger happy lambs. A.K.A. China. I think "what is self-defense" becomes a question. IF self-defense includes shooting a 4-year-old who was recklessly given his father's gun, then self-defense is not a moral question because it has the potential for an immoral situation (or execution). I think an argument needs to made as to why self-defense is moral because I consider it neither moral nor immoral because, from an invader's standpoint, he could justly claim self-defense upon conquest of a land if the old owners were to decide to reclaim it. Now this could only be justified if the old owners willfully abdicate the land and they're now breaking their word, but that could be excused if the invader himself is an oath-breaker whose invasion was a breaking of a promise. Therefore, because of the potential for gray/immoral situations, self-defense is a question of pragmatism not morality. I don't know what is "universally preferable". I am half-way through the book and frankly am as informed as I was when I merely heard him debate it. I understand how he reasons why certain things like "truth" is UPB because even liars prefer to know what's true or be told the truth even if they won't tell it themselves (I think). But beyond that I think a potential weakness of the system is its difficulty in comprehension. Either I am woefully ignorant, intellectually retarded, or UPB is false. I am assuming the first because I know I'm a genius and while it is technically Stefpai's job to disprove the latter I think it'd be lazy of me to simply denounce his "claim" without sufficient evidence for it. If he's correct then by God he's answered the age-old question of what is true and untrue. I don't know whether it's moral (or more moral versus less moral) to spare a thief from death. I think it could be if the thief honestly repents and reforms. However I think paralyzing him (deliberately at least) from the neck-down without killing him is an act of sadism, therefore even if the thief "repents" (which I wouldn't take seriously because it's like the asshole who acts nice to big brother because he suddenly "needs" him) the self-defender is no hero. By somebody, I should think. Myself is too subjective; an arbiter might be more objective; if God could be reached, he'd be the most objective. Therefore I think if I commit a potential moral crime or a potential moral merit, I ought to be judged by a moral arbiter who is close to God. TO BE CLEAR, I mean "not moral" as in "not a question of morality". The logic is this: if it is moral, it is moral in every situation it could possibly be conceived in. If it is immoral; it is immoral in every situation it could be thought in. If it something that is moral in some situations but not others, it is "not moral" i.e. "not moral without qualifiers". Like feeding the hungry. If I fed a hungry Hitler or Stalin, I am not being virtuous (i.e. adherent to morality). However if I fed Augustus Caesar or Donald Trump, I am being moral because they are not evil (and better than that; good men therefore more moral than feeding the morally neutral). Please clarify. I think you just misunderstood me given the above.

I think his actions and what he's said cumulatively makes his stance obvious (but i might be wrong). -He has a strong preference for traditional WASP culture minus the child beatings and man-hatred (i.e. he likes the focus on liberty WITH responsibility, nuclear families, free markets, etc.). -I assume he prefers Whites in general because he's always sticking up for us and notes always it's out of Europe (especially Western Europe, especially England) where all the principles he holds dear finds their cultivation and closest adherence. -He has never stated any preferences for nor against Orientals (in fact he mentions annoyance towards some of their cultural habits, like women (and sometimes men) hiding what they really think/feel for being "rude", and their general dishonestly polite nature--my words at the end, not his. He hasn't said much about them but he generally doesn't have much positive to say, but nothing strongly negative and always specific, not some overgeneralization or whatnot). -Immigration-wise he prefers no immigration whatsoever since it's generally a net-negative to the host country and the departing country. Especially for America, which could use a couple generations of limited to no immigration. However if there "must" be immigration he tends to prefer Whites who come from WASPy countries though he's not against high IQ'd Asians, just not strongly for them either. I think (i.e. I don't "know" but I get the sense this is true based on my couple of years listening to hundreds of podcasts) he prefers Whites somewhat, prefers high IQ Whites in general, and especially prefers high IQ people who are rational and willing to reason. He knows Whites are the only group to successfully integrate the culture into itself however so I think he prefers larger numbers of us. Just not at the exclusion of other high/average IQ groups unless they have a huge crime problem or toxic culture (like Islam, which has some decently 90-ish IQ adherent countries but has a lot of the same crap as IQ 70 countries). Personally I largely agree with him (if my portrayal of what I think his views are accurate). Personally I only care about personality and IQ. For society however I know only Whites can sustain my kind of tribe in the long run, therefore I am very pro-White. He has a lot of empathy and therefore cares deeply for the other races, which might be an age thing since a young guy like me largely doesn't care about other races unless he has a strongly positive or negative experience or ethnic history with them (i.e. I love Japan because I am a huge consumer of their stuff and culture while I hate Islam because of the Migrant Crisis compounded with millennia of bad blood but largely am indifferent to everyone else). Note: I only wrote what I THINK Stefpai thinks as far as race/society/culture goes. He appears to be very pro WASP and therefore prefers a White supermajority (i.e. 80%+) and has some temptation towards homogeneity (but not if it must come forcibly via a government) but isn't really a White nationalist since he doesn't really care for race in and of itself but only as it pertains practically towards realizing AnCap.

I'd add, optimistically, chances are if things get really bad a few men will be forced to step in and do something about it. I hate to sound deterministic but it's inevitable for gender roles to return. The question is whether it'll be peaceful movie-style or violent WWII style. Or something in between, like a generation-by-generation gradual shift as good couples seize power from bad couples (i.e. trads beating thots) simply by being more productive and probably politically as well. Though the latter will probably have to involve more than just rabble-rousing and more cultural-war victories. I assume that which is demonstrated to cause the most happiness will inevitably become the most attractive and therefore slowly aquire people over time. Like I'm sure there's more trad-youth than trad-age-25+ -ers, even though I'm also sure they're a minority, simply because generations tend to revolt against the prior ones when they're unhappy and usually do what they perceive as the opposite of the prior one.

I know I'm not the only one who said it, but I think men have a similarly short timeframe if they want a shot at the best. If a man doesn't really become an active producer by 25-30, he'll have to marry down in order to marry with a chance at children (i.e. if I'm 30 and just then making middle class income, I can't marry another 30 year old unless 1 child is all my impotent phallus can be bothered to cough out. On the other hand a 20 year old would be far more fertile but much less experienced and wise). Meanwhile if a man's not marriageable by 35+ he's basically either going to marry a gold digger, a washed up hand me down, or some other undersirable type of woman. My reasoning being the best women seek the best men; and the best men have their act together ASAP and have gotten all the Self-knowledge necessary ASAP as well, therefore as a man approaches 30 he has to recognize he'll have to marry down if he wants children (because same-aged women who are of similar or superior quality are already mothers). And by "down" I mean both in age and in quality. Personally I hate people that are stupid and irrational. I have little patience for someone that "doesn't get it" or "doesn't want to get it". Therefore I know if I want to marry Ayn Rand's family friendly reincarnation I have to really be as great a man as I can be as quickly as possible. Otherwise I have to compromise on one of the following things; similar age, intelligence, wisdom, virtue, attractiveness, etc. Since I hate compromises (where no one wins) I have extra-incentive to be the best man I can be. I doubt it's far different for women. I'd rather marry an older woman than a younger one simply because I value intelligence and wisdom very highly (though naturally if a woman is so smart and wise why is SHE marrying down? Of course there's a whole lot of variables I'm not accounting for here but this is just a Platonic hypothetical realm thing). That being said your history and musings on womanliness and who it's like to be a modern woman sure are interesting if a bit sadly predictable. I mean, I'd like to have a positive opinion of the majority of women but your insight proves that most women, like most men, suck and suck hard. I mean I'm sure there are plenty of men who don't mind a woman who can't think for herself (probably because most men can't think for themselves), but I am definitely not one of them. If I am doing something stupid I want to be challenged. If what I am doing can be done better, I want to be educated. If I'm doing it right, I want to be respectfully left alone to do it (or supported practically, even if just emotionally for my confidence). In short I want a woman who can fulfill the "partner" part of being a wife as well as a woman who is loyal, good, and motherly. A big ask but I'm young and willing to deliver equally big since I have the opportunity to do so-- so long as I make the right decisions, work smart, and be fruitful, of course.

Lady I'm judging everyone constantly 24-7. I know it's a figure of speech but... My anus is very anal for that sort of thing. As it so happens I intend on becoming a hermit once I've married and raised my future children. Perhaps more literally than figuratively since I like the idea of living in a cozy place in a secluded area spending the rest of my life with my wife and grand kids, while also proselytizing my ideals, playing video games, and banging my aging wife to the grave.

Yeah, a BIG hook!

Frankly I think the fear of hypergamy is invalid. A smart female sociopath ought to know she can't bag the best man if she cheats on her existing one to get him because the best man, by definition, is wary of disloyalty and wouldn't commit to a woman who herself is proven unreliable. Hypergamy is merely another word for "discriminatory" or "selective", i.e. having standards. A dumb and/or low impulse-control women are never going to climb high because good men smell them from a mile away and steer clear. High IQ/high impulse-control women however will not only select quality but commit because they know once you go in, there's no going out because the highest quality men (and women I'm sure) aren't interested in hand-me-downs and/or those with a history of either being unreliable or choosing unreliable. In other words, hypergamy is great because it cuts the wheat from the chaff. I.e., it makes the bad women obvious (trail of either bad men or betrayal of decent men) and the good women also obvious (has no history of commitment then betrayal/abandonment). 100 years ago bad women had huge incentives to pretend to be good, requiring men be far smarter in sussing them out whereas now bad women are out in the open. Not ALL of them (I'm sure, like I said above, the smart female sociopath is acting good because she knows better) but the overwhelming majority of them.

This applies to men as well, though replace mothering/wifering skills with fatherly/worker/masculinity skills. I'm a pretty rare exception nowadays to be both concerned for my future as well as actively looking to build myself up as both a man and as a worker so I can both attract the fine family friendly fertile females and also have a yearly net income that let's me live in a nice Midwestern suburb (because city life is crap unless maybe if it's a fun city but my experience and wants don't really match city life=fun. While as men we're more concerned with female behavior and wants than male (since males generally follow females), it's not totally one-sided and we have some work to do as well. Statistically there ARE decent women out there. Decent men just need to set up a beacon to attract them (either metaphorically by being a good man, making good friends, and therefore finding good sisters/daughters/friends--or literally by being an internet hero like Stefpai or Mike Cernovich) and together provide a visible example to younger people to change course.