Three

You've given me peace I'm through here

See, I know the context surrounding why Kevin made this post about Steve and you don't So, I'm just tickled to death right now by what I'm reading Wow

Well, in that case, I'll caution against Steve too—despite the fact he helps people Hopefully that will have an overall positive impact.

Wow, you managed to frame a comment designed to harm a man's business, despite the fact that the business ACTUALLY helps, into something "good overall" because "theoretically speaking" Pure autism

This was some time ago, but people read this stuff long after it's posted. I'll say this— Steve hosts numerous retreats that bring dozens and dozens of people together who form lasting bonds. I'm going to one and am really looking forward to it. I can make a list of thirty or so people just off the top of my head who have have quadrupled their income or made the step to parenthood as a result of Steve's consultation. Kevin is a smart man. I spent 4 years getting to know him and having the pleasure of watching him grow into a father and husband. However, this comment from Kevin was needless as well as unfair—especially to all the people who potentially could have benefited from Steve's services, but have been pointed in the wrong direction instead.

Enjoy https://youtu.be/p6V0cTWUbrI

I think it's a book of great importance! Gavin Mcllness recently shared the book and David Duke's book Jewish Supremacism on his YouTube video Help Send Gavin Mcllness to Israel. The taboo of speaking about Jewish influence will become discussed more and more as political correctness falls.

Most of the invaders pouring into Europe are not children though.

There's a culture war happening right now. Results matter. Nihilistic ideological purity keeps you from having any real impact on the real world. Stef meets society where it's at and fights back hence, 570,000 subscribers(70,000 of which he acquired in just recent few months.) These posts that keep people from impacting the world and keep people in their head playing with concepts frankly only will make sense to smart people just like the argument "don't vote because it's a violation of the NAP" is something that only smart people will be able to process. Muslim invaders don't care about your ideological purity. Whether your ideal is a small government, an anarchocapitalist society, or a white ethnostate, these things won't come into fruition if the left wins.

Here is an article similar to mine, but goes way more in depth, from Kevin MacDonald on why Jewish influence is a topic in the Alt-Right. I thought I'd share!

Reminds me of something I said to a friend once like "whites could go very far by adopting the slogan the slogan what would the Jews do? " There's a lot whites can learn from the experts of culture preservation. But yeah man, I'd highly recommend those books. Particularly Kevin MacDonald's. Really fascinating stuff!

Remember when Stef did videos called No Excuse For Female Evil The Virus of Female Responsibility Avoidance Why Women Support Socialism Women, We Need to Talk About Hillary These are videos wherein Stef examines the facts of female behavior that has played a role in shaping society today . He does this factually and fairly(biology) , but does not hesitate to say when female behavior has been incredibly destructive, which is important to be aware of to anyone who wishes to change society. It's important to assign accountability in the context of a society that suppresses facts with regards to female behavior and exaggerates male crimes. Blame is one of these emotionally loaded words that's designed to discourage you from making judgements about particular groups,whether that be parents, immigrants, women, or *gasp* Jews. I wish I could ban the word blame from rational discourse. But, I can't so I wrote an article about the word instead. https://selfknowledgedaily.com/blame-or-responsibility-take-your-pick-4e45318a3592

Stef has indeed cited Kevin MacDonald in The Truth About Immigration

When it comes to examining Jewish power and influence, I don't think there's a grand "Jewish Conspiracy" anymore than I think there's a grand "female conspiracy" when examining female power and influence. Both David Duke and Kevin MacDonald in their books about the subject of Jewish influence both acknowledge the explanatory value of biology (IQ/group evolutionary strategy) just as Stef when he talks female behavior he acknowledges the value of biology(eggs are scarce and women need resources) in explaining female behavior that's been harmful to the West (voting left/refugees welcome.)

Yep, yep. Ivory Tower idealogical purity/using ideals to negate stuff and call it thinking= irrelevant. Meeting society where it is at and fighting back= relevant.

Starts with sarcasm. No curiosity. 1000 word lecturey wall of text filled with negation after negation. No thanks, moving on.

Less than a week in.

An article I wrote in November as a follow up to "The Arrogance of the Anti-Empirical Libertarian." I thought I'd share it here given that Trump is now POTUS. A few weeks ago I wrote in my piece “The Arrogance of the Anti-Empirical Libertarian”, "Right now we are in a situation of great emergency not much different from the emergency the British faced in June. There is a fork in the road ahead to which we draw nearer and nearer to everyday. The paths up ahead lead to two separate destinations that couldn’t be further apart from one another. The path on the left leads to a world of doom. The path on the right leads to a world of possibility. The world of doom is the world we shall live in should Hillary Clinton — one of the most physically ill, mentally unstable, corrupt and wicked politicians of all time — be elected president. Hillary has made it clear that she will do to the United States what Angela Merkel has done to Germany. This means that Hillary Clinton will gradually transform the United States into a third world country by indiscriminately importing third worlders along with their anti-western cultures. In this world, the real threat of a nuclear war with Russia looms larger than it ever has. In this world, the West will fall. The world of possibility is the world we will live in should Donald Trump — a candidate that is unprecedented in the history of politics —become the next president of the United States. In this world, there is the possibility of preserving the West. In this world, we will be in a situation not much different from the situation of hope the British found themselves in after the EU referendum." Well, here we are. This was not a race between two typical politicians. This was not a race between republicans and democrats. This was a race between a nationalist and the crooked globalist media, democrats, and republicans, who all have been demonstrably benefiting from a regime of forced multiculturalism, of aiding and abetting terrorists hostile to Western culture, and of domestic social totalitarianism against freedom of speech. And the nationalist won. We are now in that world of possibility much to the relief of millions who really processed the stakes in what was far from just another ordinary election. This was a winner-take-all election. This was a hard-fought battle for Western civilization. And we earned a hard-fought victory. But the culture war is far from over. In response to my last article, some have mistakenly said that I think Trump will “save the West.” This is an oversimplification of a more nuanced position I’ve argued, which is that given what information has been presented in videos such as the The Truth About World War III | United States vs. Russia, I think we can say with certainty that a Trump presidency will preserve the West *relative to* a Clinton presidency. Does this mean I know for a fact that Donald Trump will be able to achieve every single goal that has been laid out in documents such as “Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter?” No, it doesn’t. As an empiricist I take in as much information as I can before coming to absolute conclusions. I’ve been well aware of the argument that says using violence to solve problems has the opposite result of its stated goal, which was also put forward as a response to my last article. For example, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, government schools — these are all government programs that set out to solve some problem, but in fact only made those problems far worse. This is a pattern which we’ve observed time and time again and it is from these empirical observations that we derived the rule of thumb that says, “the state always achieves the opposite of its intended goal.” And that’s important. This rule of thumb was derived from empiricism. So, while we can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the next administration will look like anymore than your local news station’s meteorologist can always prove what the weather will be like tomorrow, we can make reasonable predictions —provided variables remain the same— based on these reliable patterns that have been observed time and time again. One of these variables was the fact that Presidents were always already bought and paid for by special interest. So, we knew that the first thing the President would do once in office is reward friends and punish enemies. He would immediately pass legislation to help a few special people under the guise of some larger benevolent goal. This is how Stefan Molyneux predicted what would happen under an Obama administration with impressive precision back in 2008. But now variables have changed. To repeat conclusions such as, “the state achieves the opposite of its intended goal”, regardless of what new data arises is simply negating stuff and calling it thinking, which is anti-empirical. Trump does not fit the mold of the typical politician like Hillary. He reluctantly decided to run for office at the very end of his life. He’s not bought and paid for. Plus, Trump has the courage to attack the media. The fact that these variables have changed should at least give the empiricist pause and generate curiosity. Trump has laid out numerous goals which he will work with congress to achieve. Which one of these goals will he not achieve? For example, Trump wants to appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice. Will Trump not be able to do this? If he does appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice will that result in the opposite of its intended goal? Trump also wants to preserve the second amendment. Will he achieve the opposite of this goal? If so, how? Given how Trump is so different, for me the probability that he could achieve more than say your average politician has increased and regardless of whatever he fails to achieve, the outcome of his presidency will be less damaging to the world than what a Hillary presidency would have been. That’s a possibility that I am very much open to. Again, does that mean I know with absolute certainty that Trump will achieve all his goals and save the West? No. And that is the humility of the empiricist. If I truly believed that Donald Trump alone could save the West, then I would have just voted, went home, and relaxed into a complacent life of never having to think or write about geopolitics ever again. Just as Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election was a team effort, moving the needle towards a free society is a team effort and there’s a lot more work to be done. The media still must be crushed. They will continue to lie as much about Trump while he’s president as they lied about him throughout his campaign. Already, ridiculous race-baiting narratives are being put forward about Trump’s victory, such as that it represents a racist “whitelast.” This propaganda is not only ridiculous, but can get people seriously injured as can be seen in this recent video that’s surfaced of black mob brutally beating a white Trump supporter. If the media actually reported the facts you wouldn’t be seeing the destructive anti-Trump riots that are occurring in NYC and other places. And don’t think the smear is going to come only from the left. Anti-Trump libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who cried out that Stefan Molyneux had lost his way for meeting society where it is at and covering this election cycle will take any mistake made by a Trump administration as vindication. If something terrible happens like collateral damage, they will post articles throughout social media proclaiming, “Aha! See this awful thing that’s happened. This is what you voted for you unprincipled Trump supporters!” (And they will say all this without asking “compared to what?” and considering what greater tragedy could have occurred if Clinton was instead in the White House.) We have gained momentum, but we can’t afford to become passive. As the now President-Elect Trump would say, “your momentum can lull you into a false sense of security because your momentum can vanish quickly if you don’t work to maintain it.” We must keep our momentum rolling. We must continue to work as hard as ever towards bringing philosophy to the world so that one day our descendants will be able to reap all the benefits of a truly free society, such as not having to worry about who the next President will be at all.

Negate and dismiss. No arguments. No curiosity. Boring. In return you will be negated and dismissed. Ignored.

Lol that was great. Thank you.

No curiosity here at all.

With the ascension of Donald Trump, there also arose a new right-wing movement. This movement was the equal and opposite reaction not just to the culture of hysterical verbal abuse from the left that has descended like a storm from hell upon any attempts at rational discourse, but also to the left’s treacherous enablers within the mainstream conservative movement that would rather virtue signal their ideological purity than actually conserve our freedoms. This group, which championed Western civilization and sought to preserve its most precious treasures from the rapid advancement of corrosive leftist ideals, quickly became an alternative to the spineless Republican establishment’s brand of in-name-only “conservatism” that has been exemplified by the likes of globalist cronies such as the Bushes and Paul Ryan. Realizing the real threat this movement posed to their chances of winning the 2016 election once Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination, the Clinton Campaign quickly came up with a new strategy to besmirch their opponents. This strategy was to cojoin the Trump movement with a separate group called the Alt-right due the the Alt-right’s inclination towards exploring controversial topics. Ever since, there has been a misconception that the Alt-right is the new-right movement that’s emerged as an alternative to the Republican/cuckservative establishment. These are the Milos, Paul Joseph Watsons, Gavin Mclnnes’, and the Lauren Southerns of the alternative media. These people champion nationalism over globalism and promote western values like free speech, while understanding the threat that massive third world immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, poses to the existence of these values. And while there are many areas of overlap between the New-Right and Alt-right, there are a few crucial distinctions. The purpose of this piece is to highlight these key distinctions and share material for those who are interested in taking a journey through taboo. Race First and foremost is the issue of race. The Alt-right recognizes that race is a reality and a very important one. The Alt-right at its core is about promoting racial consciousness among Europeans. They are unabashedly pro-white (not to be confused with white-supremacism, which advocates for domination over groups deemed inferior.) Whatever issues those within the Alt-right disagree about, this is the issue that unites them. The New-right, while they are quick to point out anti-white racism and see the reality of racial differences, do not advocate for white’s issues. They see western civilization as the result of certain values. On the other hand, the Alt-right would explicitly say that there are differences between the races and thus, different races build different civilizations. Furthermore, there’s no reason to think non-whites can maintain civilizations built by whites. This is an unavoidable issue for the Alt-right. The Jewish Question Given how explosive this topic is, it’s no wonder why the Hillary campaign wanted to associate the Trump movement with a group that flirts with such a taboo even though there isn’t unanimous agreement among those within the Alt-right about the importance of this subject. Western society has gone through a rapid decline throughout the past hundred years. Any analysis that seeks to understand why we are in the mess we’re in has to take a number of variables into consideration. The Alt-right, as a group that is concerned about the advancement of white’s interests and the protection of their heritage, is very concerned with figuring out white’s missteps which have contributed to this decline. At the same time, the Alt-right rejects historical narratives devoid of any nuance which are designed to provoke white guilt. So, just as it is important to understand the role Europeans have played in the societal decline we are witnessing today, it is equally important to understand the role Jews have played. Thus, the Jewish question is not a single question, but rather an umbrella term which covers a wide-ranging debate about the positive and negative aspects which Jewish influence has had on the Western world. WW2 Revisionism World War 2 was one of the most horrific events ever to occur in human history. It’s estimated that over 60 million people, mostly European, died as a result of this catastrophe. Because of the profound and permanent impact this war has had, it is critical to understand what really happened and why. What makes the Alt-right different from the Alt-light in this respect is what exactly they are willing to question. Like many significant historical events, WW2 is shrouded in propaganda. Details and nuances are left out of the versions of this event that most people are taught about in government schools throughout the world. It is in fact illegal in many countries to question certain details of the official narratives of the Second World War. Truth does not fear investigation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zr0LcAtbA Post Script: The videos shared here do not necessarily represent my views as this material is new to me and so I'm still in the studying phase. So, I'm not interested in having long debates on the message board with people who might disagree with something in the content videos shared.

I wonder to what degree the actions of the Hispanic community taking large amounts of stolen money in addition to political voting "legitimize" the state? I wonder if Dsayers spends a comparable amount of time bringing his message of non-participation to the hispanic and black community and other leftists, or is it mostly liberty minded white people on internet forums that he lectures for their "immorality" of engaging in political voting?

I'm an atheist in a christian country that is being invaded my Muslims, but don't expect me to side with the christians. Both muslims and christians are equally irrational. There are no important nuances that distinguish Christianity and Islam. Religion is religion, period. Muh principles.

I don't see the point in stating the differences between heroin and kratom. Encouraging Kratom use as a way of harm reduction? That's supporting addiction. Moving from heroin to kratom? That's not progress. An addiction is an addiction.