Siegfried von Walheim

What I highlighted is similar to how I found FDR. Initially I was researching race and racial realism, as well as the Donald Trump phenomenon back when he first declared himself (I am semi-proud to admit I've been following/on the TrumpTrain since August 2015), I saw a certain bald head which I remembered because someone shared some of his race/IQ related videos. I started watching his political stuff, and after some inertia, watched some videos on anarchism and capitalism as well as peaceful parenting and all that good stuff. For all it's faults YouTube remains the dominant platform for content-seekers, especially directionless or fence-sitting ones. Alternatives might arise, but it'd take some major transitions for any real competition to arise and when it does....well, I'm sure it will be interesting.

He's like a Siamese twin--we're very close. He's asking for advice on how he should handle it and whether he should eventually deFOO.

Because guns, friends, and money brotha! If we want to copy the Jews, then we have to act like Jews and exhibit a strong in-group preference; be deferential to our host culture; make friends with the established powers; and chart out our long-term plan of securing a slice of Earth for our An-Capital.

Well, with this clarification, I'd say that works. Still I wouldn't discount America since most Americans don't live sheltered in the cities--although it may be necessary to segregate them by race given racial conflicts appear to be inevitable--and a significant portion that do live in ghettos/bad neighborhoods (Whites included). Of course I can't expect you to know everything about a country's readiness to militarize given a disaster scenario, nor "gauge accurately" how well they'd do. For example I'd figure (also taking from outside the list) that China, Russia, North Korea, America, and Israel are in that order the most militarily powerful countries based on a combination of size of standing army/ready draft pool, geographic barriers, efficiency within the army, and likelihood of being endowed with military geniuses (based on population size and recent war history) which ultimately becomes the deciding factor on whether a country is truly a hegemonist in the long run. But I think most of that is irrelevant, as you've said, since the main thing I think we all care about is civil liberty and cultural strength. On the list I'd reckon Poland to be the strongest in all those factors, and I wouldn't discount their historical hardiness either. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania (corrupt as it may be), Russia (the rising star), and Japan (which I assume will resurge after its aging populace dies) would be the best options for the AnCaps. America is much more dicey because I think it is far more likely that an authoritarian regime will seize power than one with respect for civil liberties. The culture will most likely be vivified but either under a fascist or communist dictatorship, therefore...well, "for how long" would come to my mind.

Well, "strength" I question how you measured since I'd assume America would rate much more highly than 20th given its own currency is the reserve for all others, has (apparently) the most intrusive and pervasive spyware, and fields an elite (though decreasingly so and ever-more strangely expensive) army. If you based it on relative-to-neighbors hegemony, then it'd be even higher as neither Canada nor Mexico really stand a chance against an army of American draftees--let alone it's standing army. As for economic freedom--I know you're using the index thing, however I don't know how "accurate" it is and I have no intention of trying to disprove it. Therefore I'd take it with a bag of salt as an approximation. Not sure how education is rated, since homeschooling is apparently the best and therefore education (except when there are laws against homeschooling) are irrelevant. I think "cultural strength" should be included. I.e., whether a culture has ethnic and moral backbone in the face of adversity. Based on the list provided I'd say Poland is looking the best as they're a rising power. If they can make it work with Russia, they could potentially return to their golden age from 500-1000 years ago. If not, they are hardy sons-of-bitches and therefore I expect them to survive pretty much anything that might come from their neighbors. In order to have an AnCap society, a strong foundation in nationalism (both ethnic and "civil") is required alongside a strong moral system (like say Roman Catholicism) in order to safeguard a society's cultural and intellectual growth. AnCap is closer to an ends than a means to an end, as there is so much required in order to both abolish the state and ensure the general populace and wield freedom responsibly.

Hey man, where's Russia? A.k.a. my backup plan if/when America has a decades-long civil war? Otherwise I'd pick Poland since they seem the most redpilled and the least likely to invite Socialism back in while Chile seems to have a creeping Socialism problem. Also, on the weather side (since someone mentioned it), I prefer cold climates therefore Poland beats everyone. Poland is/can be basically the new Germany.

EDIT: I am talking about myself. I have a friend, who is really having a hard time of it. I wasn't sure what to say to him, as this incident I'm about to describe was very revealing in lots of bad ways and I don't know how to answer it. Friend walks out and mentions to his mother some trivia about a show she was watching. She asks him not to mention trivia about the show, saying it confuses her. He asked why. She started wringing her hands and practically said she was mentally retarded. He denied she was retarded, and then she started getting all passive-aggressive and sarcastic. He asked her to stop being passive aggressive with her, and she got mad demanding "please be quiet". Then she compared him to her own mother (his grandmother), whom he grew up hearing about how she beat her and abused her and neglected her, and the mother knew that comparison always hurt the son. He gave up and came to me. Now I'm here asking "what the Hell? What do I do? What can I say? Sounds stupid but it clearly hints to a much larger underlying problem. I know he's been considering defooing his mother once he's able to do so financially, but I don't know..." Help me out, anyone wise and impartial about this sort of thing. I'm not an expert. I'm a layman who studies this sort of thing and tries to help himself as best he can, but I don't know how I can handle something so close to home.

Because I am a Christian with a universal standard for everything. Modern American government is warmongering. Has been since WWI. Are we not a civilization? I'd argue we're becoming less of one. Likewise when the Roman Empire/Early Republic started to stray from its principles of freedom (which unfortunately meant war, but fortunately that war actually did something good for both the conqueror and the conquered when usually no one benefits) alongside a welfare-warfare state suicide fest, it signed its own death warrant. If that's true I'll have to concede that to you. I didn't realize that. Of course Milton Friedmon was responsible for converting Pinochet into a NatCap, so clearly there are good Jews, to take a jive. After all subversion isn't in the best interests of them all. I mean, the smarter ones realize it's self-defeating. Because I am a Christian who believes in universal ethics and therefore hold everyone who can reason to a same standard. Because otherwise he's just a fat and useless piece of shit spinning tall tales. A God is either the creator of the universe or a champion of some aspect of a religion (if not it's entirety). Technically speaking, depending on how the pagans defined things like love or whatever, their gods could be inherently consistent. However that just makes them degenerate. Either because they worship a hypocrite or they worship degeneracy itself knowingly. Eh...I don't know so I can't say either way. Assuming you mean Christian values originated from pagans. True, depending on the definiton used. I'm using "champion of a belief or aspect of a religion" as a definition, and using the same standard I'd hold anyone to with it. Since gods are supposed to be superior to humans, they require higher standards. I don't blame someone who is tone deaf for being unable to play good music, while I expert Mozart's incarnation or whatever to be super great at it. I see what you mean now. I'm weary about using false idols are role models since, as the saying goes, "honesty is the best policy except when murderers are involved". For example, I'd rather use Jesus as an example of resisting temptation, Sima Yi as an example of deferring gratification (in his dream of seizing ultimate power and pacifying WWII-level war torn China), Richard the Lionheart or Gustavus Adolphus for bravery, Zhuge Liang for wisdom, Aristotle for reason, etc. etc. Real people make better idols because they're harder to corrupt and are...well, from a human perspective, more inspiring because if a "mere mortal" could do it then "I" could too.

Because gods are the champions of their races/religions. If the Champion is a hypocrite, then what foundation does the morality have? While a double standard makes sense when talking about humans and animals, I wouldn't treat women like children but rather the same I do men. That being said I'm not expecting women (using gender) to be soldiers, laborers, etc. but I do hold them to the same moral standard as men. Likewise I hold Africans to the same moral standards I hold Aryans. Hence why I consider them mostly "savages". If I thought they were merely evolved monkeys, I wouldn't call them savage because...well, the same reason we don't call wolves barbarians. They would be simply incapable of being any different. Theoretically races can be reconstructed through the elimination of the unfavorable and the promotion of the favorable. But that's a whole other conversation. Point is; gods=champions of religion, champions=must be held to the standard otherwise they're less than animals. Well I didn't know that. I can't say it was enough to make them a true civilization given they most just attacked my southern neighbors and often drafted my ancestors into their hirds rather than build a free market-based empire of their own. Calling them gods is degrading the word "god" to effectively mean "retarded animal without agency". After all we don't try to retrain rabbits out of r-selection because it is instinctual to them. They're rabbits. gods being degenerate and hypocritical makes them ungodly and in fact quite savage and lowly. God is synonymous with virtue, and the all-consistent Jesus is a true Champion of his own ideals. False gods are false in part for their hypocrisy. After all if X is so great why couldn't he hold himself to his own standards? Clearly he's just an entitled brat with a myth keeping his name alive. As fairy tales used for fun, I don't care. But as actually worshiped and taken seriously religions, Norcism and Greek paganism are disgusting and...well, counter-productive. Jesus and the Saints make far better heroes because they're all morally consistent and pillars of strength both in body and in character. To be clear; my position is that pagan religions are counter-productive and hypocritical and therefore destructive to Western Civilizations. I am thinking your argument is that they're not, but rather can be used as heroes to promote certain things and that it doesn't really matter if they're hypocrites because their title somehow excludes them from responsibility. Less than an infant to whom even the smallest agency is given. I put that P.S. mainly for clarification as I am not in the best of minds for the while.

I'm confused. However I also have a bit of headache. How does paganism imply that there is fault in hedonism when there is a race of beings that can be hedonistic as it pleases without consequence? Hypocrisy smells, you know. People don't take hypocrites seriously. You mean the vikings? Compared to what? The early Roman Empire/Republic which were about as k-selected and efficient as can be? Or their later halves which were becoming r-selected thanks to a welfare-warfare state? And then there is the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, France, etc. that came after. Islam is very anti-degeneracy, yet many Muslims live like degenerates either secretly or publicly in the West. A strong stance against degeneracy does not necessarily get rid of it. However I'm confused as to the point intended to be made. Are you saying you're ambivalent about religion? Or advocating for Norse paganism? Or...?

The creation of new testament implies there is/was fault with the first, and therefore it is by the New Testament that Christians base themselves. If I were a hypothetical former smoker saying "don't smoke", I wouldn't be a hypocrite because I'm no longer smoking. Also, technically speaking, Christians are entirely the New Testament because before Christ there was no Christianity. Yeah because it gives the ruling class license to be self-indulgent and corrupt with "muh Odin" and "muh Venus" as an excuse. Paganism is degeneracy made into a religion. Christianity is virtue made into a religion because God is synonymous with virtue.

Not really. They're basically humans with magic powers. Hypocritical religions don't affect much in the way of character; they can secure compliance in the here and now, but rarely true faith. Christianity (which is all New Testament) is highly consistent and while it varies per sect, very much against hypocrisy and is all-in-all a very White religion. I mean, the atheist Stefan-senpai is so Christian the only thing not making him one is his atheism. U.P.B. is basically a secular bible in terms of lessons and meaning. Look up "Hidden Christians" to learn just how powerful the religion is and how true the Japanese Christians remained without any White/Christian influence in 400 years. It's a very powerful testament to the strength of the Christ.

You got that backwards. The idea is beaten into them and reasoned out of them. Abuse victims are naturally communists and fascists because both are projections of bad parents "disciplining" onto a bad society. Capitalism comes from friendship and learning to love competition and the cooperation inherent to it.

Not in Christianity... Jesus is totally virtuous and God is literally godlike in his character. @Mishi2 can probably explain more for details. Brotha; ever heard of Venus and Mars? Two most widely worshiped gods of Rome before Christ and one was a whore who cheated on her husband with a man young enough to be her son. Aristotle was (probably) an atheist; Augustus might also have been an atheist or at least "different" as he wasn't big on his own pantheon and deified his adoptive father/uncle. Kaiser Barbarossa was a Christian King and Emperor. Literally "Holy Roman Kaiser".

Err...given how degenerate the pagan gods were, I wouldn't use them as role model examples. Richard the Lionheart; King Henry V; Kaiser Barbarossa; Gustavus Adolphus; Aristotle; Augustus Caesar; etc. make good role models because they were molded into true Christian heroes.

As far as modern problems go, I'd agree the three main roots are "Lack of Christendom; Socialism; and Statism" and would add "Republicanism" to that as well.

I know this wasn't directed at me but...by God, can I resist???? NO! Republicanism, statism, and human nature. WASP. I don't know what "pure" means, since that's about as subjective as can be. WASP values and WASP genes are certainly what I'm big for. Over 9000. However given there aren't many if any people around 9000 or over 200, I'd say about 100 will do since that combined with Free Market = natural eugenics to Godliness. 100% + maybe a good-Jewish enclave and good East-Asian enclave here and there as "free samples" of why the West is the Best and why "you all" should copy us. Plus I really like anime and know some great Jews to compensate for the bad ones, so...heavily biased in their favor. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. And of course a free market of ideas so that the best arguments (like UPB) can win since growth is far preferable to decline, and consent to the Church versus indoctrination always worked best for us. Free Market; no/tiny state. White people 100%. Christian values (even from non-Christians like Stef); NAPy; No child abuse; etc. I think Erwin has this answer down pat. Mine is similar but I'd focus less on the bad Jews and more on the State and the Marxist parasite. Therefore, war was declared by the first to raise his hand against his child, and by Karl Marx when he was around. Far stronger values; absolutism; abolition of republicanism; and a big wall on the coasts as well as the north and south, with a Chinese dedication to maintaining them and protecting them. Brotha if you mean "Half-white half-Asian" or "Half-white half-Jew--if they can be called not White" then youse as good as a brotha of mine so long as we share values and you follow the NAP.

These are all eamples of Muslims living in Islamic society, not White or East Asian people living in a free market or something half-way there. I semi-quote to Stef's debunking of the idea in the next; "Slavery is economically inefficient; who'd want to sign a contract stating they must be responsible for the life of someone else? That someone can't be smart or skilled, if he was he'd have found work or started his own work; therefore he must be very stupid and unskilled; therefore he must cost more than he can produce. Therefore, the idea of someone idiotically selling himself into slavery and then someone else buying it while in a society that roundly condemns slavery is ludicrous" Context: White free market society. Semi-quote=I just boiled down what I remembered. Pushing the goal post much? Actual slavery, and mob rule, are two different things. You started with actual slavery, i.e. the chattel kind, and now we speak of mob stupidity (which is also an argument for totalitarianism). A Free Market is founded on two things: the NAP and respect for property. Therefore there cannot be a coercive body to force people to do XY or Z. Everything would be voluntary. And in societies that were closest to that (like the early Roman Empire and early Roman Republic, post-Revolutionary America, Chile) were the least examples of infringement on the individual. Which calls into question "how does the Pontiff gain his authority? His cardinals that voted him also?" "From God" requires God to have a way of speaking or writing it. Therefore some mortals must have conceived of the idea of a cloister of scholars being the best agency to make the Bible and lessons from it digestible for the masses, as well as provide a place for public debate and sanctuary. "The People" are a historically passive institution with only a minority of them active. I suppose you could say a passive "meh" is a surrendering of one's right to chose, however "the People" have never had the right to pick "none of the above". I never say "We" because I am only myself. I refuse to be blamed for the actions of others, or take credit for the valors of others. Only pride and shame are sensible "collective" emotions because neither necessarily require the one feeling them to be the cause of them, and neither are necessarily words of judgement and condemnation. In other words we do not, in a just society, execute the guy living in another town because he feels shame for being the distant cousin of Ted Bundy. <The awkward moment when I don't read ahead and find that question answered As a Roman Catholic, I admit fault and declare the Church possible of fault because it is comprised of mortals. Nothing tangible about the church differentiates it, no special system lacking by other agencies I mean, check it from corruption. The easy example: Pope Francisco the First (and Last). Yes. I started "knowing this" when Stef pointed it out, what the Dark Ages were like. I don't know if I'll actually dig for data beyond a wikipedia article or something describing a particular country or state as I am busy working today. The Early American Republic (especially the WASP northern half). The Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan. 1860-1910 American Republic; Later Pinochet and post-Pinochet Chile. Victorian England. Early American Republic; Pinochet's Chile; Augustus of the Roman Empire; Nobunaga Oda's realm in Japan; etc. Easily the will of the uneducated and selfish mob. Even the whims of Dong Zhuo cannot be compared to the stupid sheeple that rolled over and took it anally when Lenin and Stalin came around. Both can be dangerous, especially when stripped of all morality (like Dong Zhuo), and neither can ever be truly "safe" since they all require the initiation of force. However I'd argue a decent and just King is superior to a complacent but not degenerate mob any day. The individual is far superior to the collective. We do have half-way examples, in which case I'd point to the Roman Empire from Augustus to roughly 200 A.D. A pretty free society that had a very stable economy and the best living conditions in history until America came along, and it was only destroyed when the aging Empire started debasing the currency and acting like a typical republican government.

I apologize, I think I forgot the context and answered the wrong question. I think you should expect more of that from me given the length of our conversation as well as the text, however I'll try to avoid that when possible. The first thing is subjective; the second thing I agree with; the third thing I am weary of but consent is obviously better than resentment. However my two points was more for what makes a good ruler than a a good establishment. Who would sell themselves into slavery? And who would be wiling to buy? And in that remote hypothetical scenario, why does it matter? What is wrong with price tags as ways of measuring the subjective value of something? This show has a price tag based on how much money it costs to run compared to how much money is made running it. Likewise you're spending money (in the form of time) by communicating with me. You'll have to really make a seperate post about debating the free market because this whole "muh sell muhself fo' slavery" thing just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying letting marriages be consensual will result in the occasional bad marriage. Or more precisely, a marriage in which one partner willingly chooses to be the beta of the other. Who cares? How does that affect society as a whole? Unless selling oneself is being actively promoted, the rare fool or prostitute doesn't mean anything. In fact, natural selection is against that. And the Free Market epitomizes natural selection. Well, I haven't kept up with what they've been up to lately. I like the sound of that. I'd accept any hands in fighting the evil invaders. However it doesn't change the reality of the situation in that it's basically a more honest government. Why be moral you mean? Sure, but I think the "why" is obvious. Number one: mutual gain. Number two: it feels good. The definition of legitimate authortiy is authority granted by God? In that case, how does one acquire legitimate authority? What standard is used to measure legitimacy? To be clear, acting against God is synonymous with sinning I.e. being immoral. In which case, yeah. If my parents are bad, I owe them no heed. If they're good, I ought to heed them. Beyond consensual relationships the only people I am"forced" to obey are criminals and government. The former can be easily avoided by moving out of the ghetto (which is harder), and the latter by moving to a laissez faire county or town (also harder, but a simple and direct solution to minimizing restrictions based on power rather than virtue). Simple: who has the bigger empire; who has the better living conditions; and who has the more morally consistent populace. If all else is equal, then what I prefer is automatically superior to the other because...well, I consider classical music superior to rap because I like it more, not necessarily for objective reasons. My culture, race, and nation I have more objective reasons to prefer it for, plus the more subjective and minimalist reasons. The third point is why I fear a reversal of the pendulum. However that's their problem, I have my own house to fix. In other words, evil in theological terms is the result of disobeying God's commandments. In that case, I concede as that explains things from my layman's perspective. After all if I say "here's the proper diet", then I can also say fatness is the result of not following my diet. I think that analogy works. Yeah, I've been busy so I haven't been watching as much. Dennis Prager was a guest I see. When or if I watch the interview, I'll get back to you. I can't argue something I don't know after all. I think my point was that the Church is fallible, therefore they can be wrong about interpreting His Will. Do your homework and be horrified of your own words then. Agreed. I have some disagreements but as a package deal, there is no better moral package on the market. It covers most of the bases and is consistent from what I know. I meant the Church can be wrong, therefore God's true will cannot be directly reached for we have only scholars' interpretations to go on. Meanwhile Stefan lives and is willing to answer questions directly. I think I meant to answer this point earlier. The first that comes to mind is the Holy Roman Empire of approximately the 12th century, in which vagrancy was defended, charging of interest outlawed, and guilds dominated most forms of work. Russia's enslavement of 90% of it's populace being an easy red herring. Good: just, progressive, stable, and prosperous. Peace and prosperity being two key words. Bad: unstable, dangerous, in a state of war, etc. The idea is that a autocracy can make bigger pendulum swings more quickly than a republic because the whims of the ruler are law under absolute monarchies such as China, Russia, and the German Empire. However I'd argue against myself that most monarchs were so-so rather than one way or the other, and so too most republican leaders. Also, since monarchies tend to live longer than republics most of the time, they may be more stable even in the worst of times. It says posted 4 hours ago from the time I am clicking "submit reply". Not too bad.

Again it wasn't the Enlightenment, which made people ask questions, which destroyed the old system, it was its age, vulnerability, and decreasing ability to maintain itself. A good monarchy requires the King, Emperor, or what-have-you to have TWO simple skills: Number One; recognition of his own limitations and; Number Two: a good judge of other people's character. Once a man knows his own limitations while having the ability to accurate judge the character and general quality of others, he has the potential to be a great ruler. It's not too hard for the former to be passed down through a family, the latter however is a bit chancy. Genes help, but how long until they're diluted? However historically a hereditary monarchy with a stable and consistent system lasts for a long time without much dramatic changes occurring to it. A Kingdom or Empire built on Classical Liberalism, Stefanism, and Christendom would easily be the country that eclipses the world and grow the people that makes other ethnic groups look like mere subhuman savages by comparison. You do not know what the Free Market is if you think any form of coercion can have "free market principles". The main principles of the free market are; the ability to choose, the non-initiation of force, and respect for others' property. A mafia forces the productive members of society to pay tribute to it and generally gives nothing in return for it's naked theft and extortion. Although inherently contradictory, a government can promote the Free Market and sustain it, at the cost of its own long-term power and an increasing likelihood of its own displacement. A mafia, which unlike an established civilized government, does not even claim to give anything in exchange for its theft, is merely a tyrannical system of oppression of the productive in favor of the parasitical. ...What? He argued this world only matters because we are here to make it matter. He has argued that the benefit of being virtuous is both a gratification for the good as well as, more practically, a surer-way of getting to the ideal "American Dream" of owning the roof over one's head, a family, and stability. He has made many arguments both moral and practical for the benefits of being good as well as why mankind matters. Haven't you at least heard them in passing? I heard most of them just by regularly listening to his call-in-shows and listening to the orgasm of virtue that pours out of his mouth. You can argue UPB based only on its contents, but you can't argue Stef if you don't have a full picture of him. Or at least not without a disclaimer along the lines of "based on what I know; based on what I've heard...". We are animals or at least mammals by definition. We just hold fellow mortals to higher standards than mere "animals" because we are naturally inclined to be pro-Human. Of course I should add a caveat that not all things natural are evil. For example; it is natural to be pro-human, pro-self, pro-family, pro-nation, etc. etc. and all these things, when utilized or formed correctly, are good both morally and practically. It is true, I should concede, that when coming up with a governmental or societal system, human (or more specifically racial) nature is essential to knowing if it can work. One thing worth noting is that we have never lived in a society where the majority of it citizens did not in some way regularly abuse their children. We have no way of knowing for sure what can happen once society stops abusing their children, or if good people formed a colony and started a new civilization (but we do have some idea since America was built by the superior and entrepreneurial Whites who left behind the shit Whites in an effort to build a relative Utopia. The result was a Second Roman Republic, with all the good and bad associated with it. Who knows how big an impact a budding civilization can have if it stops abusing their kids?) Human nature is something we don't really know, because it is generally human nature + abuse that we know. Many of the greatest men in history had uniquely good childhoods for their time. Others had commonly terrible childhoods. They all fought a personal revolution however with mixed success and failure. Few or none could have known or did know how much their own childhoods shaped them, as well as how their greatness could have been shared by liberating the children. Now you must define legitimacy. Why should I obey my parents? Why are they automatically right? Pragmatism would state "survival". Dogmatism would state "power with bullshit excuses attached". What does the Philosopher say? From what I understand, the Philosopher states that we should obey only the wise and virtuous unless death is the consequence of disobeying. I denied materialism or libertarianism being my standard for morality, but rather enlightened Christendom and truth being my standards. Honestly I don't know for certain how to answer this simple question. However the two answers that come to mind are "truth" and "progeny". What is best for my progeny is a long, happy, and fruitful life. The most direct way I can give that is by providing resources as capital, being a good father to instill high moral and spiritual character, and I can impart intelligence through genetics and wisdom through knowledge. All these things equal good prospects that are very rarely spoiled. I want my progeny to be safe, happy, and great. Safety comes from wealth and resources. Happiness comes from virtue and resources to a lesser degree. Greatness comes from genes plus early wisdom and a strong moral and spiritual character. Allahu Ackbar is why I as a hypothetical Muslim, unless I'm 50 and done with life, can't build a future for my children and why Whitey keeps beating me and not letting me into Europe to rape and pillage (until recently because Whitey went cray-cray). British Empire is why I, a non-hypthetical English speaking German-American, speak English, adhere to largely Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) values in spite of being a German Catholic, and why countries as far apart as China and Japan have English as a commonly studied second language. The British Empire, followed by America, is the most successful culture and race in history in terms of spreading both its seed and its values. Genghis Khan's conquests barely lasted beyond Kublai Khan, except in the Ukraine because the Russians were pussies back then, until Ivan the Great kicked them out. The WASP culture is why I can drink water from a faucet instead of running to a river. The WASPs are why I, someone living in a different hemisphere with a different cultural history, speak English and have largely WASP values. The WASPs are the main champions of Capitalism and the fruits born of it, such as a living standard equal to Kings, and a strong moral backbone that only the cancer of Communism and Feminism could break. WASP culture is the best. As a the representative of a conquered and assimilated people, I can safely say the British Empire was the best in history and thank them for conquering me and convincing my recent ancestors to assimilate. I'd say "Lol *bleep* you heathen". Why should I care what someone from an inferior culture thinks of my superior culture? Unless they can beat me in living conditions, adherence to true moral principles, or in a reasoned debate, I don't give a damn what they have to say. Note: I am saying this realizing White civilization is currently being insane. However this insanity is more a historical anomaly than a rule. I do admire the Muslims for their moral consistency even though they are degenerate and evil. Well I don't know any who do/did, so I can't comment. As an American I respect forthrightness and honesty over false compliments and unnecessary titles. I'd rather be called "King" for successfully ruling a country than "King" because my Daddy was King. I'd rather be called a "good man" or "sir" for being worthy of respect than for just being alive. Now mind you I greatly respect Stef and Mike. However they're open to first names and prefer first names. Therefore I refer to them casually even though I exalt them for their heroism. It has a government, creeping socialism, and from what I know, a lack of self-knowledge and attention to child abuse. If it didn't have the first two (or really just didn't have creeping socialism) and had SK and a commitment to fight child abuse, it could swing AnCap rather easily. It's definitely the freest country in the world. Too bad I'm not Spanish. I have to actually contribute to the fight for freedom rather than simply inherit it. If God has free will and created evil, then he is evil. That's why I don't argue God for ethics because he defeats himself, at least because theologians haven't squared the circle yet. I have no idea who Prager is. However morality need not God, but rather truth. Is it true? Why yes, morality is by definition true because it is universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't moral. It is easier to make claims as to why murder is immoral than why charity is moral because the principle "murder is evil" can be universalized while "charity is right" cannot be. I think. My arguments for morality tend to be more practical and ethnic in nature than reason-based, however I never drop reason when arguing with someone I know to be reason-based. My point is that, most likely, your vision of God differs from the guy standing next to you, because he is abstract like "the Fatherland" and "the Greater Good". We have a similar approximation of Him but no definitive him. Ask one priest if spanking is evil, and one will quote "spare the rod; spoil the child" (in complete ignorance of the line's meaning) while the other would say it is evil and quote Jesus saying something like "do unto me first what you would do to the weakest and littlest among you". This subjectivity, or ignorance, causes problems in using the abstract concept of "the Church" as an argument because although there are some common morals there are also points of disagreement and misinterpretation. I admire UPB and Stef because he is not divided in meaning and can be easily reached for doctrinal confirmation whereas God and Jesus have long since died and/or taken a back seat. Eh, I don't know how they're ranked but I'll take their word for it since it "sounds" right. Historically monarchies were very economically unfree, with inane numbers of laws and taxes with selective application of them, and even outright slavery of most of the populace. Modern monarchies are freer because they evolved with the Enlightenment or were destroyed. A simple line: "A good autocracy trumps a good democracy; and a bad autocracy is worse than a bad democracy" surmises my belief on the efficacy of monarchism versus republicanism. In order to maximize the good and limit the bad, a government must be tiny and the people must be moral. I just think a good autocracy is the only way to effect a revolution in the short term, while a restricted government is the best way to sustain the new society in the long term. I haven't. I think we just got lucky. Although I cursed a few times in this reply, therefore I assume it will be subject to moderation.

Theoretically it's very possible. If a government is defined as a centralization of force, then a decentralization of force would be AnCap. According to Practical Anarchy by the Stefpai, the police and military would be privatized as the essentials of national defense. Historically mercenaries, the Swiss Guard in particular, were the best soldiers around while the poor grunts dragged off to fight some stranger's war were typically not the best until early modern warfare equalized the capabilities of individual soldiers, until modern warfare which is starting to resemble and favor the copying of post-Roman pre-Early Modern individualism in combat and warfare. If I, a Marshal of some sort, overthrew the government of say, Greenland, and then ordered the creation of competing police and military insurances, then encouraged the populace to subscribe to their police and army of choice, I would have effectively made myself obsolete. Of course I'd have to be careful lest I risk the chance of one or more of these groups attempting a coup to seize power since I'd be "forcing freedom", which may be a bad plan to make AnCap happen but it's the first that came to mind as I typed. Hence I think the best thing until then is a laissez faire (I wish right clicking would tell me how to spell that correctly) monarchy/minarchy with little in the way of private regulation and much in the way of promotion of virtue would be required first. Yeah, I think you're right. However East Asians are also easy to control as a minority, for the most part. Homogeneity is better since it takes out the inherent ethnic and racial tensions. However if something apocalyptic happens to we White folks, it's up to the East Asians to carry the standard as the last civilization group on the planet. Which is why I "adjusted" UPB somewhat to be Christian since moral absolutism is a must for morality to really exist. Although Stefan is most definitely a moral absolutist, his arguments don't have the "sensational weight" that most religions have. Which isn't a bad thing for intellectuals seeking to learn, but the plebs need an idol. Even a false idol trumps no idol. The most natural state is me going outside beating people up for resources and raping and pillaging like a dog. Child abuse is natural; slavery is natural; even ritualistic barbarism is natural. Nature does not equal good. Taking care of our bodies and not dismembering them is actually unnatural since human beings are naturally inclined to follow the will of the tribe, no matter how irrational it may be. Our values trump whatever is best for us in terms of our behavior. We'd sacrifice life and limb for a group of people that'd wish us to die if we thought it moral, no matter how stupid (and actually evil) it may be. Authority= legal power then? In which case we aren't arguing morals but pragmatism. In which case the freer a society is the more pragmatic the outcomes. Er... No. My standards for morality is whatever is best for my progeny. The Free Market and AnCap as well as libertarianism and minarchism are what is best for for my family and bloodline. The mammalian will to provide is balanced with a strong adherence to the moral principles of truth, loyalty, love, and intelligence. Having said that not everything I mentioned is a moral principle. However since you asked what I claim as my moral standard, "Love" and "Progeny" would be them then. Intelligence and loyalty being the two "aesthetic" characteristics I very strongly prefer. My reply is "Allahu Ackbar" and "British Empire." The first kills the point of Islam and the second proved White Christian values are indeed the best. America, 1900: Super nice place to live. Running water. Plumbing. Food. Lack of coercive central authority and lack of totalitarianism. Historically the freest country and time in history, second maybe to the "Wild" West (which was as wild as your average church or business office). Africa, anytime: a land of barbarism and carnage where life is both an orgy and a torture fest. No natively created running water or even food storage. Basically a land of animals. About as free as North Korea or the Soviet Union divided by a million. Everyone is someone else's slave at all times. It's basically Hell. Roman Empire, 50 A.D. Safe, peaceful, clean water, food, etc. etc. Second or Third freest country and time in all history, rivaled by America (until recently), Britain (until recently), and the first half of the Roman Republic. North Korea: Starving, no privacy, concentration camps, etc. ec. Literally the definition of "unfree". Technically Jews invented most of that. Jews also invented (or more precisely contributed greatly) to Capitalism and the liberation of countries like Chile. A pretty powerful and amazing race. But either way the Japanese exemplified, especially in the 50's-2000's, Americanism with an Asian flavor in terms of greatness. China is doing pretty well all things considered. Nowhere near as unfree or hellish as it used to be. Starting to look up to. Well most of us on the forum call him "Stef" and his callers do too. Similarly for Mike. Therefore I joined in and did it to. I was wondering maybe you're being overly formal because it's an Asian thing. Well...taking a stab at it. 0=AnCap 10=Post-Pinochet Chile 20=Early Roman Republic/Early America (1800's) 30=Roman Empire/1900's Britain/Pinochet Chile 40=Modern Russia. 50=China/America today 60=Modern Japan 70=Modern Britain/Germany 80=Modern Sweden 90=Hitler's Germany/Civil War Era America 100=North Korea/Soviet Union I know it's rough and my ignorance as to exactly how "free" some countries like modern Russia and Japan are makes this foggy, but I'd argue we're freer than most countries in history but much less free than back when we were a growing empire. Then by that logic, God is corrupt and therefore the Devil. Or at least mortal. However that makes the Devil, who represents relativism and hedonism and general modern decadence, not that far from God then. However I assume you didn't mean to imply that, and as a Roman Catholic interested in moral absolutism, I would't preach that. However I don't pull out the G-card in general, because unless I'm giving a public speech or argument where sophistry is actually a useful tool,because pulling the G-card leads to a lot of confusion and subjectivity. For example I don't know what God means for you as compared to me, nor how important He is to you relative to me, nor what you perceive to be His will etc. etc. Which is why I'm trying (at least now I'm trying) to avoid using God as an argument because of my theological ignorance and the inherent subjectivity of an internalized father figure. I somewhat agree. I know AnCap won't work today because White people need to regrow a spine first. AnCap can only work once a significant amount of White people have grown a moral backbone and a moral absolutists in what I'd loosely call a "Stefanist-branch of Roman Catholicism". I.e., UPB and NAP + Bible= Evolution. Yes, that's true. However there's a lot of elbow room with monarchism because it doesn't inherently specify an economic or legal system to live under, merely the existence of a hereditary dictator. Notice the most civilized and powerful races in the world do what they can to restrict the power of the State and the individual's ability to do harm unto others. Freedom to Bare Arms was put into the American constitution in order to prevent groups of political thugs or mafias from seizing power, and mitigating the danger posed by any existing or unknown future gangs. EDIT: I'm surprised I haven't need moderation pending in any of these posts. I think Stefpai may have taken my suggestion of totally abolishing the moderation system and leaving it to the reputation system to filter crap. Well, I feel special now... <3

The viability of AnCap, which has never occurred in full, can be gauged based on how well societies do when they're close to it (like early America or the early Roman Republic and to some degree the Roman Kingdom and early Roman Empire) compared to far from it (like Soviet Russia, North Korea, and Communist China). Clearly trends show the less government there is, the better. White people and East Asian people in particular are shown to do better when there is less government control over people and more individualist control, i.e., controlling oneself, taking accountability for one's failures, suffering the consequences of bad decisions, ostracism, and stronger communal spirit through a common morality (which is universal by definition) and respect for private property. Which begs the existence of God and the interventionism of God as well. Since God has given man free will and has largely taken a backseat to watch rather than intervene, man must act as if there was no God and therefore, like children grown up, hold each other accountable. Since there is no tangible way to determine whether God has truly given anyone divine right, divine right must not be something that can be given but acquired. Hypothetically speaking someone who lives morally and champions morality has the divine right because, if I define "divine right" as great moral authority (i.e. expertise), then a champion of virtue is by definition someone with the divine right. In which case why do we speak of God? I cannot argue religion since I don't know enough, but I'd refer to Stef's arguments against the consistency of God's portrayal as to why we, the moral and intellectual leaders of society, cannot be lead by a ghost whose form had been robbed. However in spite of that I find the Christ itself to be very much worth heeding for its proven success in building and preserving White civilization. If that's the case then logically we should become Muslims since they are closest in behavior to our most ancient of ancestors. Nature is a poor argument for morality because nature is immoral. You do in terms of "why" the King should care? Beyond keeping the law enforced and fair, the King should care not for the commoner as much as he cares for the noble because the nobleman is by definition noble while the commoner is by definition common. Of course I'm not arguing an aristocracy should persecute the common, but rather realize they're common and treasure the rare and high quality for compared to the top 10% of humanity the bottom 90% are just fertilizer. What I found interesting is how learning about genetics just confirms the "age old bias" or whatever the Left would call it that is actually true. I'd argue nobility in the truest since could rise again in a state of freedom, without robbers and looters centralizing power. Which can be dangerous as not every superior man has the inferior's best interests at heart, therefore the inferior man must be very aware of the superior man's history and record before employing him for whatever he might need. My mind is numbing a bit, forgive me if what I have said or start to say lacks sense in some way, and be sure to ask me for clarification since I have a strong suspicion I'm making less sense as a type. Depends on the definition of authority. If I define authority as "possessing proven expertise" then it is not in and of itself moral, but it can be moral. Unearned authority would theoretically be someone claiming authority by compensating for their lack of authority with the power of a gun. My parents are mine simply because they had sex. Having sex is not a granter of authority, but rather responsibility. My parents have as much authority over me as their records and histories would imply, and have great responsibility for me as I did not choose to be born nor to grow up in the conditions that I did. If you define authority as merely power, then we are no longer arguing morality but mere Machiavellianism. Consensus is not a guarantee for morality, agreed. My argument was that with competing champions, every other champion will have to redouble their efforts to live in what they consider to be moral as a way of proving the viability of their causes. I think ideally the Church would be the sanctuary for champions to debate publicly and the media a microphone and record keeper to ensure the champions are truly living by their own standards. Whether or not their lifestyles are sustainable, how much happiness they bring, and how productive they are, in a state of freedom being the ultimate test. Better than most, obviously. I am not arguing against the Church, but rather arguing to amend the Church for the Church has a history of occasionally straying from Godliness. The Church being defined both in terms of what the popular (by its members) interpretations of doctrine as well as its cloth-wearing members. Well, if all goes well I'll prove it. Most likely though it'll never happen without first improving the quality of an ethnically homogeneous White or East Asian country's childhood and imparting Christian and UPB ethics upon them. Then it's practically a guarantee. However the first part is the truly challenging part. Why do you call him "Mr. Molyneux"? I know you don't mean to antagonize, but I have noticed only critics refer to him formally whereas sympathizers and adherents address him casually. It's a tangent but it's the first thing that came to my mind. I said earleir the best evidence for the success of AnCap is how the freer a society is the more productive it is. Compare China post-Mao (90's onwards) compared to during-Mao for a huge demonstration of how many lives freedom can save. If God is moral, then divine monarchy must also be moral. If it isn't, then morality cannot be an argument for monarchism. My best argument for monarchism and aristocracy is ability and efficiency. I theorize the first AnCap society will arise from a laissez faire and morally enlightened and Christian Kingdom or Empire because its founding principles will be respect for the high quality and disdain for the degenerate and deadbeat.

An interesting article. There were some points I mean to argue, I'll copy and paste them in bubbles. An interesting claim, but I don't know how true it is. Personally, I want to rule as well as be ruled well. I want to rule myself and the affects of my actions, and delegate matters I am unfamiliar or ignorant of to experts. Therefore, I wish to both rule and be ruled. My question is always how to single out the right people for the right jobs. I think the answer is "the Free Market". My biggest problem with the article is a lack of definition for authority. Depending on what is meant is what is really being said. If authority is a sensation or illusion given to he perceived to be the judge, jury, and executioner then mobs have authority. If authority is someone with known/demonstrated expertise in a given area, then a mob, unless comprised of experts about a specific subject, cannot have authority. However authority does not guarantee truth. A hundred scientists can say the Earth is flat and be proven true in everything else they've claimed/argued/proven, and still be wrong here. Therefore, authority is useful for delegating responsibilities to individuals with proven records in what they do because no man can be a true 100% fountain of expertise polymath. Although I am a Christian, I won't accept this as proof if the definition of "authority" is expertise, unless by God what is meant is genes and the result and series of happenings since God's creation of the universe. Analogies aren't arguments. They can make an argument more digestible but the only argument I can find for monarchy here is "because it is natural". And I agree, one man or woman being in charge based on expertise is natural to civilization. So too, unfortunately, is beta resentment. As a moral example, I agree. A leader ought exemplify his own spoken and unspoken beliefs and act as a champion to others. What is the commons? The singularly talented and unspectacular? Why? Why ought the King protect the "commons"? What are the commons in danger from and what are they owed? Why does the King owe him? How can the King cure their dangers? I agree here that an Imperial family and a homogeneous culture (ideally based on a mix of Christendom, UPB, and NAP) can bridge the gaps made by race and ethnicity, to some extent, namely the extent to which ethnic and racial groups are capable of being assimilated with one another. A good argument as compared to a senate which would fuel the pre-existing fires of racial and ethnic and cultural differences. I don't know if the Enlightenment is responsible for that since, from what I understand, the principle of the Enlightenment is that merit and skill are to be valued far and above background and pedigree. Which I'd generally agree with when I can refer to someone's past and merits as a means of judging their quality. This does not necessarily hurt nobility unless the nobility is an institution promoting and maintaining the unskilled by artificially elevating them... Which was sometimes the case. I'd argue "true nobility" can only be created, sustained, and fairly taken away by the Free Market. Ehh... superior individuals ought to be respected and allowed to handle the matters in which they're skilled. However unless the culture is homogeneous and the society's branches mutually appreciative, I can't say I agree with this notion. However I do think the Free Market plus Christianity = Productivity and respect for others as individuals. How does a church grant authority based on the reasoning that authority is expertise? Moral authority? Possibly. However the Church cannot have a monopoly on morality as the Church is comprised of fallible mortals, therefore other groups (like FDR and the alternative media for example) ought compete as granters of moral authority. Words to note in these troubled times of ours'. Fatherhood definitely. Monarchy maybe. Monarchy can only work in the long term if only the most able and best judges of character are in power. Nobility could potentially, as experts in whatever various things they do, alongside the moral authority granted by the Church, the media, celebrities, etc. (note I am not suggesting all celebrities and media should be moral authority, however they do hold moral authority over some people, and I think if "alternative media" or "alternative celebrities" weren't persecuted by the establishment then a true competition among celebrities could be had for who holds true moral authority and therefore who actually matters in terms of judgement), could most certainly work. And the best way to create that is with an AnCap Free Market society since the most able always before the most powerful and productive in a state of freedom.

There's that too. I think I said "by not aborting the children of rape victims, rape becomes a viable method of reproduction for the worst in our society as well as, in the case of war, conquest for our enemies.

I'd say the same thing, really. I can't call a man a man unless he's married with children. And there is some truth to that biologically as having kids changes men, generally for the better. Ay yiy yiy. Glad I'm not a Muslim. I hate feminism but I doubt Islam would be much better, even for me the man because the poor kids would be abused and the cycle of insanity would continue. Lol and I just saw that skit, like, a couple days ago... I'd rather just improve my own individual quality and aim to both attract and acquire the top 1% of females by being the top 1% of males. It's not hard to predict most people based on their history and character; we as men aren't really taking a chance by fishing for women--so long as we stay away from blenders and black holes, neither of which are hard to spot.