Tyler H

I retract this statement and apologize. I'm still mulling over some concepts in my head but I believe you guys are right and I am wrong; it's not an arbitrary distinction since so much of IQ appears to be driven by evolutionary factors effecting the races differently. No possible good? I think that claim would be terribly difficult to back up. I think he will do some good, in fact I think he will be a pretty good president (by statist standards), however I am forever skeptical of government power and the use of violence to solve social problems even when the intention is good. We have no way of knowing what he will do with presidential power once he attains it, and even of the things that appear "good" we may not realize the unseen costs until much later. Wherever you choose, as long as you don't impose your will on others by force. Even in a free market people will argue over the correct allocation of resources and mistakes will be made, but no one will be able to force their opinions and the misallocation will not be exacerbated and hidden by government violence. You asked why we care to speak out about this topic and those were some of my reasons/opinions.

I think it's far less to do with race and more to do with IQ. The freedoms the west once enjoyed allowed the natural consequences of individuals' decisions to accrue to those individuals. The initiation of force flipped the script and created the current idiocracy. Dividing IQ by race is an arbitrary distinction that will only serve to enrage those who do not have the intellectual capacity or necessary information to understand what you are talking about. Misallocation of resources, sending the wrong message about the efficacy of political action, reinforcing hero-worship, (for some) substituting difficult conversations in your personal life with a stroll to the polling station and an anonymous tally. This isn't directed at anyone, but for me, personally, it's incredibly discouraging to see a bunch of people who agree the state is evil getting hard-ons over a candidate who will undoubtedly do evil, even if it is less evil than the alternative. Think Trump will do less harm than Hillary? Cool, no argument there, but don't act like he's the second f*ckin' coming.

I actually wasn't convinced by this statement; he never would have been able to win before now. Trump's successful candidacy is a product of the right being buttf*cked by their representatives for so long. He recognized the opportunity and jumped on it. Yeah, it's often absent any explanation or justification as well, which shows they aren't interested in helping you out of error, they just didn't like what you said. It reminds me of censorious SJWs screaming away facts. I down voted this because calling someone self-satisfied without evidence for making principled arguments and having integrity to follow through on those conclusions through action (or inaction) is either an attempt to make them self attack or level them in the eyes of whoever you think that's going to impress and should be discouraged in this community. We are here to search for truth and help each other through error, not denigrate and level each other to win arguments or feel morally superior.

I assumed you meant that "government" was related to "no ethics" but perhaps I was mistaken, would you mind clarifying?

Thanks for the info! I'll check it out.

Thanks for posting this. I had forgotten about Spooner's arguments. I keep going back and forth on the validity of self defense in regards to voting. I think this ambivalence is the source of my opposition to the position taken by some on the boards. I think the arguments Spooner makes are cogent, but I can't shake the idea that voting in self defense is more like throwing a grenade into a crowd of people containing some bad actors and less like rudimentary forms of self defense where the victim is obvious and the aggressor is known. Whether you save yourself is unknown; whether you hurt innocents or assailants is unknown. There are too many variables to make a principled decision. We know that the institution of majority rule by force is immoral, so why participate in it unless you have a reasonable expectation of actually protecting yourself? Conversely, I will concede this current election cycle could qualify as such an occasion for many people. Mike, I think I know where you are located, why crawl through broken glass to vote in a state that is almost certainly a lock for one candidate? I could understand a swing state, but why take part in a process that we recognize as evil when the outcome is in all likelihood predetermined?

What do you mean by white ethno-state?

Could someone knowledgeable on the the subject offer advice on protecting digital assets?

Do you mean a general lack of awareness in this thread, this community, or the country? If you mean this thread or community then I will put forward my own perception which differs from yours, let me know what you think. It appears to me that there is not a lack of awareness vis-à-vis what's on the line, but the viability of Trump as the solution, that we (those who reject the state based on moral and philosophical principles) have the ability to significantly influence the election, and that influencing the election is the best use of our time in furthering the cause of freedom. This could be a projection of my own perspective or perhaps a misunderstanding of the content I've been reading on the boards but I don't think anyone dismisses, belittles, or overlooks the crucial problem of unfettered immigration combined with a welfare state and the license to influence policy. Trying to use the state to solve problems has unforeseen consequences. The election is just another government program and voting for a candidate is condoning the use of force to impose our will against the minority; the very thing we stand against. Are we to forsake these principles on the basis of fear? Should we become christians and statists on the arguments of Pascal and Rawls? Would I prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency? Absolutely, especially with the possibility of Supreme Court appointments, but I won't give my sanction to the state. We can't make people free through violence and I won't pretend we can. I will listen to the show you mentioned and let you know if the arguments made therein alter my thinking, and if not I will do my best to formulate why.

Nice article man.

Lol, it's funny that the best parallel liberals could draw between the two they can't use because it would force them to admit the problem. I too have this concern as well, as I'm sure you know. I understand why the average conservative is backing trump, but as philosophical ancaps this is the best moment to slam the gas pedal on the message and plant seeds in people that I'm fairly confident will flower when Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich fail to save this sinking garbage barge.

I agree with much of what Eclectic said.

Pretty good video dude! The content was really good and I thought you laid it out nicely, and of course your accent (always been jealous of that accent) is gonna draw in the target demographic (future moms) for sure! As for suggestions for improvement: you can probably pick up a cheap mic that will sound better than the mic on the phone, and for me personally you looked a little uncomfortable in front of the camera (I have this problem too when I try to do videos). I think your facial expressions are engaging but your cadence could use a jolt. Also, the rocking back and forth was a bit distracting. The hard part is producing something you're willing to share so bravo my friend! The rest will come with repetition.

Are you able to pinpoint the feelings you experience when these thoughts surface? I often have trouble accurately identifying what emotion I am feeling, and since you described your reaction to your girlfriends sexual history as bothersome and emotionally painful this is the first thing that came to my mind to ask. I find these emotion wheels helpful during this process.

I am curious, you say you oppose multiculturism, but aren't you inflicting multiculturism onto South Koreans by living there? Unless you were an American of South Korean descent I suppose... or you moved there for the Oreo O's - totally understandable.

That's really cool man, is there a way for us to watch in the states?

I certainly understand the offense. The underlying accusation in the statement (as I see it) is that you guys are purposefully being dishonest and manipulative in order to grow the show. I have had to deal with these thoughts arising within myself as well, wrestling with them to a surprising degree. I have consumed an enormous amount of material from the show and should have no doubt about Stef's level of integrity, yet I find myself experiencing various "wtf?" moments. I do not think the aforementioned accusation is true, but allow to me to explore the thoughts and feelings that I, and I think more than a few others in the community as well, am having and the possible causes. For the vast majority of the show Stef has argued, with logic and good reason, why the state and religion are pernicious and evil. Arguments were made that those who support the state indeed support the initiation of force against us. The initiation of force is evil so those who continue to support it after the arguments have been advanced are therefore evil, and we should not continue to associate with these people. The courage and strength it took to accept these arguments that flew in the face of the lies we'd been told by society our whole lives pale in comparison to the courage and strength it took to bring these arguments to bear in our personal lives knowing very well the most likely outcome. The arguments were made that the Christian Bible is replete with moral atrocities including atheists be murdered. Arguments were made that teaching religion to children is child abuse, the most important evil to fight in order to extinguish all the others. Christianity, like all religion, is a superstitious cult based on manipulation and control and those who, after hearing the arguments, would choose an imaginary relationship with an immoral deity over a tangible and valuable relationship with us are not worthy of our time and attention. Again, courage and strength were required to accept these arguments. Great pains were endured to align ourselves with virtue and truth, so when we hear podcasts that appear to pull punches in order to court favor with Christians and conservatives, at least for me, feelings arise of frustration, confusion, and maybe even a bit of betrayal. I'm not saying this is what is happening (courting favors), but it is the message being perceived by some. People who have hollowed out their lives on the basis of these arguments are perplexed and disheartened to see Stef praise Trump, defend cops, shoot the shit with a minarchist, and prefer a religious society to a statist one (which I don't think is a valid choice since they are both a symptom of the same disease); especially if they are still in the process of finding virtuous people to fill the space in their lives they've cleared out. The podcast I posted above alludes to the idea that presenting the "against me" argument and the voluntary family have been ill-received; bringing a barrage a vitriol and scorn and accusations of the most malevolent order, and that there is a very delicate balance between attracting new people to grow the show, giving viewers what they ask for, and staying true to the principles. Am I correct in this interpretation? If not, please let me know. These thoughts were extremely difficult for me to articulate (and I may have still failed at that) and it took me all evening, so I hope it is helpful. If it is not then at least I got some of the thoughts that have been rattling around in my head down for others to view and offer insight. If I have caused any offense please let me know I will apologize profusely, and if I have misrepresented or misunderstood anything I welcome correction.

Ah, I understand, thank you for clarifying.

Hello! Welcome! Interesting article, I wonder why they didn't just install them in 24 hour stores so they are monitored?

Maybe I misinterpreted your post, but what about my post implied I was making an argument? I would like to avoid that language as it was not my intent. I am aware emotions and feelings and reactions are not arguments, but they are quite important in the realm of self-knowledge and connection. I was going for an "RTR" type dialogue and maybe should have expressed the specific feelings (annoyance, frustration) that I felt instead of the oh-so-vague "negative reactions"; my mistake.

I don't think one can equate an immediate life threatening scenario -in which you are the only method of salvation- to all people in need all over the world at different states of need with different available avenues of assistance and different factors that bring about the circumstances. Spending disposable income isn't even close to letting a child drown because you don't want to get your Doc Martens wet. Buying something might actually be giving some other child a job so he doesn't starve. Singer's drowning child sounds like just the sort of thing that gets a philosopher famous because he serves state power.

I listened to this podcast today (I'm catching up on my 1 year hiatus of new content) and I think the answer to the question at 1:32:00 really speaks to the ceasefire on the right, let me know what you guys think. I am curious, why do you so often choose to employ sarcasm in your posts? Personally I have a negative reaction to it, but it may be that the reason will assuage that feeling or help me understand why it arises at all.