Siegfried von Walheim

I am a native English speaker, it's just that "David" is more common than "Davis" and only a letter different visually, therefore in passing it's easy (I imagine) to mistake one for the other. Not quite sure what you mean "things are different for you than they are for me". More or less, that's what I've figured out. I don't hate "people", just some people. I hate some people and love other people, and am indifferent about the inbetween. I don't know about "forced". Technically speaking there are plenty of jobs were ideals don't matter and human interaction is limited, therefore if I was an extreme recluse I could still make a living so long as I possessed self discipline. My work requires a lot of self-discipline and time management, but is largely in isolation until I get to the selling part of the job, wherein I wouldn't say people skills or mindset is much of an issue since it's mostly business and being able to make a good sales pitch (which is admittedly a social skill, but my field is full of people who have none of this and speak through their agents. I'd rather speak for myself since I make a great salesman for what I sell). Not sure what you think my analysis is, and therefore what you're agreeing with. I understand the risk of dating nowadays, and also understand there are many bad predatory women. However they aren't hard to spot out so long as the pecker keeps calm, and there are many mental tricks to calm him down. At the very least a man can decide not to act or withdraw when he knows he's "intoxicated". Yep. Although I like smart people since they give the basic desire to reproduce meaning beyond itself. And they tend to be better at it and better and sustaining the "results" of reproduction. Not sure what the genetic lottery would be. Looks? I have an attractive face and I keep in shape. Not athletic but I have some decent height and am decently built. I suppose I'd be a 7? I don't know but I figure I'm around there. Intelligence? My IQ is like a ten inch penis, therefore I have nothing to worry about here. However the cost is that most people bore me. On the other hand a lot of my old acquaintances were idiots, although the relationships weren't deep they were fun for a while. The more meaningful friendships were with the upper classmen with bright futures, however I used to be a communist and wasn't exactly the most mentally sound of guys then. It mainly struck me when I listened to an old podcast "How to meet a nice girl...", and as I was making mental notes I realized I had been focused mostly on my work and not at all on my relations, which worried me since I was afraid that I might not get to where I want to be financially soon enough and that would cost me the best marriage tickets. However I calmed down after listening to the "Truth About Sex" since apparently I'm likely to do very well since I'm a good boy virgin, albeit one with a face that apparently implies otherwise (according to my old acquaintances. I remember having a crush and asking a friend for dating advice. He was surprised that I was asking since he thought I was a player or something). I also feared my lack of personal social experience might affect the quality of my work, and also my mental health. I don't want to spend time getting to know people in the short term since I'm racing against the clock to make my big project happen, however afterwards when I'm finally where I want to be I intend on meeting like-minded brothers and sniffing out for my future wife. I emphasize the word "wife" since I have no interest in any relationship with a woman that isn't either an intellectual friendship (basically the same I'd have with men) or one oriented towards marriage (which would be the same I'd have with men, but with regular sex and the other things associated with lifelong commitment). It may limit my options but when I do intend to go on a wife hunt, I intend to hold her to all the same standards I'd hold a man too since I remember Stef always saying "imagine if I'd put up with her if she were an elderly Asian gentleman". And since all of my high school crushes were really just big boners honing in on dangerous women, I realize how important that message is. And then there's also the paying attention to detail so that I can decide in like a minute whether a relationship is worth pursuing. Although I'd use the same method with men as well, since I don't want degenerates or deadbeats. Of course I'm a guy with virtually no experience, so all that said... I don't know. I know I plan on getting married one day, ideally around 25, and having many children, but can't say how it'll happen. For now I figure I'll focus on becoming the man I'd want to marry if I was a woman before looking the future wife. After all I wouldn't be interested in guys without at least his own house under his own name, or a stable business.

Will do. At first I thought it was actually "David" something. I don't know why but I remembered you as "David". Very true. For example with the women seeking men of means thing. The "why" is a pretty big factor. If she's just a gold digger, well... On the other hand if it is because it is indicative of good character in a man, and for children, then that's a good reason. I just made a simple hypothetical to dispel the idea that biological motives are inherently bad. On the other hand I have to push back on the level of agency you're assigning to bad people. Firstly the alcoholic must have drank alcohol willing at some point, even if we assume a drunk has not ability to control his desire for beer. The sociopath, in the medical sense, is just born with handicap. S/he's not necessarily evil. In fact he could be a good guy, and use his lack of empathy to his advantage by doing the morally difficult things that more sensitive people would crumble under. It's the type of person that could handle the moral dilemma of doing a big evil now to prevent a much bigger evil later. Like hypothetically letting a village burn in order to incite hatred from fellow countrymen, in order to defeat the invaders sooner and thereby decrease the overall amount of deaths. A sociopath can make this conclusion far more quickly than a bleeding-heart idealist, although the latter has his strengths as well. Both can be very good people. Trauma is a major factor, I'd say no one under 18 really ought to held accountable for any crimes they might commit because it is always the fault of those who raised them. However those 18 year old will become parents one day, and most of them will re-inflict the trauma and become the evil people deserving punishment themselves. A sociopath might say it'd be best to punish both the delinquents and the parents by severing their gene pool entirely. This way the cycle ends with the people involved. However there are better ways. If I become a good man, a good father, and a good husband I can break the cycle of abuse in my own family history without anyone needing to die (or be castrated, etc.). Yet from a political standpoint...well, AnCap would fix that because AnCap is a natural eugenics program. One thing I can't say for sure is that all evil people are depressed and "stuck", like I was/am/will be. Some, I think, believe they're just and that they have the right conclusions. These types are especially dangerous, but...I don't know if they're the most evil. Even if they cause more suffering, their good-natured motivation may be a saving grace. Unless it's genocidal like the Holocaust or something.

I don't think I read this part clearly enough. I do make a lot of assumptions. Yet I rarely challenge them. They may be based on evidence but rarely do I try to imagine a counter-scenario for them. I sort of did with the relationship part, but that's just one thing. You know if I could +1 you I would. This sentence may be more relevant in undoing the junk in my mentality and perceptions than any long article or book would. Thank you.

Actually I typed out a bigger response, but I wonder if it all boils down to me thinking of people as biological robots and not realizing that biology is just the "measure" for the emotions and behaviors that people exhibit in general? After all it makes sense for a woman to pursue a wealthy man; him being wealthy is a sign of a good work ethic, and it hints to him being trustworthy with money, a guy with few vices, someone with a stable background, etc. Likewise a man pursing an attractive woman may do so because when a woman is at least "decent" (i.e. she doesn't ignore herself and look like a hambeast or have markings that suggest drug abuse or gang stuff, etc.) then she is signalling she has self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, and it hints to some level of self-confidence and empathy for her potential spouse. In other words can't I give moral cases as to why people may pursue a predictable behavioral strategy? Like the man seeking a disciplined and energetic woman, and the woman seeking a hard working and compassionate provider? After all both people have skills suited towards creating and sustaining new life and also in giving joy to each other. I loved the part when Stef mentioned in a video I watched that a virtuous marriage is like...well, it's amazing. The sex is always great. The couple is more of themselves. Their mutual understanding ensures continued trustworthy companionship. And well...everything that can be conceived. Following the traditional route for marriage appears to be a very fulfilling thing and following the new Peaceful Parenting route for raising children appears to also be rewarding. I love people who live this way and improve upon themselves to be able to live this way. They inspire me. And since I opened up a lot, I'd appreciate knowing how you, Davis, are able to "love" others in spite of themselves? What is so wonderful about people in general that warrants your admiration? Is it their ability to survive even the worst of hardships? Is it their ability to create marvels to stand the test of time? Is it their ability to create new life and learn upon the mistakes of the past? Or is it something else or more? EDIT: I can't ever come to have neutral feelings towards those who enable danger and doom though. Whether they be man or woman, they are evil because they serve evil and sustain evil. I am referring to those who'd assist invaders or slander heroes. I am being vague because I could really say this about a lot of differing scenarios. How do you reconcile love for the virtuous and contempt for the enablers and the useful idiots? Do you just say "some people I love, some people I hate"? I can't really say "I hate people" then, if I only hate some people and love their opposites.

I remember the last time you helped me, about a year ago actually . NOTE: While waiting for pending, I decided to cut a lot out since I was really "digging" while typing. Well, I really don't know what to think. I know I hate being a misanthrope though. I'd be lying if I said I didn't care. But the pain is so great that I'd rather not. But the guilt of feeling the temptation to become "evil', i.e. a Machiavellian, also hurts. What is my best solution? Should I live only for my future family? Or should I open my heart to others more? Perhaps I'm being too isolationist in mentality? Am I wrong in focusing my live on my work and my future? Should I try something else? Or am I on the right path, but moving forward with the wrong mindset? After the "rule of the jungle" doesn't sit well with me. I wouldn't want to die for degenerates but I wouldn't mind risking my life for good people. And they usually aren't hard to differentiate. I just wish I knew how many people are good. Good being defined as NAP compliant, intelligent, empathetic, and familial (in the family building since, not filial piety or the "enslavement of the young" kind).

Two shows: Three Kingdoms (2010) which can be found on YouTube and is a historical drama about the legendary Three Kingdoms period, which has the awful record of being the bloodiest and longest war in history (106 years straight plus I think around 100 million deaths, with the nation's population starting at 50 million and ending at 13 million. As you might imagine the birth rate compensated greatly but gave the feudal warlords human cannon fodder). And "Oda Nobunaga: King of Zipangu". You used to be able to find the whole 50 episode series on YouTube, now it's just the first 25-ish (which is still very good). You might be able to find the missing episodes elsewhere, but I'd say overall this is a great history drama which portrays both the Late Warring States Period (1531-1600), focusing on the titular Nobunaga Oda (first name last name) and the Christian missionaries, particular Luis Frois, and his historically recorded interactions with both Japanese culture and the future Supreme Ruler Nobunaga himself. Neither are documentaries but very entertaining non-video game ways of getting into East Asian culture/history. Also for China there is the history drama "The Great Revival", which portrays the State of Yue's resistance to the State of Wu during the Spring and Autumn period (give or take 1000BC to 0AD), which has a lot of parallels with Christian lore and Jesus's crucifixion in particular. The attention to detail portrays super-ancient China very well. Lastly there's Yoshitsune, another Japanese history drama but made in 2006(?), about the hero Yoshitsune Minamoto and his struggle with the Heike Clan in the rise of the warrior class in medieval Japan (1080's), again used to be on YouTube but harder to find now. Just found these for Japan. Japanese Sun Goddess Amaterasu (basically an asexual Zeus-Jesus hybrid) behind the rock and the supposed supreme ancestor of the Imperial Family. Izanami and Izanagi, think Eve and Adam as Izanami (the mother of all gods) was tempted by the abyss and fell in while Izanagi (the father of all gods) tried and failed to rescue her, the two becoming essentially Mama Satan and Papa God.

I am both a cynic and a misanthrope. I have a problem. I decided to ask for help since I was about to use the text below as a response to a question and quickly realized I need to talk about this before I become a 20 year old with the mentality of a dying 80 year old boomer. === Is there no place for men who want to be with a woman of similar or higher quality in the fundamentals, i.e., foresight, intelligence, ability to defer gratification, empathy, patience, etc.? Because whenever I hear or listen to MRA or dating related stuff it always seems to come down to manipulation. The man manipulates the woman for sexuality and motherhood, and the woman manipulates the man for resources and fatherhood ( I mean this both in the sense of becoming parents as well as being each other's pseudo-parent) . I want to break that cycle. Because it's a cycle that I lose even if I win. Say I am a man of great means, well does that mean I can marry a woman who is totally into self-knowledge, who is emotionally stable, is a virgin, can actually feel empathy for others, is actually capable of abstract thought beyond manipulating male desires, etc? Or is it just someone who can glamour herself far more impressively than the used up ho the homeless guy would get? === I want to point out I'm a guy with no friends. After graduating high school and entering the work force, and now working on getting my first real novel finished and published, I pretty much cut off all contact from everyone I used to know, and something very telling happened; nobody cared. No texts, no calls. Nothing. It was like I never existed. Of course I changed a lot since I was 18. Now that I'm 19, I'm no longer thinking about suicide on a daily basis thanks to a year of therapy, and instead of bemoaning the slowly dying world we live in I'm actually being a productive member of society with the right to piss on those who aren't. The fact that just came out of my mouth alone tells me I got a problem. And now I want to ask whoever happens to be in the area to help a brother out. I have no friends, I have no desire to make friends, I have an increasing disdain and lack of sympathy for people on a daily basis (heck terrorist attacks no longer piss me off or depress me, they're just thunderstorms to be ignored now), and I'm seriously worried about how this will affect me as I become an adult (legally I am but emotionally I'm not. Thanks single mom and educational system.) and even more so as I become a man, and I don't mean someone who fucked a whore with daddy issues. I'm talking someone who does work that makes him proud; someone who built something; someone who owns his own home; someone with a wife and children; someone that actually matters. Where is the question in this ventilation heap? Here it is: What the fuck should I do to start liking people and having faith in people? In spite of myself I can't help but admire those courageous individuals of integrity and conviction who actually give a damn about people and create lasting things in this world (like Papa Stef). And so I decided to become someone I'd actually look up to instead of someone who's barely better than the other single-mom brats. Having a high IQ doesn't mean shit if the childhood was toxic. But then Stef's existence proves me wrong a thousandfold. How the hell did that magical man come to be? Maybe he's got something that'd help me out? Maybe you have something because you have similar problems or overcame similar problems? I'll hear anything out since I want to change. I don't want to be a democrat. I don't want to be a cynical misanthrope who'd sell out others for a buck. I want to love again. I want to feel. I want to feel what it means to be a man. Hopefully something I said will be coherent enough to warrant a response. Because I need some straw to chew on. And I'd greatly appreciate anyone helping this little cow out. Moo...

Agreed. Only exception would be those who are, visually and culturally, white unicorns. (Basically the "if it quacks like a duck; looks like a duck; and speaks like a duck; it is a duck" parable) I think Holy American Empire will do, since America as the personification of that is white is pretty much a subtle character of Americanism, as it rarely specifies its Anglo-Saxon origin. Since it was the first non-colonial state in the Americas, simply calling it "America" has validity in its own right because at the time of inception, there were no other non-vassal states in the region. The East Asians have some similar stuff going on as well, hence why I greatly admire them, of course just because it's similar doesn't mean it's bad. Although ours is proven better by the centuries past. I wouldn't call them "mongoloids" since it confuses who is who, after all the Thailanders and Vietnamese are more equivalent to the Arabs and Egyptians whereas the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are the "Europeans" of the region. I'm assuming you don't know a lot about Asian history given you assume they just copied stuff from us. They invented the first firearms, a repeating crossbow, cannons, and until Western surgery was a thing they had the best doctors, and their art, well I suggest googling Japanese and Chinese artwork for an idea. More 2-D than ours but attractively so. They were selected mainly for utility as compared to creativity, which naturally meant their creativity was mostly in war machines, agriculture, and industry (until we hit the industrial revolution and blew them all away from there). They didn't start to stagnate until the Manchurians took over China and Korea, and the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan started becoming increasingly inefficient and conformist. Otherwise the history of East Asia largely parallels the history of Europe, particularly China to Germany and Japan to England (albeit unlike England rather than explore the world their leaders decided to pretend it didn't exist, thereby going in the opposite direction of development, give or take around the late 1700's).

Same here. I think the best way is through political action. While I don't consider Hitler to be the hero of the Aryans he wanted to be, he did follow the path one would have to. Which is to say, I expect the best way would be through forming a grass-roots political party in a tumultuous major city (i.e. an ethnically diverse one where everyone is "woke" by default) by making brave and daring political speeches and arguments, slowing growing a movement which will repeat the process in a way similar to the NatSocs spreading out of Munich. Eventually we'd be big enough to run for local offices, and we'd secure them through both legitimate means and the means by which the two-party duopoly has sustained itself (which I leave vague because that ranges from intimidation of opposition, slander, cultural penetration, propaganda, shady horse trading, back room deals, etc). Once we have about a third of Congress, we'll run for President and make it the most dramatic and heated presidential election since Andrew Jackson's and like Jackson establish the party that will last for seemingly ever, and once we've seize a majority we'll begin legally demolishing the system. Again this is all a hypothetical plan based on following the legal process over the course of time, however circumstances are likely to change dramatically over time. Maybe this kind of thing won't be needed. Maybe it'll be so needed it'll happen in less than a decade. Or maybe there will be civil war, preventing any legal and peaceful means from being viable. I don't know for sure as there are so many variables that one little change can be night and day over time. I have to say I found this educational lesson very interesting. I knew some of this (mainly the Aryan migration pattern) but I didn't appreciate how deep it really goes and how far back it really is. Suffice it to say I can see why it's appropriate to call us "Aryans", and I like it although I wouldn't use it in common discussion since us Whites are heavily divided, and therefore I can't call us Americans the Aryan country (which when you consider how all the descendants of the Aryans came here, it kinda is) until it is an ethnostate. Although I consider Richard Spencer's branch of our movement to be folly (because Spencer himself isn't exactly the most K-selected guy and is a Socialist, which is a shame because he makes good points here and there), I will give the interview a watch/listen since this sort of thing really makes me think and, well, makes me happy to hear about how great and rational we used to be and how the best of our times, arguably the late 19th century, was the result of improvement over time Although the phalanxes and legions aren't unique to us; the East Asians, especially the Chinese of the Han, invented similar formations and have a similar mindset to us around the same time albeit they were more top-down and conformist whereas we were more horizontally inclined and outspoken. That being said, I have to say: White people are awesome And this map right here is pretty epic. I mean, it basically illustrates why White people and some Arabians are actually many branches of the same tree roots.

Which I agree with in both principle and practice, however I think you should clarify A a bit more since...well, what is an "ethnostate"? It is a political party? Is it an army? Or is it just a bunch of fellow self-segregating Whites acting in whatever means are warranted to defend ourselves against the State and the State's dependents? I.e., an offshoot of the AnCap movement in general plus fellow travelers with other visions on how best a White ethnostate (i.e. a piece of land we call our own country, as to what we do with it--free it as an AnCap society or enslave it with NatSoc, or something in between, I won't bother to argue about since obviously most of us enthostate guys have different visions of making it and what "it" would look like when it's made) can be made/sustained? I think the idea here, is that it is moral to use violence against the state, seize power temporarily, and use that power to abolish the state as we understand it and chalk out a piece of land, then set up the C.D.A.'s and D.R.O.'s mentioned in Practical Anarchy in order to have a system in place for when the State is, once and for all, abolished by our own hands as leaders of the state. (ideally in our case the whole of America, but as to how much land or whatnot isn't really relevant to the argument in general but naturally some might prefer a more peaceful division of America based on racial majorities in given geographical areas rather than kicking out everybody to one corner or another, the latter of which I personally prefer since America is a White country and therefore all of it should be ours, not divided to be shared, but I wouldn't treat all non-Whites the same since East Asians for example are a "model minority" and I wouldn't mind if they had some "Asia Towns" erected here and there). To sum up what I realized is a bit poorly written: form party, take over the state one way or another, use the power of the state to lay the groundwork of AnCap institutions (i.e. D.R.O.'s and C.D.A.'s, AnCap Police and Army respectively) then finally abolish the state as occupiers of state power. And perhaps, somewhere in between, chalk out land for White segregationists either by force or by basing it on which lands are occupied by whatever ethnic super-majority (over 90%). I'd push back on calling Whites "Aryans" since technically that refers to Persians/Iranians (the root of Aryan is Arianus, the Latin name for Persia). However the argument itself is why I argue a free society is the ultimate bloodless eugenics experiment since it gives the most power and resources the most deserving, and the least to the least--charity not accounted for since the charities that'd last are the ones that actually make a positive difference.

You know, I think if Hitler actually did give big speeches about the abuse of parents and the elderly, combined with his natural charisma, he could have actually started a revolution of the young versus the old. Of course chances are it would have just been a big slaughter of the old, but he would have been able to seize power and rectify the extreme reactions of his embittered followers. Perhaps if he had the good, loving, peaceful, and negotiation-based childhood he simply would have been even more talented and even more passionate about saving children even if the elderly get heavily shafted, literally or metaphorically. I don't think you should underestimate the power of a public speaker to change heads, Stef being a great example. How many FDR regulars came on board already a peaceful-parent-wannabe, NAP guy, AnCap, Classical Liberal, etc? He convinced me, a guy who used to advocate for the epitome of statism, a guy who largely ignored his own upbringing and suppressed his bad memories. I don't know if it actually is easier to convince a group than an individual, but Hitler even mentions in the book when the best time of day is for speeches (the evening, when the listeners are tired and less able to mentally criticize) and the effectiveness and the seeming-hopelessness it all arised from. He started with a dozen guys, then he moved to a few dozen, then a hundred, then a thousand, etc. It took him nearly a decade to rise from "guy with opinions and rhetoric"" to "messiah for the nation" , a track few politicians and rabble rousers can claim to have. If he had been an AnCap or NatCap, he'd have been unstoppable. Heck Germany probably would have won WWII (if WWII were to even happen at all) and all modern problems would be inconceivable in that alternate outcome.

I have to say this is a pretty good argument... ...However I have to add one thing; we live in a Republic, which means politicians cater towards what they perceive to be the people's wishes in order to get into power. Although Jewish media moguls have definitely been a major corrupting influence on society, their negative impact is only possible because of the people's gullibility, the Statism of WWI and WWII, and over time the trend towards degeneracy that has risen with the multitude of plagues such as feminism, abuse of the progeny, etc. etc. While they're definitely not helping, some prominent ones (like Rand and Rothbart, and Milton Friedman if he's Jewish I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised) have made noble efforts to reverse the trends. The cancer of modern society arises from many roots, with Statism and Republicanism at the root of it. As degeneracy becomes more popular politicians will continue to issue degenerate and suicidal policies to maintain power in the here and now, leading to more degeneracy and so and so forth. The voter is as much to blame as the government since it is theoretically based on popular will. Of course in reality it does what it pleases within whatever confines it can get away with. However the collective body of voters affect greatly those confines... So, to some up, our doom comes not from the Jews per se--the bad ones are simply exploiting it or products of it, not unlike the other races but they happen to be genetically superior to most and therefore over-represented--but the collective cancers our societies have come upon as a result of both republicanism and statism in general.

Well, I remember a few years back in early High School when I started reading Mein Kampf. At first I had a hard time reading it since the language was a bit dated and I wasn't immediately pulled in, however I was curious as to what was in it because a part of me wanted to know if he really was a "bad guy" or actually a "good guy" being demonized by a society that simply won against him. I didn't go much further than 50 pages, but once I got access to a free audio book version in late High School I started listening to it as I played games or did "homework". Unlike reading it, listening felt much more organic since Hitler technically dictated to a writer rather than wrote it himself, and I came to enjoy it and be very intrigued by what he said, the way he said it, and the challenges it presented to what I considered right and true, as well as confirmed (i.e. confirmation bias) some of my suspicions on race and behavior, as well as the incompetency of republicanism. I eventually finished Mein Kampf and became a NatSoc, and over time discovered Stefan and became a NatCap, then an AnCap. While I no longer adhere to the whole Jewish conspiracy theory (at least in the sense that all Jews are planning White genocide. I fully admit and realize, plain as day, that they're powerful lobbying group and very self-serving politically, etc. etc.) and have "lost faith" as it were with the Nazis once I learned about its internal corruptions as well as its inability to last, and its fundamental similarities with Communism, which I used to be back in late middle school when my teacher indoctrinated me with the ideology. The book had a lasting impact on me personally, as I found it very inspiring and thought provoking, and while I no longer agree with much of it I still find the parallels between Weimar and pre-WWI Germany and modern America painfully similar, and have become much more open minded and sympathetic towards those whose natural instincts for ethnic preservation, even though too often those instincts are manipulated and abused. Perhaps if Hitler had a good childhood he would have been a better leader, and perhaps he would have been more like Stef and maybe even built a NatCap or even AnCap Germany...after all, the man was insanely competent in getting skilled people on his side. Albert Speer easily being one of he most competent men of his time and the epitome of good choosing on Hitler's part.

I'd add that the culture that's the most efficient in securing territory tends do so the best regardless of how it acquired it. Should the suicidal Muslims succeed in permanently breaking the European spirit and conquering the continent, then their race and culture will have succeeded. Anyone related to the martyrs would become the new aristocracy, at least in honor, and become the prime focus for mating. I wanted to say that because it's not cucking to sacrifice oneself for one's own cause or nation, so long as that person has progeny to survive him. I'd understand it on an individual level if the martyr-to-be doesn't have any children, since they're ending their branch of their gene pool by suicide-bombing or suicide-charging (to use a more war-themed example). However on a culture/nation/race level it's an overall victory so long as it contributes to their (successful) conquest of us. If they fail they're going to fail harder than the Germans in WWII. The Hidden Christians that retained the faith in the isolation period of the Edo era is a particularly inspiring tale. Although admittedly it's a tangent, although it does relate insofar as the Christendom of Japan would have died if the Hidden Christians didn't remain hidden until White folks came back with the Black Ships. It's hard to condemn them since they believed that in their deaths they would become guardian spirits protecting their family form genocide. In practice it's an awful tragedy because if they knew we Americans weren't going to exterminate them then many losses could have been prevented, however it did leave a strong message as to the will power of the Japanese spirit. Definitely a favorite example for me as well, however I think the Pope was captured and executed afterwards. What's worth re-evaluating is the honor of self-sacrifice if the cause itself either fails or is doomed to fail. I think we should pay more respects to those braves who succeeded rather than failed, like Charles Martel saving France and the Northern Spaniards from Islamic rule. In general, I'm ambivalent. Most American soldiers are just single-mom-brats without direction, guaranteed to cause more trouble than prevent. However the man who truly wishes to die for the Fatherland, even if he's wrong in XY or Z, is still a man I respect because I am greatly attracted to men (and as a man, especially women) with strong convictions. Considering it's essentially the same value system, as I understand it, as the East Asians I think you ought to... Agreed, however what they should be doing is not defending the West as it stands, but utterly destroying and replacing it with something better than ever before. Imagine AnCap or at least NatCap with all the associated good Classical Liberal principles forged into a hereditary monarchy (or at least a limited Republic) and ethnostate. Such a society would be truly worth dying for. If I knew my children or grandchildren would grow up in a world like that, one so alien to me growing up as a White minority in a White country, one where values are relative and ethics are loose, if I knew that...I'd gladly volunteer my fate and join whatever band of heroes was fighting for that. Sadly no one is, although parts of the ideal AnCap White Ethnostate mix is being advocated, I consider neither Spencer's Branch of the AltRight nor the modern Nationalist parties to be truly capable of uplifting and vivifying true Western civilization and building the utopia Christians and philosophers have always dreamt of. I will emphasize: I consider it insane to fight and die for the current system, and therefore would never do so. However to fight and die for the ideal system, or at least a good portion of it, I'd say that'd be a worthy cause. Sadly no one worthy is rising up to the challenge. Chances are someone will, or else a champion from the opposition will win. Perhaps I'm not exaggerating in saying my progeny will be the future leaders of society. If I raise my children well, perhaps one of them will become the first American Kaiser and build all the great stuff I dream about. Of course that all necessitates that I be a good father and good exemplar. And I agree with him. Being fearless is not being courageous, rather it is being stupid. You should always fear the edge of a blade and the smell of gunpowder. However if you master your fear you should not hesitate in protecting yourself and your kin. The intelligence to be afraid and the courage to fight in spite ought to be every man's (and woman's, since if the men die it'll be the women protecting the progeny) personal goal. In general I suggest you dedicate yourself to your kin first and foremost, and once you have become a man of means patron the group of people you wish to eventually rule society. If no such group exists, create the group. That, in general and vague terms, is my goal.

The least of? Meaning "we" expect more? In today's society any more is unreasonable. I would never risk my life for a stranger because chances are that stranger would want me dead either because we're politically opposite or morally opposite. In a world where evil people reign, and they reign because evil citizens enable them to, there is no virtue in fighting to preserve it. Typical virtues such as nationalism (at least in the sense of the nation as it stands, not what it could be, used to be, or ought to be) are madness because I live in a society that wants to literally enslave men and persecute Whites. Therefore the interests of myself are oppostional to the nation. However if the situation were reversed; if people voted for good instead of bad, and it is only the government that is bad (as they all tend to be) and people are good in spite of that, then patriotism would be virtuous because it'd be fighting for a good society. Fighting for an evil society is not virtuous, it is madness. The reason why I consider my progeny to be my only true value is because most other moral values can be made relative due to this insane time we live in. 100 years ago it was virtuous to rescue needy women and white knight, because (at least from what I know) women were in general good people. However most women (and men really, I'll admit I'm a misanthrope) today are horrible people, therefore it is madness to want to rescue them. Reminds me of one Swedish caller who was talking about his traumatized childhood, and when asked hypothetically if he'd rescue a female coworker from bears, he laughed and said he's rather she be eaten... ...And incidentally, my apathy, society's apathy, is in part a cause of our downfall. Perhaps I should re-evaluate what I consider moral and of people in general. After all if I can catch a missing screw in my words as I speak them, then I know I have work to do. However I still think question ought to be made: is it virtuous to adhere to traditional male virtues when society vehemently rejects us, abuses us, and may even put us in concentration camps if we further enable it? Think South Africa for a similar situation albeit far worse because the struggle is much more real there. I think this apathy will cause a societal collapse, and most likely that collapse will cause a civil war, and during that war suddenly there will be large groups of people with values willing to fight and die for them. I think that time both can and can't come too soon. It can because I'd like to be prepared and in a position of personal and familial security, it can't because it's inevitable and must happen for society to change for the better. Unfortunately I bet it'll come as a surprise to most people, maybe even we who try to keep track of such things. Reminds me of Stef's interviewing a guy with friends who literally acted as real-life-superheroes and after some digging Stef theorized the guy was purposely putting himself in danger because he wants to die. Do you want to die? Are you re-actively putting yourself in danger because you want to die? Or are you really just a good person? Understanding the motives for our behaviors is important.

Well, it's hard to be K selected and not occasionally think about these thngs. Hard to say. I suppose my greatest value is my desire to improve the quality of life for my children and descendants, therefore the value I hold highest is "reverse-filial-piety", or the "worship" of one's own progeny. To die, like say in a war, to ensure the security of my progeny is indeed worthwhile, however to die failing to do so is ultimately shameful. I can understand lumping together risking death with straight-out-death because naturally it is preferable that I live than die, therefore the question is as simple as "would I be willing to die for a value?" And since my values are material, i.e. my children and their happiness, as well as my own happiness, I consider them worth dying for. However abstract virtues are not worthwhile, because if, for some reason, a virtue contradicts the betterment of my progeny then I am opposed, at least in that instance, to it. For example: honesty. If I were honest with a self-declared killer about the whereabouts of my children, then I am as evil as the killer in aiding him. Therefore in this instance lying is actually the morally right thing to do because principles such as honesty are really only values when they serve the best interests of my true value; "reverse-filial-piety". When you study history long enough, you come to admire most the martyrs, sometimes even more than the "successful" heroes. However I do have to say, I admire the "successful heroes" more as I increase in wisdom for they are the ones who do the most good. An easy example is Augustus relative to Napoleon (assuming for the sake of argument Napoleon was truly trying to protect French civilization and keep it good and righteous, which I believe). Good question. I suppose what I mean is that the paid I'd suffer internally for failing to meet my values is worse than death, therefore I'd rather die than betray my progeny. If there is a Heaven, I know I will go there if I do right as a mortal. If there isn't, well at least my progeny will enjoy a better Midgard than I did. And that thought counts for much of why I choose to strive for professional and personal success. I would not, however, be willing to die for hedonistic pleasures (in the long run. To some degree that's hard to say when I don't have a wife or children. For example: perhaps long-term gratification wouldn't be worth bearing for if I couldn't play video games, which to some degree simulate the joy of success in one form or another. However I'd be exaggerating if I said I'd rather die than go without pleasures, just that if there is nothing to enjoy for the years in which I am striving, I might go a little nuts and seriously consider stupid things like that. After all I have some r-selected traits that combat my K-selected ones). I don't believe this question came out of nowhere, and am therefore curious: what would you be willing to die for? Or are you unsure about what to die for, and am therefore curious as to what others are willing to die for in order to find something so precious?

A very interesting and thought provoking question and sentiment, and one I happen to agree with. It's hard to say what I'd be willing to die for in the here and now because there's little to nothing I could consider worth dying for, let alone fighting for. My family is terrible, and while I love my mother I can't say with a certainty I'd "die" for her because, well, she did pick my dad and it's partly thanks to her my childhood is/was (I guess it ended recently) shit enough that if I was given the million-dollar question of "If I knew the first 18 years of my life ahead of time, and couldn't live beyond them, would I take them?" I know I'd answer vehemently "NO!". However, I can say there are two things at least that I value enough that I'd be willing to die for them; 1: My unborn children of the future and 2: My future wife and mother of those children. Neither of those things however exist in my life, and while I can say I'm living for the success, prosperity, and happiness of my progeny I can't say that's a value to die for so much as my animal nature and internal need for something worth living for. While I subscribe to much of the Classical Liberal beliefs (i.e. Stefanism) I can't say I'd die for them. They aren't people. However they make life much more livable than, say, Islam or Feminisism or Gyno-Republicanism. Would I be willing to fight, or otherwise contribute to, the proliferation of Classical Liberal ( or specifically Capitalism, adherence to law and order, Christianity mono-culturalism, White Nationalism, etc. etc.) ideas and practice? Yes. And in many ways that's my career. However I can't say I'd be willing to die for an idea, because the idea has nothing in reality to make me appreciate the idea as more than a dream yet to come, although perhaps this dream had existed in the past, I can't say modernity is anything worth fighting or dying for. Again it's a hard question, but one I think ought to be asked. It says a lot about a man (and woman for that matter) whether or not he's got something worth fighting and dying for. If he does, then he's a man of conviction and possibly of high moral character. If he doesn't, he's probably either depressed or a hedonist, or otherwise someone of inconsequential character. Therefore, I'm thankful you'd bring this question to the limelight, but as to my answer...I say the thing I'm willing to die for is what's giving me purpose in life: Happiness, progeny, and the unicorn wife only a unicorn man can get.

Makes perfect sense to me. Especially when you consider Muslim children will eventually become Muslims adults who'll violate our moral values and breed more NAP violators, to put it vaguely. I want to revise what I said about groups and collective blame somewhat because I do think groups ought to be held collectively responsible if everyone participated in the action, however I now think that members of a group who may not have actively participated in a crime also should suffer condemnation (and whatever punishment is appropriate) because they're at least enabling it with silence or worse still creating it through private actions. In the case of Muslims, I feel all right (again 'feel') saying "I want no Muslims nor people with an Islamic heritage" in my country or living space because even if there's a chance I "get lucky" with a fake Muslim, it is far more likely I'll either be neighbors with actual Muslims and those who'd foster it. Therefore, on the broader subject of collective judgements, while they not be philosophically 100% valid (they're about as valid as the percentage of danger presented by the group's dangerous members, so to figure) they are practically valid because exceptions do not make the rule, and if there is a group with a very high rate of criminality it's perfectly reasonable to want them gone and far away, even if there is a risk of abandoning the "good ones" because they are exceptions liable to create more of the rule themselves. Plus, it's just a lot safer and a lot more efficient to make decisions about collectives based on them collectively.

I'm not sure. When Stef interviewed a guy in an old-ish video named "How Adolf Hitler Destroyed Germany", they guy mentioned price controls and how that created massive shortages and overabundance. It's possible Hitler's policies were beneficial in the short-run, but with price controls his system is essentially just a smarter version of Socialism but still produces the same bad effects in the long run. Again I haven't listened to the video in a while and I'd recommend you give it a chance, but the idea that Germany was doing pretty good under Hitler, and would have stayed doing pretty good, contradicts the idea of price controls and Fascistic-style corporatism (which is to say, government paying businesses to produce X Y or Z instead of seizing it and attempting to do it themselves). Lol sounds a bit like what Trump's slowly doing, but in his case it's looking to be a temporary relief and one likely to crash to due the insanity over at the Federal Reserve and other things. Possibly similar as to why Hitler's economic policies, which I knew to include price controls and corporatism, were doomed to eventually crash. Slightly off topic but the fact he didn't make a family is also a big negative in the long run, as clearly the only way the NatSoc's were going to stick around peacefully was through hereditary dictatorship. True, but I don't that was helping them in the long run. I mean, have a lot of young fighting age guys essentially remain with that mindset without the taming benefits of family life and the added sociopathy that comes with the military life, and you have a recipe for disaster for reasons similar as to why the Brown Shirts where getting out of hand. Quite simply those that actually did and were provided for would raise children in that environment and over time it would grow either via gossip or simply via births in the program that would slowly poison the system. Besides hypothetically Adolf V Gustav in 2050 could use it as a campaign tool similarly to how the welfare state is used by Leftists. A whole lot of programs would need removing or modifying for long-term viability. The only part I really still think worked out was Albert Speer because he's pretty much the biggest genius among them--capable of both civilian work and keeping a massive war sustained. If a new group looking to build a White ethnostate had an Albert Speer they'd be golden as I'm sure he'd lay down the foundations (D.R.O.'s, C.D.A.'s, the stuff that'd replace State police and armies) for abdicating and abolishing government.

Eh, I have no idea anymore and it isn't relevant enough for me to dig up and determine who's reliable and who isn't. I just assume the Jews exaggerate because they were the obvious victims, and it's probably only half as murderous as it was. Still bad but not that bad. After all there must be some truth to it otherwise the rumors wouldn't... ...but then again with enough lies told repeatedly and consistently a whole false narrative can be created. Either way WWII was a disaster for everyone (save the Communists and, possibly, the Zionists who were having a hard time in Palestine) involved and it could be said H-man was a little too trigger happy and not diplomatic enough to solve his border disputes. Meanwhile the word "Socialist" is a bit of a red flag in the name "National Socialist" that strongly implies how they ran their country (into the ground). If they were National Capitalist and waited a few decades, and if Hitler was a family man with heirs, then maybe the regime could have been something special instead of bloody and one failed government interventionist program after another. They didn't? From what I know thousands used the program to their advantage and it was popular among the SS Rabbit Boys. That certainly changes the scale of the damage, however it doesn't change the intent and effect.

Simple, because that's welfare. By caring for the offspring of loose sex and their mothers, they effectively funded and promoted single motherhood and the degeneracy born of such. While it could be post-war propaganda on this part, I remember reading it being said that German men were encouraged to impregnate a woman before leaving the war. A very r-selected way of increasing the national population which when combined with the relieving of consequences of single motherhood (Lebensborn), it fights against the natural shrinkage and gene death of the r-selected animal in K-selected society. Therefore, it is essentially identical to the modern welfare state which makes single motherhood a viable option and promotes bad women to breed freely, and fence-sitters to be bad.

Now that's interesting. I was also basing off of Stef's videos as well as the studies he occasionally tweets. Perhaps I got my information from from either his tweeted studies or his videos on the subject specifically. Perhaps you missed the point or I am falsely remembering it, but I'm sure it is at least partially hereditary as that would explain why people are so hard to change and fundementally remain the same within given boundaries. Politically it's easy to characterize the Democrats and Republicans as general Left/Right, however there is also "conformation level" I've heard used to compare the different K-selected behaviors of Whites and East Asians. Basically some people are high conformist (which is why China has had relatively few civil wars compared to Europe, but the civil wars they have had were very bloody and resulted in systems not that different from before) and others low conformist (which is why countries like England had a civil war practically every 100 years, with each war being not that bloody by comparison and resulting in significantly different systems). I'd have to look into the Adaptive Strategies thing a bit more to give a fair analysis, however I think they could both be true as it's easy to divide people in two groups with only a few consistent differences (mainly the K-selected tend to be very familial and long-term planning, while the r-selected live in the moment only and can't plan beyond the next five minutes) and also not all K-selected people behave the same (easy contrast being the no-beating no-abusing Stef with the rather abusive Ted Cruz. Both are K-selected and interested in doing the best their families in the long run, but one is willing to make a 180* turn from what he grew up with while the other is most likely only somewhat different from his background, reflecting the idea that some Ks are very conformist while others are willing to take radical risks. Still, on the main subject, I think I must emphasize that we cannot change the r-selected by giving them more power and license to continue being r-selected. Disarming them is a sure-fire way to force a change over generations. This can be seen both positively (in White people being more diplomatic than they used to be) and negatively (in White people have less and less sense of self and group than they used to) over the last 100 years.

Yeah, an r-selected and degenerate regime pretending to be K-selected. I left the Hitler club definitively after learning about the Lebensborn Program, look it up if you haven't heard of it. It's basically a welfare state for whores, promoting all the r-selection that'd inevitably pollute and destroy the German race the same way r-selected shysters do now. EDIT: It's likely to happen either way. Hopefully this time we can make it K-selected by fact rather than just r-selected and a travesty. If only Stef were an American politician, I'd love it if he declared himself The Leader of the AnCap Party and went about building Kekistan.

r and K selection is hereditary, largely anyway. Not totally but stats say it's definitely largely genetic. Low rent women and men who sell out and die off are doing us a favor. High quality people are all that matter. If you don't know r/K, you don't know that it's pretty binary. Either you are tempted by promiscuity and degeneracy, or you find it immensely repulsive. You can try to switch over ( I come from an r-Selected background myself) but it's rare and usually the long-term transformation process goes several generations. Gene death is preferable to low quality Whites. I'd rather see my race die than live on as apes. However that's unlikely. Even if 90% of Whites are r-Selected, the remaining 10% will redeem them by taking over and promoting policies favorable to them (and AnCap is the surest and most effective way of doing that. Under our current system, it's best we simply hold our nose at the r-Selected, find a K-selected partner, make a slew of babies and raise them well, and build communities around shared values and long-term creation). K-selected women by definition won't sell out to r-selected men. Letting the r-selected women who'd hide themselves by pretending to be K-selected (which is historically how Europe evolved, with r-selected genes pretending to be K-selected with only some of them really becoming that way over time) be themselves is the best thing for our race. It shines a big spotlight and will inevitably divide the race into at least two parts: The Few Good Whites who'll build and control the future; the Many Bad Whites who'll be the future serfs and die off lest they don't change their ways and upgrade. I don't care for women who can't commit to r-selection. I only care for women who are truly K-selected. Abolishing (or abstaining from) porn will not improve the behavior of r-selected men or women, it'll just make it easier for them to snatch horny fence-sitters (who might make up the biggest third) who'd otherwise rub one off and look for quality.

Every politician is a lobbyist for someone, and ultimately for themselves. Jewish politicians are mainly special because they have a sense of ethnic and religious loyalty that most politicians do not. Similar to the idea not everyone in a group can be blamed for X unless you only count the ones who did X, I can't say Jews are the problem because only some Jews (whether a majority or loud minority I do not know) are, and functionally they're just as bad as our fellow countrymen as Statists and parasites because, well, regardless of who's under the suit a politician is a politician. A gangster is a gangster. Some gangsters are just better at it than others, but not all Jews are gangsters. On the case that our American government is Zionist, well that's obvious. Jews are a wealthy group of people, therefore they have influence over the gangsters who take money in exchange for doing favors. The Jews (which we call Zionists because every Zionist is a Zionist whereas not every Jew is a Zionist) who manipulate Americans are naturally against us but not evil because they're doing it for their race and religion. And a big problem is that our government is the ultimate prostitute and will whore itself to any radical group with money and materials to help the individual termites of State attain political power. The long-term solution to this is the abolition of state, or at least the abolition of Republicanism. Monarchism is harder to buy out because it's members are hereditary rather than elected. He was as indoctrinated about race, IQ, etc. as everyone else was/is. Murray Rothbard invented (or at least in it's current form invented) a great idea, Stefan took it miles further with his great books Practical Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behavior. I'm not objecting to that, in fact I think building a White ethnostate is the best thing we can do to preserve our way of life, K-selection, and overall build the great AnCap that many of us dream of. As to how to get there, I figure it'll be a combination of political strongmen, civil crisis, and a group of leaders who followed the ideals of peaceful parenting, K-selection, and RTR. I'd argue further that enthostates based on specific ethnicities (German, English, Russian, etc.) are the ideal for establishing AnCap, and for us Americans redefining "American" by creating a White Ethnostate here would be ideal for us in particular given many of our ancestries are mixed of various European ethnic groups. I doubt the government will ever establish our ethnostate, at least not unless we co-opt it with Nationalists, Capitalists, and AnCaps. It'll be a slow process but it'll be worth it for our (K-selected) White children, (K-selected) White descendants, and K-selected ideals become the new world order for the West. And I emphasize "K-selected" because r-selected Whites are just as bad as any other r-selected group--better off weeded out of the gene pool and most easily and painlessly done in AnCap.