Siegfried von Walheim

And those who do are r-selected and signalling that to high quality men looking for a real woman. How is it a bad thing for low-quality people to signal themselves as low quality? I prefer that to the guy who pretends to be a millionaire but is in actuality in debt millions of dollars and in signing that contract I am doomed to pay it back for him. Yes, people who go for prostitutes (said to be the oldest profession in history) are r-selected and obtain the STDs that'll sterilize them. If consequences meant anything (i.e. there were no welfare state) then these people would die off, or change their behavior. Men who seek prostitutes are signalling to high quality women that they're degenerate. Women who whore themselves out are signalling sex is all they're good for, and porn makes the judgement easy to make because K-selected men are no longer desperate for sex like every other hormonal male (or female for the reverse). Therefore Porn=r-Selection Detector and Disarmament. r-Selection Detector & Disarmament = K-Selected easier to fulfil. Without masturbation in general, low quality hotties dominate the relationship market. By calling porn anti-K, you are serving the interest of whores for whom sex is their only value. Do you understand the point I'm making? Porn disarms hot messes, prostitution (both the "formal" kind and the "buy me shit and I'll put out" kind) signals a red flag for all to see, and it's easiest to tell if a man or woman is a prostitute when you've just rubbed one off a few hours ago. It's much harder (both literally and metaphorically) when big blue eyes and nice curves are masking the underlying crazy. Taking sex out of the equation via porn is a great way to empower men and women to choose their wives/husbands based on character rather than sex appeal.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am with it. I suppose I forgot to mention groups that may not have a majority of violent adherents but tend to often hide or purposely ignore its violent members. Antifa would be a good example, while ISIS would be the perfect example of a group that can be collectively condemned as anti-NAP because their whole mission statement is "bring back the Caliphate, Boss Man is the new Sultan, and let's Make Arabia Dark Aged Again!" .

In these cases that's true, however it relies on the premise that the State is Jewish rather than simply a collection of monsters that happens to have an overrepresentation of Jews relative to their population. However in terms of the merchant selling, anything Statist is better analogized to a mafia 'offering'. That's something I've wondered as well. I have never known a dumb Jew but I also haven't known many Jews, as there aren't that many of them. I'm sure they're at least as high as the average White because...well, stupid people don't over-represent in their countries. However it is known there is a strong in-group preference among Jews, therefore I'm sure even slow Jews get ahead because they know somebody. And of course not all Jews are shysters, the main man behind modern AnCap is a Jew and Stefan Molyneux may be part Jewish himself, thereby "redeeming" them collectively as good Jews are making themselves more visible as if to "cancel out" the bad Jews. In general Jews have some of the best survival instincts and I imagine the reason why they're so over-represented in government and governmental-touched areas is because they're the safest areas to make the most bang and buck both individually and collectively, as most Jews have well-established families and kin-groups that help advance each other. Plus some Jewish sects tend to be pretty Islamic about their dogma and those sects in particular are very much the pro-self and anti-non-self racists.

That's quite the article, and a very strong argument. You know I was never taught anything about this in my government-sponsored public school education...I wonder why.

Theoretically AnCap would work best to undue control from undesirable groups because AnCap by it's own nature gives the most resources to the most K-selected, therefore r-selected adherents to degeneracy and its promoters (be they Jews or otherwise) would shrink over time. The most peaceful way to upgrade the White race is to let the bad Whites be bad (and suffer the consequences) and let the good Whites be good, 'cause Mother Nature is very fair insofar as she blesses with the most resources to the most K-selected among us. As far as porn is concerned, I think it's really a great benefit to humanity because it takes away a very powerful weapon from both women and men who use sex as a substitute for good character. Just think about it; if you can get the thrill of orgasm without risking an STD, rape case, etc. from having sex with a random crazy person, why not? By satisfying those urges manually we protect ourselves from being manipulated by evil and crazy people. It makes it easier for men and women to abstain from sex until they meet the great K selected people for whom sex ought to be given to as the best fit for furthering familial survival. Stefanism (peaceful parenting and RTR) is most easily followed when sex is taken out of the equation. Crazy women (from a man's side) stand out glaringly when men aren't being suffocated in hormones to overlook their crazy, and therefore sane women get the positive male attention. Vice versa also applies. In short; porn is wonderful; it promotes K-selection by disarming sexually attractive but dangerous demons!

As a guy who found this topic interesting, I'll take a stab at it. Assuming the soldier was forcibly conscripted, then moral standards no longer apply to him because he's in an amoral situation and robbed of agency by an external force. It's akin to be told to shoot someone while someone else holds a gun to your head; are you really evil for shooting someone when ordered to do so at gunpoint? If the soldier is a volunteer (i.e. he willingly joined the army) then he has some responsibility to at least know his army's history as an aggressor or non-aggressor. If the army has a history of warmongering then by joining he is indirectly endorsing warmongering and therefore violates the NAP. However if he thought the army was always heroic and a defender, then being told to do evil was a violation against him on the part of the army's command as he didn't sign up to become an instrument for war crimes.

This part's confusing, and the question in general I find interesting. First; do you mean to say those who adhere to a religion generally do whatever that religion claims to be about? Therefore if religion A is supposed to be a religion of peace, then they generally ignore parts that say "except in this circumstance where violence is justified"? Or are you saying a religion that endorses the use of force to spread itself and sustain itself, it's adherents claiming to be members are not necessarily initiating force? Before answering these two interpretations of what you said, I think I have an answer as to whether groups can violate the NAP in the same sense of individuals; If a person is a thief, then he's a thief. If a group is a group of thieves then they have mutual responsibility for thievery because they're all thieves. Therefore applied to Islam, those who practice their religion for real(also known as "extremists") rather than just pretend to can be collectively condemned. However Muslims who do not violate the NAP but merely wear the badge and pretend to be real Muslims are not violating the NAP so long as they aren't, you know, circumcising their children, raping people, etc. etc. However to be clear, for a group to have violated the NAP, every individual counted must have. Therefore outliers in any group must be counted out, hence why we call real Muslims "Islamic extremists", the idea being everyone in that group violated the NAP whereas not every self-identifying Muslim has violated the NAP or even really practices actual, orthodox Islam. This can be extrapolated to pretty much any other scenario, such as black criminals, a group comprised entirely of criminals in order to separated from blacks in general, as not every black commits crimes but black criminals are by definition criminals. I hope what I'm saying makes sense as a formula. In regards to voluntary association, I can't say someone proclaiming to be a Muslim by choice (i.e. a 30-something year old convert) is necessarily violating the NAP by association (which mustn't be considered the same as actually doing it) because what they define to be "true Islam" may not be the Koran but some weird New-New-Testament and they decided to just call it "Islam". Similar to how not every AltRighter is a Rightist, because some are Leftists who mistake themselves for Rightists (e.g. Fascists and moderate Socialist populists). The bigger the umbrella the more corrupted and less meaningful it winds up being. Not saying umbrellas don't mean anything, I just can't logically blame everyone under it for something only a part of them are unless it's like 99% and the remaining 1& is just some confused crazy person.

I can see the problem with justifying an evil institution, but profiting off of it? Better to be the wolf than the lamb. As simple as that. Meanwhile it's hard to really care about victims that don't cry or fight back. At least in the archetypal murder scenario the victim values his life. In the system we have most people are either degenerate losers or degenerate cucks. Both aren't really worth pitying. I care about the strong heart'd and intelligent who're striving to make something of themselves and build families for their progeny, in spite of the system. Using the system to that end is better than being used by the system, since these are really the only options available. I'm using the system by fighting it with writing. It may sound ironic but I don't think Right Wing or Libertarianism would be so gritty and exciting if we didn't have an enemy to make it exciting. And therefore I am profiting off an evil institution by exposing it, and other things like feminism, the welfare-warfare complex, etc. as enemies and making fun and profit by proposing and portraying good alternatives. If you're good at either of these jobs I'm sure you can find someone to take your place while you raise your children. Most workers who actually work don't see their children for more than an hour a day, and while that's a tragedy it's the reality of life. The most common compromise if for one parent to stay at home (ideally the one who makes less money) and the other to spend most the daylight hours away at work. As a professional you could spend more time at home because you'd be getting paid more per hour than most would in a day, therefore presuming similar living expenses you could work little for the same as a clerk or construction guy earns in a day. And that's assuming you can't find a way for someone to do your job for you and pay them on the premise of apprenticeship. Every way that involves making money involves participating in the evil system one way or another. Obviously some are more benign than others; me writing hurts no one but it is possible in time for people to turn my writing into an instruction manual (like 1984) or as a warning (also like 1984) and it could be said I'd be responsible for that, at least in part. I'm not saying be a banker or lawyer, but I am saying don't simply make it a black-and-white where all the guys on the black side are pure evil and the guys on the white side are pure victims. The white side is full of cucks and losers while the black side is full of other kinds of cucks and losers. They're both destable but one side is better off than the other for when society breaks up and civil war inevitably emerges. Which technically isn't force, but I get the point. Better do A because is clearly better than B, and the only reason why there is a choice is because other people's bad actions. Yeah. I don't know what impression I was giving, but I figure we're due for civil wars based on some thing or another, possibly even genocides. Therefore I'd like to be prepared to jump ship on a moment's notice for peace of mind. Otherwise it's Hitler versus Stalin and hopefully Hitler won't be as bad as Stalin was (not holding my hopes up since they both end the same anyway). Because neither isn't a choice. Again I am referring to the likelihood of civil war in the West, and the only "safe place" I can think of would be China or Japan, and I doubt they'd appreciate millions of Whities fleeing danger like the Muslims did, as I'm sure they'd be expecting trouble if we did. A better analogy is either you're a slave, or you're a patrician. Therefore you must decide, stretching the analogy, if it's better for your progeny to be slaves for potentially ever, or to be masters for potentially ever. That's not a hard choice to make. Agreed. I could say cronysim isn't as far "left" on the continuum as medieval barbarism but they're all bad, especially relative to what could be. Hypothetically the victim was a criminal, or it was an accident and the killer was a kid, etc. etc. My point being is that there is often no good answer to be found in reality, as the heroes aren't doing much tangible to make theory a reality. And unfortunately guys like Stefpai can only realistically propose and expose rather than do. He can't lead a revolution and establish AnCap Kekistan nor be the guy behind the scenes pulling the strings in our favor. However I greatly admire him because he's doing the best he can and creating a world, however small, for his progeny. Banking is not the equivalent to murder. Murder is wrong (hence it's called murder and not "self defense" or "revenge") but it'd be better compared to "harvesting" or "milking" since most people are practically barnyard animals uncaring and unaware of their situation, and therefore they aren't really worth defending against someone who's harvesting them for their children. Again that's making the assumption Mr Banker is doing it for his kids. Most probably aren't or are but doing it badly. However combined great wealth and power with Stefanist-style peaceful parenting and RTR and you have the foundation for a dynasty.

Analogies may help illustrate a point but, since I'm going drop this gun, they're not an argument. Banking is not being a concentration camp guard. Banking is managing money other people choose to spend, and while the government is evil at its core, I don't see the harm in profiting off of it while it lasts in order to hypothetically build the escape hatch and the fallout shelter for your progeny for when the inevitable collapse occurs. When you make the decision to stop living for yourself, you really begin to care less for you same-generation peers or future-generation people, but rather mainly if not exclusively for your unborn children. If I knew how to bank and had a passion for it, I'd most definitely do it even as a Wall Street Shark because I know that's the group of people with escape hatches and metaphorical bomb shelters prepared for when the plebs and the bankrupt patricians go toe to toe in the streets. While the crime itself isn't really a moral crime, the people who commit them often commit actual crimes (robbery, murder, etc.) in order to get their drugs. Therefore, to stretch the analogy, most if not everyone in your concentration camp actually deserves to be in it. Nobody's forcing anyone to invest in stocks either. It's just smarter because the common currency is becoming increasingly worthless in the system we live in, and likewise having a good job as a banker which helps create wondrous inventions happens to be a great way to "escape" the trap of the plebs and patricians and enable you to have a personal escape hatch. Yeah, pretty much. Better to get cancer at 80 than die from the plague at 20, and before Capitalism that was life. And while the corruption of modern banking came after the "good era" of capitalism, it is still preferable to get cancer at 60 than the plague at 20. It does matter because placing yourself in the best possible position to survive catastrophe and ensure your own children are the ones who are well-fed and taken care of when disaster strikes is the most sacred objective of intelligent people. And banking, even modern banking, isn't that bad since otherwise your neighbor's descendants would be sent off to forced labor anyway. Kekistan hasn't been built yet, and it's not going to get built in Galt's Gulch but rather by taking advantage of the current system to position yourself as well as possible. Compared to keeping our noses out of everyone's business and being satisfied with the fact we were (are?) impenetrable would be best, but being the alpha wolf is still miles greater than being a beta let alone the omega. Relative to being another nation's slave we enslave other nations. It'd be better if we stopped enslaving people but at least we aren't getting enslaved (although if you stretch the metaphor, we most likely will be eventually unless we get out of here). No, they aren't. Compare it to being in North Korea or Arabia and you'd realize our poison is decent because it comes with perks. I guess that depends on when he murdered and who, doesn't it? However that's an even more fallacious analogy because being a modern banker is more like being an anonymous tax collector that's hated in general but unknown in particular.

I edited that line to say "I'm NOT saying be a writer" because, well, unless that's been your childhood passion and pastime like it was mine, you wouldn't really benefit from it. That's the equivalent in saying German farmers shouldn't be farmers in WWII because they're feeding Nazis. Being a lawyer today may (and if you have no standards for clients, will) involve defending unsavory individuals and picking apart a byzantine legal system, but it's not like you can't help people and make money doing so. Similarly with banking and investing. Especially investing. Well that place (ought) to be a ditch, prisons shouldn't really hold many people because either the crime is so heinous that wasting other people's money feeding them is a crime of morality, or the crime is so minor it ought to just be a fine and that's it. But even with that analogy it's not like modern prison guards are terrible people (although I'm sure many are given the nature of the job and the toxicity of the environment) given they're serving a just cause, even if the system is set up to profit government lapdogs rather than clean the streets in any permanent sense. That could be said of anyone from any job. I, a novelist, profit off of the present hunger for something remotely right-wing or remotely individualistic. There aren't many modern books about familial strength without serious dysfunctionality, nor many modern books portraying capitalism positively, nor many focusing on individualism and accountability fairly and therefore there is a market waiting to be tapped by the right guy. That's me thriving under current circumstances. If Stefanism were mainstream than Stefan-inspired texts would be a dime a dozen. Now if someone (i.e. me) were to skillfully write novels incorperating peaceful parenting, capitalism in a positive light, RTR, etc. that someone could start a new modern market and make big bucks off of the current circumstances. Just wanted to emphasize that all profit is based on circumstance, like a farmer makes a big buck feeding the isolated village without access to a constant source of food. Compared to outright Communism, is that a bad thing? Yeah, I'd say in general it's shitty but compared to what? What's wrong with being a guy who profits with other guys for investing in new businesses ? The government will steal money from the people regardless, socializing the costs is just one way of blowing the stolen money that happens to be a short-term benefit. Until it collapses and real banks are able to operate, this is the best we have under the system we live in. Even modern banks are a huge help to the innovative and entrepreneurial classes that would otherwise have great difficulty in accumulating the capital necessary to set up and sustain a business. Banks are literally the reason why America managed to grow from regional power to superpower in less than fifty years. While they're certainly help fund the warfare-welfare state they are also helping the producers, the good and worthy people who dedicate themselves to creation, build that which drives our society forward materially and sometimes even morally. Having a hand in that weave is like being a god among men. You shouldn't turn your nose at something so crucial to human development just because the power is also misused.

Given the system you're in, you must be willing to conform. I gave alternative ways at looking at most of them, and think you'd benefit from seeing them the way I do. While some are less sinister than others, they are all necessary parts so long as we have a government. I'm assuming you're around my age (18-20)? Before you do anything you have find something you can be passionate about. If you don't have a passion than no job will be well-paying. I will forward you to WritingRevolt.com for more on how I got started, but in short it's a lot of cold emailing and when the fish bites...well, that's the easy part. Thanks to saving up, I'm able to focus more exclusively on creative writing, which is the thing I'm actually passionate about and dedicate myself to regularly. I'm NOT saying be a writer, but I am saying work isn't really "work" if it's something you're passionate about or heavily interested in. Which is why I'm saying to reconsider, especially banking and lawyering since both are essential with or without a state. After all there will be courts in anarchy, even if they're arranged different people will still be needed to defend the case or pursue the case of others. And banking is a underrated blessing to all healthy economies. While it has been heavily corrupted and abused by the government it is still an essential part of capitalism, even a mixed-market pseudo-capitalism.

I don't being a Lawyer has to be immoral however I don't know how picky a lawyer can be about clients and cases. I wouldn't dismiss that right off. As for politician...well, if you want to be the unicorn of the establishment it probably won't pay very well but...if you succeed you could become a hero for the history books. I wouldn't throw out this idea because not every politician is a blood sucking parasite and if you were to actually be one of the few AnCap or otherwise Cap politicians in the system you'd be advancing our cause politically in ways that may very well pay off in the long run. As a soldier you'd most likely just do what you're told. It's possible to be a career officer and attempt to get a high rank, but at what cost? However if you actually manage to become a general then perhaps you could change the direction our or your country is going in, potentially by force since you'd have an army under your thumb (especially if you played your cards right and won that soldier loyalty). Banker: These guys are the bedrock of modern capitalism. Sure some are Wall Street shysters but others are responsible for every entrepreneur being able to make their dreams come true because bankers were able and willing to invest in them. If you actually like this field, I'd recommend giving it serious attention. Teacher: Unless you want to do it on the internet you may as well shoot yourself because government education as a woke person is probably as hell for the teacher as it is for the captive audience of children. Eliminate this one. If you need a piece of paper to get anything for legal reasons, grin and bear it and try to find a college that's as much about the subject and as little about bullshit as possible. My aim is to be a novelist therefore I didn't/don't have to get a degree or otherwise waste my time in "higher learning", however some of what you want to be may legally require it in one way or another, and I wouldn't give up on a good dream because high school got extended for another 4 or so years. Well I can tell you my job that I got out of a hundred locations turned out to be pretty shady as I was paid next to nothing and under minimum wage, with taxes. I made the smart decision to make money using my writing skills, as there's plenty of ways a guy like me can make money in the here and now; freelance writing being the biggest and easiest non-creative example of it.

Well, there is a big difference between doing something in the name of God, and using religious buzzwords to stir up the voting or fighting population, it's another when (as I said before) priests have political power and governmental affairs are tied with religious affairs. Of course I wouldn't call the tax-exemption and political silencing pf churches to be parts of what is traditionally meant by "Separation of Church and State", but rather state-favoritism/persecution of various churches. Basically the North was Protestant and the South Roman Catholic. Although many citizens in North Germany were Roman Catholic, and they in particular faced potential persecution as a result. Theoretically the governments would get their noses out of their citizenry's religion but religious conflict on the local level continued for centuries. Even Hitler mentioned how he had a hard time giving speeches when Roman Catholics and Protestants were in the same room because one word about religion and they were likely to start a fight. Governments assuming the responsibilities of the priesthood has nothing to do with the separation of church and state but rather the displacement of the church's role as chief indoctrinator/healer in order to get the populace more attached and dependent on their governments (which must be paid off) compared to the voluntarily supported churches.

In the case of Germany there was the Thirty Years War waged between the Protestants and Roman Catholics, and when we Americans rebelled against the English (or however you want to phrase it) there was a desire to unhook English Protestantism from the English King, who was the "Pope" of his own Church (and technically still is). The Church is a group with texts that wishes to promulgate it and the State is the government. Their separation means, more or less, that governmental policy ought not to be influenced by religious policy, and also religious leaders should not hold legal authority over others. For example, a society in which both the church and state are one would be the Holy Roman Empire, and nowadays ISIS. In the H.R.E. the Pope was nominally the supreme autocrat and the Kaiser was his "deputy" or "representative". Priests could (and sometimes would) wield political power for their own ends and priests often had legal authority over others. When the Thirty Years War came to an end Church and State were officially separated, i.e., priests no longer held special legal privileges, special legal powers, and the governments of the H.R.E. no longer (at least on paper) wages war against one another based on religious differences. In the case of America it is fairly similar as the King of England was (and still is) the "God Head" of English Protestantism and the American founders wanted religion to be secular (i.e. not a political weapon or a guarantee for special legal privileges). Although it didn't affect too much immediately, in the long run civil wars waged with the casus beli being based over religious differences dramatically decreased. Politicians couldn't buy pardons from the Church; church leaders could no longer abuse their position to extort money from citizens and be legally protected and aided in doing so, and much much more (that I can't think of and that's probably a good sign of its effectiveness). Essentially before it was "invented" (it's exact origins I do not know) the priests would say politician X was blessed by God and therefore people should support him; politician Y is a blasphemer and charlatan who ought to be hanged; and politician Z is a changed man after paying his dues etc. etc. Also wars over religious differences were far more common. Because Germany lost a quarter of its population as a result of the Thirty Years War, and was utterly exhausted with centuries of religious in-fighting and political involvement. America had for most its history a very large German population and most modern Americans today are at least part German. Plus there is the Church of England and the King is the Pope link I mentioned before. Theoretically if the Church and State were merged then people could be punished arbitrarily based on highly interpretive grounds (X ought to be hanged because he is a sinner; sinning is whatever we consider to be against our interests and therefore has a vague definition; and therefore X falls under our desired interpretation of sinning at the time for us to want X dead) and that could lead to some seriously corrupt law enforcement.

From what I can tell of history, the most stable monarchies are ones whose succession is based on primogeniture. Especially primogeniture since if its "any son of the recently deceased King" a civil war is very likely to occur as the result of aristocrats jockeying for their preferred son. I know the tiny Arabian countries appear to be wealthy, however I have no idea if they're meritocracies or more nepotist. Theoretically if any intelligent Arab in, say, the United Arab Emirates can become a millionaire through the fruits of his labor (legally) then I'd say that's an example of a free market under a monarchy. However I can't say for sure since it might not be all that great beyond their capitals, or it's largely just a system for those that know people.

Well what drew me in at first was the Race and Evolution stuff back when I was a Socialist of the National variety. Over time I matured out of that and into "National Capitalism" and from there AnCap. The first videos I saw at length were the biographies in the Truth About series, particularly the ones about famous Presidents and world leaders. Then I started following the Trump stuff (give or take around late 2015) and then I slowly spread out into Peaceful Parenting and listening regularly to podcast interviews. Overall this is definitely my favorite show because of the sheer mass of depth accompanying the mass of size.

Which is why definitions are especially important when trying to argue anything with the Left/Right spectrum. Though "comrade" wasn't always a Leftist word, and I think we should revive the word since it is meant to refer to a good and trustworthy friend, not a political ally. And while in terms of governance we may not fit on the spectrum (because we're anarchists) we do fit easily economically (State-controlled economy versus an organic economy). And the people that call themselves AltRight may be varied in terms of how they interpret "AltRight" and what that means in terms of beliefs sets, Libertarians and AnCaps still have more in common with the AltRight (given we also reject the mainstream Republican party and their equivalents) than not, especially as anti-Leftists. Of course that being said as to how the AltRight can be defined is a question in and of itself. I'd define it as any economically or socially right-wing ideology that deviates from the mainstream, and by that definition we are AltRight by default.

Yeah, kinda what I was thinking. Plus it just seems like bullying to shame a victim for getting jumped. Imagine if it was Ann Coulter who got punched in the side of the head, and try laughing about it...

True. However the Left./Right spectrum is also used to define things like social policy (i.e. whether to live conservatively or loosely), religious policy, etc. Altogether both wings have a whole lot of associated baggage, Right would still be what Stefanism would be categorized in most cases as he promotes strong family values (based on voluntarism and peaceful parenting) and although an atheist he does promote morality via UPB, which could be called the perfect secular bible as it gives reasons to be good without a stick. Because much of what I believe (which is pretty much everything Stef says, as I can't help but treat what he says as gospel at times) can be called "Rightist" and since Fascists are very Leftist in nature even though their dogma is slightly different, I feel comfortable being called a "Rightist" at least in contrast to the Leftists. Of course when speaking philosophically I don't use the spectrum at all since it is highly interpretive. I believe what I believe, and some of my political thoughts (like AnCap) aren't easily defined on the Left-Right spectrum unless Left represents Statism and the Right Devolution. I agree for the most part we're picking our poison when voting for one thing or another, however in some cases (like Trump and Le Pen) the better of two evils is MUCH better than the alternative, as it allows us to follow our beliefs in spite of the State than be forced to obey it even within the privacy of our homes.

About Stef being the epitome of Far Right, my big response appears to have been approved. I'd appreciate a read and comment over it...

Which I'd say is admirable, for me it's a waste of time. I used to be a Leftist (both International and National varieties) and therefore know Leftism from the inside. Of course if Leftism were to significantly change I'd be alien to it and therefore would have to study it to get it. I have a weakness towards echo chambers and therefore try not to assume I am completely right in an argument, therefore if I come into a significant argument I've made it a habit to try to study what actually happened--maybe one of us misunderstood, maybe definitions weren't properly established; maybe I was completely wrong about X or Y and therefore made a huge logical error. I used to be a very rabid Leftist back when I was in early high school but by the time I graduated I essentially made a 180* turn, for better and worse, and therefore want to be more careful about things I consider completely and totally true.

Sadly I think that's true of most people of most ideologies. I have a bigger response awaiting approval to that question.

I think I've been on FDR for about half a year and listening/watching Stef for a year. FDR is Rightist because its founder Stefan Molynuex is an Anarcho-Capitalist, about as right-wing as you can get. Assuming you are following this definiton, that is: I define Leftism to be the advocacy of State control and Rightism the advocacy of private (non-governmental) control (or individualism, wherein everyone owns the affects of their actions), and apply that to various aspects. Economically we're definitely as Far-Right as we can conceive of because "Orthodox Stefanists" like myself want the State totally abolished and the Free Market to be totally freed, allowing all people and goods to flow freely while letting Individualism take hold insofar as people will have to be responsible for their own behavior rather than shifting responsibility via governmental programs (which I mean vaguely to include welfare, war, etc.). Hitler is often called Far Right but based on the definition for Rightism I gave this couldn't be further from the truth. Practically speaking he's as Far Left as Stalin but with "Nationalist" instead "Internationalist" or "Globalist", and all Fascistic regimes met the same fate as Communist regimes, often through shortages, military coups, etc. Both are authoritarian ideologies hellbent on State control of society and generally pro-r-selection in policy. In general the AltRight wants libertarianism and at least a moderation of authoritarianism as compared to status-quo Republicans or pushing-left Democrats. Capitalism is by its nature Right Wing (i.e. no State control, freedom) and Anarchism is governmental equivalent to a completely Free Market. AnCap is the epitome of Right Wing, and while I may be socially conservative and belligerently against r-selection I still believe AnCap is the most effective way to help the largest amount of people, in particular those K-selected individuals who deserve it.

Strictly speaking we're largely AltRight on FDR insofar as we're right wing and alternative to mainstream Republicanism. I can't say I like Richard Spencer given his platform is basically Socialism with Nationalism, but I can't say I appreciate insulting him for getting attacked in broad daylight nor expecting him to be some sort of titan of masculinity. He's just a somewhat r-selected guy with a k-selected desire to help out his race. He's wrong on certain aspects but on the whole I think it's safe to say we're in the same Nationalist (or at least anti-Statist) camp he is. We cross over often enough that I think we shouldn't be punching Right until we've overcome the Left. Of course don't get me wrong although I'm also an ethnostate guy I don't support his National Socialist alternative to International Socialism, which is over time basically the difference between paper white and egg white. I just think we shouldn't be punching to the right when they're at least slightly better than what currently exists.

I will mix terms as I please when creating a hypothetical sect. After all hypothetically either I or some other disgruntled mensch with an inflated sense of ego would have to do it to avoid the inevitable condemnation of the Puck of Rum. As much as I like the fancy terms of the Prussian --Kingdom-- (you can't call everything an Empire just because it got bigger than two feet, y'know) as well as their styles, I am really only interested in copying them on a superficial level as well as their military system. Centralization of power, for a government, makes sense given the theory that a handful of people know better than a mob. However beyond the army and law I would push for a completely laissez faire system since I am a free marketer after all. And again, I just prefer this over other types of governments . Otherwise I'm in favor of the abolition of statism and the formation of ethnostates. From what I know, that pattern only existed within the Holy Roman Empire and neighboring Roman Catholic countries. Protestant and Eastern Catholic countries were not subject to the dual-supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff and Kaiser. Examples of a largely laissez faire government: America (1789-1880, especially the Northern half); England (~1840-~1920); the Golden Horde (~1100-1400). The Dutch Kingdom (~1600-1940) All examples are of nations and governments that did very little beyond the military and law and left the people to do their thing, and benefited greatly in the process. The free market is the ability to buy and sell things with respect to ownership. Who do you think would own the most land and control the most resources? Why, guys like Donald Trump who have proven that in a free-ish market. Free Markets embody natural selection. The smartest and most frugal rise to the top while the wasteful and useless fade into obscurity. Eventually only smart people will exist and not a drop of blood would be needed to make that revolution, once it has been established of course. Emperor Napoleon's "lack of legitimacy" didn't stop his great-nephew from becoming Napoleon III largely through the will of the French populace (with the backing of the army of course).