Siegfried von Walheim

I'd argue we have more in common with the end of the Roman Republic in terms of likely outcomes, which gives some optimism as the Roman Empire's first 200 years was actually considered by many the best time to be alive until America in the 20th century, with all kinds of good stuff outlined in the Fall of Rome presentation. The EU could be argued similarly to the decline of the American republic. However I don't think we're so close as to see them fall within the next 10 years, but then again who knows? I don't know all the players of the world stage and I doubt anyone does as I'm sure quite a few are hidden either in plain sight or hidden altogether. A lot can change in 10 years; perhaps the crap will reverse itself enough to prolong the era for another couple decades, or it won't and instead escalate into armed conflict in the next half century. It's also worth noting the potency of technology to effectively "shrink" the time it takes for "things to happen" and for "things to be suppressed/exposed". I am sure if nothing changes armed conflict is inevitable. However something is always changing and therefore some grain somewhere is going to tip something over leading to another new factor to be considered. Like Donald Trump. Who saw him coming? Maybe his family and friends, but that's probably it. His term is not even a year old; who knows what'll happen and how it'll affect the West as a whole. Similarly we should consider the criminality of Prime Minister Trudeau and other treasonous heads-of-state and how they'll conflict with more nationalistic leaders like Putin and Trump. So much to consider, I think I was being arrogant in assuming I could come up with most or all possible outcomes in one poll. I think it's safe to say the Muslims will eventually be thrown out; the real question is, who's next? And what will the costs be against us? Who'll be saved? Etc. etc. So much to consider and so many things can happen. Although we can make broad predictions based on history, we can't say for sure which prediction will come true nor how much of that prediction will come true. People as individuals may be largely predictable, however the rare and quality individuals (including intelligent wreckers and traitors) throw a monkey wrench into any prognostication I might have. Anything could happen.

Well, I used to be a Communist back when I was indoctrinated in high school, and eventually I grew out of that into AnCap. However I have to concur that the rationale for being a communist is far more personal and twisted than a matter of reason. The rationalization is merely an excuse to hide the underlying crazy.

Sure, since I'd like to purge our society of low IQ degenerates and wastrels. However without a welfare state most of those cases, if not all, will either change and become super rare or die off, therefore a free society is the ultimate and cheapest eugenics program because nature is against degeneracy. No, because I fear being wrong could lead to unintended consequences. Also, the free market and no welfare state= natural and steady purge of deadbeats and degenerates with a promotion of quality and K-selection. I don't need a gun to make people be moral, I just need the guys with guns to stop pointing them at me to subsidize immorality. Social morals are natural to White and East Asians, therefore no outside impetus is necessary for us to behave justly, and the free market can create its own prisons and nooses for the NAP violating criminals, and that doesn't have to include baby killers since a K-selected majority would find that so repulsive it wouldn't be worth making illegal; it's social suicide. I don't. I'm a free market guy with a big mouth. Therefore I think most of what I said can and will be handled in a state of freedom/ Backwards, my single mom said I was special and I said I was powerless and without ability to fix what I saw growing up, and therefore grew very hungry for power and influence. While I can't say I fully grew out of it, I can say I know better than to assume I can fix the world with an army. Well, maybe I could; just by following Pinochet's example. However that's very unlikely, since I am no militarist nor do I consider myself able enough to be a career officer. I could argue being smarter than 99% of the population is why arguments are pointless, but then why would I be arguing rather than plotting and shooting? In reality, I realize I am a layman at best in most areas of interest to me, therefore I defer to experts when and where I can. If I ever did become a dictator, I'd be very laisezz faire and delegate to experts. However, such is fantasy. Instead I will simply argue my points and attempt to sway some minds, so that when the inevitable civil war comes the right ideas win out. Ever been or grew up in a Multikult? The denizens there aren't smart enough to live without a whip, and therefore should be far and away from a free society where they'd only cause trouble. Although I agree that an idea that requires force beyond ostracism to maintain are destined to fail, I do think the use of force to make an idea possible is righteous. A free society will not come peacefully, but with a storm.

I have to say, you answered the wrong question. I didn't ask about myself and self-knowledge, but how someone under given scenarios before the era of therapists and wide-spread psychological study could get help, what kind of people they'd be before they seek help, and possibly after. Though a tangent, I actually did speak with my therapist about such personal and painful issues, I have to say mine seems better than most given he actually is helpful and is a lot like Stef with combativeness and forthrightness.

Isn't that a distinction without purpose? Well, I have about three reasons. 1: How the heck can a woman raise the spawn of rape? If she can, she's crazy and will impart her craziness on the spawn. If she can't, the poor spawn will grow up bitter and possibly become a rapist like dear old dad. I suppose the opposite could occur, but when a woman sperm jacks a man, I don't think she intends to abort him/her shortly after. 2: I want to genes of rapists and other low-lives cut from being able to survive. Genetically, we are programmed to do whatever to reproduce. I don't want rape to become "viable", therefore I want all spawn of rape to be executed/euthanized. 3: Growing up with a single mom who hates me and wants me dead; can't imagine a worse scenario to grow up in, save battlefields, Sparta, and Africa.

...what? How did you draw that conclusion? Nothing in which great cautions are taken isn't serious. I can't imagine how taking a shield when rumors of hidden knife-bearers are prevalent would be a sign of lack of seriousness. If anything, exactly the opposite.

Good point. If "murder" is merely a legal term, then it doesn't really matter. However as a moral term, I shall simply define it as "killing without just cause", like self-defense or euthanasia. If the killing of children born of rape, incest, miscegenation, and crippling birth defects is all euthanasia, then my argument is consistent though I am sure there will be those that disagree with me at least in part. I'm more interested in disagreements of substance rather than form.

Based on the NAP, all forms of infanticide is murder, and therefore a better label for "pro-choice" is "pro-Infanticide", or "anti-life". I would consider the following scenarios to be exceptional 1: Rape: For obvious reasons. 2: Incest: Also obvious. 3: Miscegenation: Not obvious; mainly because I consider it immoral to purposely downgrade from an established gene pool. Exceptions to this would be Eurasians and other groups with similar IQ levels. 4: Knowledge of retardation or other crippling birth defects: I consider it immoral to force someone who is crippled to live in a world where only the fit may thrive. Mere survival is not really living, and is a curse for those without the ability to improve their situation. My argument for 3 and 4 go something like this: IQ is highly correlated with quality life and character; therefore anything that would significantly diminish IQ should be treated the same as if trying to fester crime and agony. I am not 100% on these positions and am welcome to any arguments against this, as I can't and won't bar someone or force someone to do something I am morally unsure of, except in cases 1 and 2 where it is black and white.

Very good point. I'm endeavoring to follow my own advice and make myself the best man possible, not just for the West but for myself, my future wife, and my future descendants. I know it's not an original point, but the "become the example that inspires the rest" argument is a very strong one, since we tend to emulate those who are successful (like Stef for example) rather than those who talk about it (like maybe the version of Stef that didn't make a philosophy show but talked about making one, only to stumble upon FDR and be like "why didn't I do it sooner?").

Really? Damn. I know I'm ignorant of Arabian/Muslim culture when I didn't know a guy could literally buy a wife with money or goods....

Why? If the idea is to disarm the coercive powers a woman could wield legally, then it should be understood as a self-preservation move similar to how if a woman keeps a gun hidden in her purse, she's keeping it in case a bad guy tries something. You could argue lack of trust, but if I were a woman, while I would be immensely flattered by a man willing to risk everything on my whim, I would also be somewhat frustrated because that tells me he isn't very wise. However I suppose the deciding factor is whether the positive gained from being the recipient of trust outweighs the negatives of being stupid enough to pointlessly risk oneself when precautions could be taken. I wouldn't want a man who takes pointless risks "as a gesture", because what if he risks something I am not in control of and am negatively affected by it? What if he invests in risky stocks and loses big? Is careless with the kids? Etc. etc. imagine the negative implications of a guy who takes pointless risks. I'm not saying not getting legally married is a safeguard from the negatives of divorce, I am saying that mitigating possible negatives is a sign of intelligence and caution from a man that ought to appeal to a wise and empathetic woman. After all, if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't blame my potential wife if she took all kinds of legal stuff to make sure I don't cast her off in favor of another woman etc. etc. since the legal courts are, as far as I know, very anti-female like the courts are anti-male here in America and Europe. So, based on what I figure, and I could be missing your point, why would you be insulted if I rejected legal marriage in favor of de facto marriage with legal shields?

Apparently in order to escape a harem, the Brits need the Sultan's permission. I don't understand why they don't just circle their infamous warships around Great Britain and tell the rapefugees and EU reps to "*Bleep* Off". Well, I guess mainly for fear of losing popular opinion, but I have never known a strong and effective ruler to give a damn about popular opinion during-the-fact. Putin's popularity is not because he treads carefully based on opinion polls, but rather delivers great results.

Ahh...government programs. Can't you just smell the progress? I'll take your word for it since I'm not interested enough to do my own research, nor knowledgeable enough to recognize truth from fiction in the medical world. Ahh...gambling. Since the stock market is apparently completely unpredictable, I'll assume the forex market is as well. I can't say I'm betting positively on fiat currency, especially over the long run.

What is your "reason for being?" Why are you alive, as opposed to not alive? What do you strive for? Do you strive for anything beyond momentary pleasures? If so, what? How do you know it's worthwhile? Why do you want it in the first place? What value am I to society? Why do I care about my value? How do I know this is in fact my value? These are all questions I regularly ask myself, and while I have my own answers: I am alive because I like living more than not; I strive to build a family; I want to build a good family because I came from a terrible one; and I think it will be worthwhile because it works for Stef. I consider my language skills to be, essentially, my only real skill as, besides my ability to speak and write, I am a very plain person with only a layman's wisdom in any of the various fields I study--history, philosophy, self-knowledge, creative work, etc.--and therefore without my language skills I am not "special". And then there's that question; "Why do I have to be special?" My answer: I don't know, but I think I have to be special because I despise everything that is ordinary and mundane, and if I am mundane and ordinary, I must hate myself. These questions, I'm asking, for both personal and professional reasons. I want to know why people live. I want to know why you live. The reason being, I want to compare myself to others in order to gauge my own value relative to others who have signaled a desire for self-knowledge and self-reform by making themselves regulars of FDR. Also, I want to know more about superior people. Superior being defined as "willing and actively seeking self-improvement and evolution; as compared to inferior people who are wrongfully content with who they are. Wrongful content being determined based on the economic value and the depth of relationships one has." Therefore "right contentment" would be a millionaire following UPB and NAP along the same lines as Stef. He can be content because he has proven himself a man of quality, and established himself and his progeny above the masses. Asking again: What is your reason for being? You don't have to answer all the other questions, but I'd appreciate it if you did and shared how you determined your reason for being. After all, I'm not entirely sure if it is right for me to have this mindset that people should have a reason for being at all.

It is established that in general, morality trumps ethnicity. The Thirty Years' War having a prime example (as well as having counter example) of this, as Germans were fighting other Germans (an example), while the French were fighting other Catholics (a counter-example), and the Danes and Swedes, historical rivals, were united against Austrian-German supremacy over the Baltic sea region (another counter-example). Does morality always trump ethnicity? Sometimes, it appears, survival trumps all. If the French Catholics had joined the Holy Roman Empire's Catholic League, then the Thirty Years' War would have ended very differently, instead they chose to fight them for both national sovereignty and to curb the power of the Kaiser, as well as make allies with the Protestant rebels. Yes, and no. While self-identification plays a big role, I'd argue that it playing an entire role is only accurate for countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg, both very small and historically not really countries (defining it as a nation, or group of genetically similar states, like the former French Kingdoms, and the former German States), as they're both mixed to the point of becoming an independent ethnic group as well as historically pulled around in a tug-of-war long and often enough to not have any special loyalty, collectively at least, to their neighbors. America is very different. Historically an American is a W.A.S.P.: A White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and this became the big definition for citizens while countrymen were mostly German Protestants. I being a German Catholic am not really an American by historical standards, but closer than most other ethnic-groups because I am genetically a German and closer to the original WASPs that founded America than say, a Negro. "What is an American?" and to some degree the old German question "What is the American Fatherland?" are very real questions as both cultural and racial identities among native Americans has been slashed to the point where if we identify as Americans and give a definition for an American beyond "muh magic soil", then we're "wayciss". I wouldn't call the Constitution to be the foundation of Americanism, because it is a "living document", i.e., it has no moral weight nor long-term consistency. Free Speech and Private Arms may both be abolished if the wrong person becomes the President, even though both are long-held principles of the American race. I'd argue an America is either A: A WASP with four great-grandparents who were born in America; B: A WASP with two grandparents born here, with all the associated English/American values of hard work, innovation, and anal retention (not always the best of our traits, but a defining one); C: A Saxon (or something close to it, like a Prussian or Dutchman) with two born grandparents and assimilated to the historical culture of WASPyness (no disrespect, since had proven itself the greatest culture ever); or D: Americans are Pan-Aryan: I.e., if it's White, it's an American-potential, all that's missing is WASP values. I'd argue the last definition is de facto what an American is, however I don't think there are any "Americans" in spirit anymore since White culture has been made practically illegal and even though this country was partially founded on White Nationalism, we have to fight tooth and nail for our ethnic sovereignty and to purge the Fatherland of looters and invaders. To say "What is an American" is both a touchy and very personal question, is to underestimate the potency and power of it today. 100 years ago an American was a WASP, and the Irish, Germans, and Italians were all just "minorities". After intermixing, by the 50's, American became a hybrid of these three things. With laws and guilt trips aplenty since, American became merely a piece of paper. Now the Prophet Mohammed himself could be an American if he so desired! I'm curious as to what you think of our hunger for an identity (in fact I think the reason a lot of American youths like myself seek out White nationalism is in order to have an identity more than anything) and how similar (or not) that is to what happened with Yugoslavia? "If you steal my bread, I'll hit you with a stick." Is that coercion? If so, then coercion can be good. If not, then the threat of divorce (unspoken in general, spoken when a marital promise was broken) isn't coercion. Marriage is founded on promises like a business contract; if one of those promises is "I promise to never be a deadbeat", then the wife has every reason to threaten divorce if the husband is a deadbeat. Likewise if "I promise to never be a bitch" is a part of the contract, then vice versa. However what ought to be on a marriage contract is "I promise to make it work, at least until our youngest is married, because it is forever, if I have children since it's no longer just a deal between two people, but a deal involving helpless dependents", because like I wrote, it is supposed to be "forever", so long as the promises are kept.

Charity. I don't know what's right, but I do know forcing people to pay for retards isn't. While I may be more eugenics inclined, I can't say I'd be willing to force someone to make such a draconian decision. Therefore I'd let people responsible for the retarded and charities make these decisions.

Yeah, I remember Stefpai mentioning in an old podcast about how useless and pointless most scientific research is today, to the point of it being mere hobbyist. I can't say I'm familiar with Taleb. I can say though that unfortunately most branches of science that isn't directly medical or martial is...largely irrelevant. I wouldn't want to force people to fund anything, therefore I am principle against the way science works today. However I can't say what science is valuable or mere hobbyist because I know I am extremely ignorant--borderline retarded even--as far as science is concerned, Give me a political machine: I can dissect it. Give me science? I din done not know what I is readin! Based on a glance of a google search, currency exchanging right? Basically the idea is to "buy" a currency while it's low, then sell when it's high? I can't imagine the profit margins being very high, unless very large sums of money was being traded. Yet at the same time, I can't say I 100% agree with my own statement because not all stupid people are evil or willfully blind. That, and frankly I have a strange pain in my chest when I say this sort of thing aloud. My self-doubt is why I don't want to be mistaken for an expert. Yeah, I know. I know that too. Most biological humans, counting all 6 (or is it 7?) billion, are disgusting and parasitical savages, with only a billion being civilized, and among them most are mere sheep compared the builders and directors of society. However not all sheep are bad, in fact I'd argue some herds are actually pretty decent. America has a huge demographic problem, not to mention a huge cultural and governmental problem, among other things. Cutting the bottom 50% of my nation's population would free the top 50% from their oppressive and blood-sucking shackles, allowing the nation to perhaps become the NatCap paradise of our dreams. Or not. The Jews have such high IQs thanks to losing the stupid among them over the course of centuries, however I don't know if the Jews would rather there be more, even if that lowers the IQ average, Jews or keep it small and smart. I'd prefer small and smart with NAP and UPB principles imparted, as it would eventually result in big and smart, and therefore invincible and utopian by historical standards.

What do you think my answer is going to be, after I gave a lot of venom about low IQ people and tax parasites?

Like...?

Mainly for 3 reasons, at least that come to mind. 1: It is in our nature to only really care about children born of us. If a woman were to raise children that were not her own alongside children that were her own, then she would naturally treat that child with less care than her own biological offspring, and that would negatively impact the child who would most likely become jealous of the biological children. Then there is the possibility of the woman abusing children not born of her, or otherwise treating them badly, especially relative to her own biological children. 2:The Children themselves would have a hard time respecting the authority of their non-biological mothers, and chances are with competing women there will most likely be friction among the children and lack of respect for maternal authority. 3: A man can love more than one woman, but not without dividing his attention and loyalties. Should one wife make an ultimatum about another wife, the man must choose between them or else lose them both. Over all, it's a time bomb waiting to explode. Culturally, if you want to see the success and lack thereof for polygamy, see the Islamic, Hindu, and Himalayan (where women marrying multiple men was common until they went effectively extinct) nations.

Interesting. I guess self-identification and culture will have to matter more since I don't think Eastern Europe is doing anything productive by excluding potential allies from whatever defensive or mutually beneficial circles would otherwise be created by an ethnically homogenous population. Ethnicity is essentially defined as being larger than a family or group of families (think town), and smaller than race (think Germans, Slavs, etc.). However my definition isn't necessarily someone else's definition. I'd argue Prussian, Bavarian, and Austrian would be separate ethnicities due to a combination of genetic differences (slight but different enough to be distinct), cultural differences (also slight but different enough) and historical rivalry. However I can't say I know how many ethnic groups there are, using this definition, for say, Russia. The fact it's more confusing for Slavs I imagine has to do with why they've/you've failed to unite as a race while Germans have managed to unite about half of historical Germany as one nation. Similar for Poland and the Ukraine (both of which I'd argue are sub-sets of Slav, similar to Prussians and Bavarians being sub-sets of German). But...all this is largely abstract. De facto people are as compatible as they think they are multiplied by how compatible they actually are. Prussians and Bavarians are pretty similar, and think they're pretty similar. Russians and Ukrainians are pretty similar, but think they're different enough that they ought to be separated. However I wouldn't argue this very far, since my own ignorance as to the details of their affairs and their history makes me a poor judge of them. Then there's "what's a Romanian?". From what I understand; White people who used to live under Islamic rule. Yeah but both are frontier states whereas Kazan is about as deep-Russia as you can get. Hypothetically Putin could Build a Wall around the Russian Caucasian border and ignore them for all eternity like China did (mostly successfully) with the Mongolians (until Genghis came around. Don't want to repeat that history). I don't know much, but I do know Luxembourg was historically a super-fortress held by many different kingdoms and empires over its history until it was made into an independent city-state sometime after the founding of the German Empire. I'm curious as to what's going on. I'd say the threat of divorce is practically good, and but morally dark-gray. I consider it evil to enable bad behavior, therefore if a spouse is bad than divorce is a moral imperative. Children make this complicated, as it is no longer a dispute between two people. I'd argue divorce should be delayed until the youngest child is married and effectively independent of their parents. However I'd still argue it to be morally negative since a moral/life crime must have been committed for it to be a real possibility as compared to a "stick" for the r's.

Below, yes. I wouldn't call anyone with an IQ below 90 even human. Above? The people that invent and innovate are the geniuses, and the people best able to rule a society of followers are the ones with the highest IQs. Of course whether they rule for themselves, an ideal, or something practical effectively determines whether or not they could be called "parasites" since I think it's fair to say most aristocrats are fundamentally parasites of the lesser peoples, however I have a hard time condemning a genius for manipulating the stupid since the stupid are so easy to manipulate and so historically destructive. However all this struggle would end in a mutually beneficial victory for all in AnCap, since the well-intentioned geniuses would produce the most and the geniuses without "noble" intentions would have their ability to cause harm severely curtailed. Not a bad idea, since it's often better to infer IQ based on merit than take the word of someone who hasn't proof to back up their supposedly large brain cock. However language skills is tied heavily to IQ, at least in one particular metric part of it. Therefore eloquence in speech can be a good measure for IQ short of grand achievement.

Hmm... You're giving me ideas.... IQ is basically a smart man's cock after all. We compensate for our small penises and inability to handle monotony and social conformity with grandiosity and a hyper-charged brain cock with which we build and destroy societies. Whose brain cock is the biggest???

I'd amend the constitution to both abolish the voting system and all regulations/restrictions on business and non-violent non-abusive crimes, and have the system completely rearranged into a dynastic Empire, for about a century until the American populace can handle anarcho-capitalism without turning it into communism.

You are suggesting humans are dominoes. The theory may be A submits request to God for B to happen, but something (Z) must have pushed A into doing that, and then logically there must be a Y to request for Z to do that, etc. If you have stolen my shoes, the fault lies with you. In this theory God is the dictator of actions, therefore all cause and effect is his fault because only he can make anything happen. We do not blame domino 26 for knocking down domino 27, nor the finger that knocked down domino 1, but rather the ghost in the machine that willed the action. In your theory, God is the ghost in the machine and everything else are the dominoes. This is all merely pretty language meant to state that all of mankind is a series of whims on the part of God, who himself holds no responsibility for his whims, because somehow his whims have lives of their own, while also not having lives of their own because there is no free will due to God dictating everything, and yet there somehow is.... This is logically a circle without end. The theory that God alone has free will at least isn't a fallacy of logic. However if under this theory even God is without agency because he's merely reacting to his own whims, then no one has agency and therefore chaos. I can't even begin to describe the level of offense this theory has built into either, for this suggests that the achievements of all good people are not their own, for only God dictates them, and all the crimes of bad people are not of their own choice, for only God allows them. Then all responsibility is striped from mortal and immortal alike, in a deterministic circular logic fallacy. My question is where did you get this idea from? Why does it matter to you? And do you have any proof that the world is a deterministic circular logic fallacy?