Siegfried von Walheim

Added Edit; Also, while we could theoretically play the cockroach strategy if the fight were merely ideological, it won't be if the red shirts come at our doors with batons and rob us blind.

So long as the West can return to its core values while vivifying capitalism and respect for property, we can (and will) become hegemonists even if our racial territory is reduced to 1/10th it's original size (assume that 1/10th is in fact an ethnostate. Otherwise....)

I would if I had shitty roommates that I couldn't kick out. Would rather they collapse in the house and begone from the world.

Different IQ tests test different things. The one I took in middle school mainly tested three things;"Fluid intelligence", "Crystallized intelligence", and "Processing Speed" (Refer to wikipedia for details on each). I did very well on it. EDIT: It may have been "visual" and "auditory" processing rather than "processing speed" and "crystallized intelligence". Other versions aim for creativity, short and long term memory, quantitative and logical skills, and some all of the above. Usually though, when someone has, say 130 on one test they have between 115-145 on the rest. Therefore the "margin of error" (or more precisely the general range that the various factors are likely to be in) is approximately +or- 15. Again, while having greater horsepower makes cars more likely to win the race of life, not every car commits to winning or blows their gas tank too early (to stretch the analogy). As for messy and obsessive geniuses; yeah, I get that. However they're rare enough that you aren't likely to mistake them for low-impulse-control riff-raff. But then again, I can't say as I haven't met any. As for just above-average and generally reliable/competent people, I don't think they're too hard to spot once you've gotten used to them (or best of all become one).

Pragmatically speaking, you're right on mark. I really met the "well-kept" part as to mean "clean", not necessarily fashionable or staring-at-a-portable-mirror vain, just not stinking of cheap-cigarettes-smelling wearing-pants-below-the-anus or hiding-under-a-hood-with-stoner-eyes trashy. Of course, again anecdotal. But I think we can agree someone stinking of alcohol or drugs isn't the sharpest tool in the shed (assuming he wasn't plunged in a keg or dragged into a smoker's bar). However it is worth pointing out only about half of men are smarter than most women, while the other half are generally dumber than most women (I.Q.-wise, which isn't necessarily wisdom but rather the horsepower often necessary to acquire wisdom). While hard to totally frame an IQ range (without experience), you could use "whether or not they have these bits of wisdom" as short-hand for reliable versus unreliable.

I am confused by the first two mini-paragraphs. I was pretty sure South Africa is a genocidal nightmare. As for pioneering voluntarism in South Africa, well, first you must #RemoveWatermelon then purge the society of all its cancers. Then maybe, just maybe, can you avoid going the NatSoc cocaine rush to suicidal bank busting.

You're misreading. And practically speaking, referring to "FDR community" is easier and more understandable than "every individual who happens to be currently on the forum, or will eventually be on the forum". An individualist can still refer to groups the same way a public speaker is speaking to a crowed, not really any one person in particular. Yeah, it sounds tempting to at least go out with a bang (even if the bangs are relatively few and take decades to have an effect). The problem is "why"? Another post with more on "why" is currently being evaluated. Oh, and to the question "What do I think the West is to anyone who isn't Western?".... My reply to the rest of this post is being evaluated but I forgot the answer this part. Quite simply; "Decadent and suicidal Whitevile". I imagine some Easterners and...Southerners? Asians and Africans I mean. I imagine some are green with envy, red with anger (either for revenge or contempt), or gray with indifference (after all they probably have their own problems to deal with that would greatly overshadow any anger or envy. Exception being Arabia where our governments are blowing the bank target practicing on live targets).

To me, the West is the ruins of the once-great Empires and the free markets that originated some of the best of them, as well as the White race and some Roman/Protestant religious values. The West is the living space of White people, in the loosest tense and the hive of our creativity (both good like the Free Market and respect for property and the crap like religious infighting and Marxism). At the moment, I see the West as this big cuddly suicidal degenerate addicted to all kinds of virtue-signalling cocaine. I'm tempted to let the addict smoke the dope because I know the only way the addict will get better is through force, and one man is not enough to forcibly detox 800,000 million or so drug addicts. Let alone 210 million. And the drug in particular is merely race and gender realities. After that, there's still creeping Socialism and the temptation for racial realists to repeat the past that led to NatSoc Germany (which can be best described as an LSD meltdown) and /or Communist Russia, where the only differences are the rhetoric. Getting to a free market ethnostate is a challenge,. One I'd take for the long haul if I had a reason to care for the drug addicts in the first place. I know in the long-long run this would be good for my own survival, but I could simply refuse to have kids and die before my race does. At the same time everything dies eventually and perhaps I we are to go down, it should only be after we've put everything we could into it. The problem is though....why? Why should I care about the very race that welcomes its own destruction, embraces degenerate and self-destructive ideals, and is--as Aristotle infamously said; holds "...tolerance and apathy...the virtues of a dying society". Therefore I see two roads; A: Screw the majority of Whites and only fight for the minority willing to stand up Or; B: Wave the white flag and live like a panda in the Zoo. I like A better, but I'm not fully committed.

How the heck were your living experiences $325 a month without internet? What state, what city, where??? In Eastern Pennsylvania a duplex apartment, 1 floor with a bedroom, bathroom, and living room/kitchen (roughly the total size of a hall way) is $1,000 per month. I know this is off-topic, but I had to address that first. Now on topic... I don't think MGTOW (if we mean men not having meaningful relations with women) is sustainable because either there will be no reproduction, or reproduction with single dads/moms resulting in a worsening of the current single mom welfare/warfare state. However if by MGTOW we mean men simply understanding the difficulties of casually dating women, then it is certainly sustainable and actually a return to the past insofar as we won't be screwing around with dangerous black holes and instead focusing on marrying our future children's mother rather than the hottest heels in the neighborhood. This would result in a massive cultural change for the better over time, if men could theoretically avoid traps and focus on real women. But I doubt this will happen en masse, however if enough quality individuals live this a good change is likely to occur in a generation or two.

It is hard to define what is truly good, except maybe truth. The reason being everyone has their own preferences which affects what is "good". I tend to refer to UPB as my secular bible on ethics. As someone stated above, good tends to be "aesthetic" rather than concrete. On the other hand evil is very easy to define as it involves aggressive acts that can never be universalized(because if they could, they wouldn't be "aggressive" as consent negates aggression). Rape, for example, cannot be good because for it to be good everyone must rape and want to be raped, the want negates the aggression part of rape, which negates the definition of rape, and merely becomes massive consensual sex. Which itself cannot be universalized because not everybody is capable of giving consent to sex. Consensual sex could be preferred by very many people, but can be at best an aesthetic "virtue" as not everybody likes or can have sex. However consensual sex is much more "virtuous" than rape, which requires for one party to be violated by the other. Does this make sense? Truth is not necessarily good in itself, as telling the killer where your children are is enabling murder, which is evil. However telling the truth is usually good, and so is not killing. The demarcation where good acts become evil (and vice versa) is when aggression has been initiated; it is immoral to be honest to a killer, and moral to kill a killer. However, it is immoral to lie to someone who hasn't lied, or to kill someone who hasn't killed (or intended to kill).

I think it is very IQ and culture dependent. In the West, among Whites in particular? Personal experience says "YES". Until recently I didn't want to have children, knowing they'd be brought up into a pretty terrible world. Depression and similar problems will naturally kick in the shin reproductive drives. However in a rapey, non-consent culture I don't think there is much correlation between good childhood and big families, in fact I think those wiht better childhoods in bad societies tend to breed less (if at all) because they wouldn't want to bring life into a war zone. However, again, this all assumes the ones with good/bad childhoods are also intelligent. Intelligence is a huge driver in breeding rates as intelligent people tend not to breed when they're stressed, depressed, or anticipating disaster while dumb people seem to breed consistently regardless of environment.

In general, if you are a good judge of character, you can tell the smart from the stupid instinctively. If not, or you're unsure and really want a short and sweet check list, here are some observations; Smart People -Tend to look well-kept, without any bizarre smells. -Tend to be eloquent in conversation, especially in subjects they are experienced/knowledgeable in. -Tend to have good short and long term memories. Especially if you say, act, or appear in ways most people do not. Dumb People -Tend to look dirty, have strange smells (like drug or cigarette smoke), and appear to have reduced or no sense of self-awareness. -Tend to stutter, tend to give brief and simple answers. Easily frustrated. -Tend to forget things pretty easily. Mind you there are plenty of exceptions, therefore you will have to rely on instinct and past experience to really gauge someone's rough IQ range. However geniuses tend to stick out, in one way or another. If you simply want someone who's reliable and intelligent, these general trends will help but for spotting geniuses you really won't have to try very hard assuming you yourself are fairly intelligent. Also remember that there are intelligent people who stink, look bad, become easily frustrated and forget things easily. However they never have all these things at once, and are often self-aware and behave the way they do on purpose. Forgetfulness is rarely a trait of intelligence but the ability to retain and quickly recall is. Of course few people remember things they are not interested in or feel they will not have much use for. Don't be surprised if even a genius forgets your long dissertation about the breeding patters of dung Beatles or how you can safely extract honey from honeycombs without wearing a beekeeper's suit. Try experimenting/observing with people you know and see how it goes.

I've been pondering this thought for a while; Is the West worth defending? The West of today, I can say without any doubt, is not worth defending, not worth dying for. Islam, to anyone who isn't a member of the cult, is very much a real life and death threat. I'm not saying they're the same; the West isn't likely to lynch me (yet) while Islam most certainly would. What I am saying, (and asking), is that with the West's gynocentric democracies, LGBT nonsense, increasingly Socialistic and Fascistic governments, and decreasingly White or identitarian cultures, is doomed to die eventually. I simply cannot see how the West will ever return to Nationalism and Capitalism, or progress towards Anarcho-Capitalism. All I see is a wheel spinning that will eventually lead to a repeat of history (whether it be South Africa, Brazil, the USSR, or NatSoc Germany--they're all seemingly inevitable disasters). With the White Woman being the greatest enabler of this travesty and the White Man becoming increasingly inert and flaccid, I simply lost the empathy to care for this "civilization". My thoughts (not a plan, really) are to simply tend my own garden and find a way to bunker down and stay away from the major hot spots where disaster is likely to occur. Call it cowardice, call it treachery. I don't care. In the 18 years I've been alive I have never cared for the non-existent values of this carcass and am convinced that the values history and some right-wing (and pseudo-right wing) claim existed either never existed beyond a small class of talented individuals or only existed in society for a brief period in time. But what I want to know is this; what does the FDR community think and am I right to think and act in such a way? EDIT: I posted in the Self-Knowledge section because I know this isn't an intellectual matter but a very personal one. While I think I have logical factors into my thought process I am also sure my own personal experiences and emotions have driven them. Therefore I'm focused more on the personal side of it rather than the intellectual side.

Thank you, I was asking because I wanted know whether your statements would be coherent. If I wanted to argue "If I wanted to argue (I'd)...?" Don't mean to pick on you, as English might not be your first language or this is a typo, but I assume your intent is either to figure out my position and find inconsistencies for the sake of argument or to simply find out my position for the sake of curiosity. My mistake, you mentioned instability as a direct consequence of diversity. I assumed it was an if and only if connection. To be precise, there are many causes of instability. Ethnic diversity can be (and almost always is) one of them. So you can challenge ideas as long as they aren't moral? Sort of. I mean to say I support the freedom of speech (as was apparently heralded by the Catholic Church except for the times it wasn't, for some reason or another) in general, and therefore would not want governments to use force to suppress dissident ideas unless the people following the ideas are using force against nay-sayers or others in general. Ideally, I support the idea that everything can (and perhaps must) be challenged but certain key things must be vigorously maintained as if part of a "lost tablet" inscribed in gold: Loyalty to one's race (after one's spouse and children), respect for one's property and productivity, and adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle (at least against the race). While I have my own opinions on what is best I would not want to aggress against people who oppose it unless they use force to impose their own values on me. However if we get to a point of Balkanization (i.e. fragmentation and disintegration of communities, the normalcy of violence and ethnic conflict, etc.), then for the sake of the race, force must be exercised. Things like feminism, child rearing, Socialism, etc. must be evaluated publicly by how they impact the family unit and the people as a whole. However the government (in my ideal society at least) must not be allowed to use force to impose their chosen values upon the populace (as I am a Min-archist in that the only thing I want the government for is national defense and possibly law enforcement if D.R.O.'s don't work). "To use a more historically important example, when Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church on its failing to teach the Bible in German/Italian (or at least have the stuff printed out in German/Italian) it was less a matter of moral differences but of political and social change. If the "clergy elite" had a monopoly on the teaching of values they could (and I think around this period actually were on a large scale) con the stupid and illiterate for extra tithes. And probably more, I haven't done much research of the event. Christianity had a resurgence when the dead weight of the established clergymen and the zealots were overthrown and reason returned to the Catholic Church. " So even though Luther had quite literally moral qualms with the catholic church on how they practiced their faith it actually wasn't a moral issue? When is something a moral issue? I cannot claim to know all of what Martin Luther had challenged the Church with, and ideally the Church would have to accept the challenge and either rebut him or adapt Luther's qualms as part of the dogma. As to what the conditions are for amendment, I would say something like "whether or not it is consistent with the Three Principles of Innovation, Industry, and Competition as well as consistent on whether it would benefit the race more than the existing principle". To elaborate on the Three Principles, I am essentially putting forward the ideals of creativity, hard work, and the free market as the ultimate sources of wealth and creation for the elevating of the best of the race to the top and weaning out the worst to the gutters, and increasing the general standard of living. In practice that didn't happen, as the Church (from what I understand) became corrupt and hypocritical. Something is a moral issue when it affects the life and death of the people, either directly (like war) or indirectly (like whether to economically plan centrally or with a free market). I have not defined strongly what a moral issue is, as I do not care about things like homosexuality or private actions unless they impact children and by extension the race in the future. Therefore my only imposition on the people would be to explicitly forbid sexual (but not moral) deviants from having children (moral I exclude because if I am wrong about something the "moral deviant" believes in, then I would not want to violate their privacy unless they are physically abusive). Because I assumed you disagreed with the statement instead of amending it. There is a big difference between saying the fall of Nazi Germany was part of the demise but not the beginning and the fall of Nazi Germany wasn't part of the demise. True. I suppose to clarity my position on the Third Empire, I'd say it is a reaction to the decadent fatherless welfare state of the Weimar Republic rather than a paragon of Western Civilization. Personally I would wished they didn't start invading Poland (I heard it might not have been so one-sided but then again...) and fight the West. There were no winners in WWII, only losers as everyone lost more than they gained (except maybe the Jews, who had their Never Again moment and built themselves a country, although I don't know if the hundreds of thousands or millions that died were worth it). I don't understand, it was an arms race and a manpower issue. If a nation could make use of it's full population by employing women and the other nation could not the first nation would win provided they had similar population and industry. A nation without women empowerment would be crushed by a country with women empowerment and therefore superior numbers and weapons, doesn't that make it a more efficient country? For the impact of the Federal Reserve and Feminism I refer to Stefan Molyneux's vidoes, for while I am a layman of the subject I am not informed well enough to confidently or clearly explain the problem of the Fed, whereas Feminism requires some citing of older Feminists and the Communist Manifesto to really give gravitas to. In terms of manpower, I can easily debunk the idea that women soldiers are an addition by simply referring to the state of the current U.S. Army which has disintegrated and lost it's army values with the introduction of women soldiers, whom the men just compete for. Having just one woman soldier is enough to destroy the integrity of 100's. I refer to Stefan Molyneux's interview with an army dude (I don't think it is too hard to find, he uploaded it on YouTube a few weeks ago) for the rest. Also, while resources are great and all women workers don't produce the same value as males and tend to take value away in the long run as for ever female worker is approximately 3 less children that could have been brought into being (assuming a quality childhood is desired, which I argue it is since bad childhoods invariably result in high criminality and defeatism). Quality over quantity is the general theme, as men who recently married and have kids tend to work enough for 5 people whereas women who work generally only work minimum wage as either clerks or "administrative assistants" . While I would ban female soldiers, I would not ban (just discourage) female workers except those rare geniuses who choose to work something useful like a business or a science. No like say challenging the idea that actions are more important than intentions which was at the time advocated by the catholic church. Challenging this idea (among other things) meant more diversity and therefore more instability. Furthermore according to your own narrative the more cruel side would take advantage of the more pacifist side which means that in history because the protestant managed to gain permanent foothold in Germany and Northern countries that must mean they where simply crueler than the Catholics in those regions, otherwise the Catholics would have remained dominant. Cruelness relative to the cruel is largely irrelevant, as I mainly mean to compare the largely inert American soldiers in the Middle East to the ethnic-cleansers of the the Arabian/Muslim factions. We could easily win if we simply destroy every city and kill every living thing there until their factions surrender, at which point we can leave. In terms of the 30 Years War, no one won although Protestantism did not become strong as a result of war but of a winning argument. The Catholics failed to maintain their values and so the Northerners left the Empire, and the Empire failed to reclaim the North, as a result the war ended largely with a compromise that officiated (? or inspired?) the separation of Church and State.

You didn't respond to my statement, you mentioned diversity zero times while I asked you specifically about that. If you don 't think slavery and diversity are related explain why. Slavery is to diversity what bread is to butter; can be combined, does not need to be. Not all slavery is one race owning another, much of slavery is people of the same ethnicity owning others of the same ethnicity. I am against the owning of people who are of the same nationality or ethnicity for moral reasons, and against the owning of people in general for practical and economical reasons. I can't find where you stated "diversity" in the question as to whether I believed abolitionism negatively impacted the Whites. If anything I'd argue Whites benefited immensely from abolitionism and the blacks actually lost from it, especially considering the death toll of killed blacks in the Civil War. Explain how challenging existing beliefs doesn't result in diversity of moral values. The same way that if Man A thinks irrigation should be conducted with machines rather than Man B's shovel-based irrigation isn't a difference of morals but of efficiency. To use a more historically important example, when Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church on its failing to teach the Bible in German/Italian (or at least have the stuff printed out in German/Italian) it was less a matter of moral differences but of political and social change. If the "clergy elite" had a monopoly on the teaching of values they could (and I think around this period actually were on a large scale) con the stupid and illiterate for extra tithes. And probably more, I haven't done much research of the event. Christianity had a resurgence when the dead weight of the established clergymen and the zealots were overthrown and reason returned to the Catholic Church. (No), Why are you putting a "No" before my statement? So you actually think the rise of the female workforce during WW1 was the begin of Western demise? More the Federal Reserve and the increasing Socialization of the West at large. These are the roots of conning women (especially young ones) into fearing men and destroying the family unit and community units across the nation. While Feminism was great at putting a dent in domestic abuse, few Feminists actually did anything to help women (or male victims of women) and instead focuses on making man-hate and the myth that "women are wonderful" mainstream. It only took 2 and a half generations to destroy masculinity and replace it with a gynocentric matriarchy that is now smothering the life out of the West. Theoretically, if Feminists had actually done what was best for women (i.e. teach about bad men while praising the good men, and in general orienting young women towards starting and raising families with stable providers rather than telling them "You can do it all, Girl!"), the West would currently be in the Tenth Crusade against Islam right about now. I was referring to the splitting of the church during 1500(or 1450)-1600. Like say, the Thirty Years War? From a German perspective it was a bloody mess that resulted in the purging of rotten and zealous fanatics and corrupt politicians, albeit at the cost of 1/4 of the German population. From a Northern perspective, the Great North was freed from foreign rule and able to pursue the possibility of inventing a system better than the South and potentially conquering them (which of course didn't happen, as the North essentially failed to unite and instead tore out each other's throats with the Danes preferring their Southern neighbors and the Swedes failing to sustain itself in the face of enemies in every direction and a shrinking populace/economy). From the French perspective, it was a revolution that thrusted France into power and prominence. Very little long-term except for the severance of German-French relations for the next 500 years, and an angry and starving public. From the English perspective...? No idea how involved they were, as I think they basically played it smart and just watched. From the Spaniards, basically just another slaughter fest. From a pan-European perspective, I'd say the wars were a necessary evil to destroy Church elitism and give those who were able to carve out a future in the war a chance of reinventing Europe in terms of "who is the smartest and most able to rule the world". Sadly it was a "trick war", in that only those who didn't participate and instead focused on their own affairs "won". As the British Kingdom would eventually become an Empire and lead the world in civilization and culture.

Essentially a country that is 100% White. I don't recall where I first learned of the term, but it is partly used to mean "of any European descent" as compared to "just Germans" or "just Britons" or "just Slavs", etc. As I do not particularly discriminate among White peoples' ability to live in one country as America had proven as an experiment that while it can take a few generations, pretty much any admixture of White can eventually amalgamate into one.

I sure miss the bullet-point style of internet debates So would you consider the abolition of slavery in the USA a step backwards towards instability or a necessary evil to prevent genocide? No. My problem with slavery isn't moral (for I believe if a man wants to be owned, or own, why should I stand in his way?) but that it is grossly inefficient. While it would make a difference to me if the slaves were of the same race or nationality as the owning class, it would be a moral difference rather than a practical one. The practical problem is that slave labor tends to be woefully inefficient compared to paid/incentive-driven labor and retards societies devotion to labor-saving devices. I've heard a theory that with the Roman mass enslavement of Greeks from the 3rd century onward sparked the downward spiral, as the slaves made the native workers largely obsolete and made the ruling class lazy, plus with the increasingly overbearing government the entrepreneurial class was quickly snuffed out. So would you consider the freedom to practice any religion you want also a step backwards within the christian faith which allows for so much diversity? Yes. Morality tends to trump race, especially among the higher IQ (and by extension more desirable) populations. Therefore while I support a diversity of ideas and freedom of speech, I do not support a diversity of moral values. However I do support challenging existing beliefs in order to adapt to new information. For example I support peaceful parenting partly because it is far more efficient (and frankly far more moral) than child abuse. So would you consider the defeat of Nazi Germany the begin of the demise of western culture, or did that happen when the Soviet Union broke down? I used to think that (the second as a Communist and the first when I became a National Socialist). I'd say Western culture started going downhill with the rise of the welfare/warfare state in Euro-America and the rise of feminism in destroying the family unit (which according to some sources I've read may have actually been their intended goal from the get-go, as many of the first feminists were also Communists). So would you consider the two party system in the USA to diverse of different ideologies and should be reduced to a one party system? Fundamentally the conservatives of today were the liberals of 20 years ago. The conservatives of 20 years ago were the liberals of 40 years ago. I do not consider the Republicans or Democrats to be very different. The only noticeable differences is that one tends to be in favor of low taxes and a burgeoning entrepreneurial class while the other tends to be in favor of a Soviet-style International Realm. Personally I think democracy cannot work without an intelligent and homogeneous population. I'd prefer a min-archist hereditary monarchy that spends more time on drinking wine and getting out of the business class's way than mob rule. While monarchs can be great, they're usually uninvolved or only involved with family politics and making/breaking military alliances with other monarchies. However they're usually restrained from doing anything stupid by either aristocrats or wealthy interest groups. I think rule by the smart and wealthy is preferable over rule by the poor and stupid, and rule by one tends to be a coin toss only worthwhile in the most dire of circumstances. So would you consider the renaissance perhaps the most destructive event happening in Europe because of the diversity which came from it? Which renaissance? The Italian one that was basically a new Roman peace? I'd say the opposite as the Italian princes generally stayed out of the people's way, and while it wasn't a "perfect" free market it did bring back the glory days of the Roman Empire in terms of high standard of living and social mobility. Frankly I'd say this was one of the best times to be alive, although I'd say the American North of the 19th to early 20th century was THE best 150 odd years of world history. While we have advanced considerably in terms of medicine and technology, that time was the best in terms of having both Nationalism and Capitalism work in harmony with one another.

Well, I came to economic Libertarianism when I realized Communism and Fascism either do not work or do the opposite of working in maintaining a nation-state. More precisely, when I started listening to Stefan Molyneux I shifted from Portuguese-style fascism to Chilean-style "National-Capitalism". I'm not a full An-Cap but I think I might make the last conversion if or when I find that true anarchy is capable of creating a White ethno-state capable of both defending itself against warmongers and maintaining cultural and ethnic homogeneity.

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy are books I'd recommend for getting Stefan's ideas in one place. For the military he recommends "Collective Defense Agencies", which are essentially mercenaries paid for via subscription. In order to keep them honest, he suggests that they would most likely (if they want subscribers) have to be very transparent with their book keeping and charge as little as possible for as much as possible. Although I think in terms of handling masses, competitive Dispute Resolution Agencies/Organizations would seem reasonable. However I'm of the opinion that homogeneity must be established before anarchism can be formed. While I'm mostly in favor of AnCap, I will clarity my main issue is both martial and cultural. I fear if left to their own devices the masses would become pacifists and anti-nationalist, would would make them weak compared to the predators on the planet. Therefore with a minimal-government focused only on the military would handle the defensive problem (as I doubt C.D.A.s will ever amount to more than Hessian-style mercenaries at best) while good parenting (which is required for anarchy to even be conceivable) would instill the necessary nationalism in the people. However the latter part (i.e. good childhood=nationalism) is the part I'm unsure of. My main concern is that it might result in a natural egalitarianism that could only be broken by the blunt trauma of reality. While I am not suggesting we abuse our children, I am suggesting we might need an agency to indoctrinate the masses into nationalism, especially so long as the planet remains populated by violent and aggressive predatory races.

Partially. I am not religious but I do have a strange tendency to feel religiously inclined. My assumption here would be that I have what Stef referred to as the "indoctrination" or "zealot" gene, therefore I feel moments of faith without substantial evidence or proof. Mainly my reason is that I know from experience, studying of history, and the studies on multiculturalism that the more "diversity" there is, the lesser the social trust and cohesion, which inevitably leads to violence with the crueler and more violent side taking advantage of the weaker or more pacifistic side. Since I have no doubt Whites would, if experimented with again, cuck themselves out of existence, I would rather we embrace the extreme of ethnic cleansing of the other races than allow ourselves to be raped and robbed from. Plus I cannot help but feel that Whites were made to dominate the Earth, and only we and the East Asians are capable of moving past the barbarism of the past and conquering the Heavens (i.e., maybe the free market can find a practical use for Outer Space).

Yep. My thoughts exactly. My only question is when the mainstream morality of cucking and self-harm will be displaced by nationalism and love of oneself. In other words, when can I count on once-Great Britain and France to purge themselves of disgusting and primitive foreigners? Didn't you guys fight a war to keep out Germans? Are Turks and Africans really that much more civilized than culturally and linguistically similar Germans? I already know the answers to these questions, unfortunately it is something like "once we've hit the point of no return". I.e., like until we're living the Yugoslavian Wars.

Well when I have enough money to move out I'm thinking somewhere upstate, where I can appreciate homogeneity and low crime rates. I have to say though, I probably wouldn't have red-pilled so early (relative to the older people in Stef's call-in-shows) if I hadn't first hand experience as to what "diversity" and "white privilege" actually means. Sadly most people that look like me aren't exactly much different than the people that don't, most likely because the smarter of our kind left decades ago while the dumber and trashier stayed behind.

Eastern, where I can best appreciate "multiculturalism".

As somebody who has transitioned from Fascist to Min-archist and considering full AnCap, I could offer a few tips; First off; did Jack become a Fascist because he hated seeing how his people and the land of his ancestors were being raped by foreigners? Was it the weakness and unmanliness of the modern man? Or was it because he believed Fascistic systems are simply better able to address the immediate needs of the population than a democratic system, i.e., efficiency of a dictatorship as compared to a desire for revenge against a stampeding horde. If the first is the case merely present how the Free Market led to the growth and power of the Roman and British Empires, then point out that when the government starts to regulate that market and class bait for power, it winds up destroying it. Therefore since Fascism is essentially a populist movement, it cannot avoid succumbing to typical centrally planned disasters. Or if he's into National Socialism in particular, ask him "What is National Socialism's economic policy?" and if his answer is more or less "central planning", then point out why Socialism is inferior to Capitalism for building and sustaining an empire. Second; after convincing him that central planning and overbearing governments simply fail meet on any level what the Free Market can accomplish, aim for tackling everything he thinks a government should handle (from healthcare to pensions to roads, all the way to the military) until he comes to the conclusion that governments are themselves disposable and not the nucleus of a White ethnostate. From here anarchism and the NAP can be argued. However all this is assuming he arrived at NatSoc as his solution based on how great Europe used to be when it was "racist and imperialistic" compared to "materialistic, cynical, and culture-less" today. If he simply wants to kill Muslims for the sake of those that have suffered in the past century, then you cannot stop him. A man will sooner die fighting for a lost cause than suffer in patience, especially if he loses faith in victory (i.e. prosperity for his people) by any other means. But...if you can make the case that AnCap is what would be best for White people and White culture, he might consider it. However you must live the values you preach. And if you're not willing to live the values of a White Nationalist AnCap then you will fail to convince a man who considers anyone who is White but is not basically living or at least moving towards the ideal White life of marrying a White woman, raising at least 3 White children, etc. etc. middle class and all that, then you'd just be a "degenerate" in his eyes (or at least someone who is not a moral authority). Mind you I can relate to Jack since I've had those feelings, but what I prescribed as means of changing his mind were my own processes of transitioning out of State Fascism and into what might be called a compromise between White Nationalism and Anarcho-Capitalism.

Maybe not. But I included that as in my age group people who advocate that there are no races or that there is only 1 tend to like debunking bio-diversity. But like I said before, I'm guessing the first definition of racism is either unique to my generation, or simply my interpreting racism means as those who call "racist" tend to believe (if they're in my age group and locale) that there is only 1 human race, or there are fundamentally no differences between the races.