Siegfried von Walheim

In order to make this easier, I'm going to break it into pieces and color mine (Augustus's) red while (Eclectic Idealist's is blue). First off, I want to define racism into two definitions so that we don't skirt around each other or call two different things the same, or one same thing two different things, etc. Racism; 1-: The belief that there are inherent psychological and behavioral differences of races, that may or may not result in long-term incompatibility. 2-: The belief that any race or races is/are superior to others, either as a result of inherited genetics, culture, IQ or material wealth on aggregate. Now that that's out of the way, I'll begin hitting your points. Facts are not racist. Positions, perspectives, and the motivation behind certain actions (including speech and writing) are (sometimes) racist. As to what is wrong with being racist, that is indeed a good question. What is right with being racist? What is right about being racist; recognizing that under Definition 1, if the races are fundamentally different mentally and internally, it would mean that the aggregates of races simply cannot co-exist peacefully without the use of tyrannical force to subdue dissent. By Definition 2, to be racist is to realize that by valuing our cultures, we are essentially saying we'd rather lvie by our own standards than by other standards, because we belief our culture is subjectively superior than the others'. For example: While the Danish racist might like Japanese culture, he considers Danish culture superior because he enjoys the ease in which he can conform to societal norms that had been etched into his very bone marrow over the course of millennia. Likewise the Japanese racist might like Danish culture, but feels more at ease and prefers his own culture for he does not have to subject himself to the long process of ethnic and cultural adaptation and assimilation. I believe racism creates an artificial division in society that is irrational, unreasonable, and ultimately destructive. Biologically speaking, racism is unquestionably destructive and stagnating, as the genetic diversity of a community correlates very strongly with the size and health of a population and inversely with the number and presence of heritable congenital defects and diseases, as well as immunological susceptibility to new diseases. The problem in society is not "race mixing" or "miscegenation", or the integration and blending of aspects from new cultures or sub-cultures, but rather just the opposite--racial segregation and multi-culturalism within the same geographical boundaries. Certain subcultures, or more precisely certain elements and aspects of sub-cultures are inherently destructive to other cultures in much the same way that parasites and viruses can be destructive to their host organisms. While there are genetic problems with incest, for a White man to chose a White woman he is not consciously related to, he is not significantly at risk of hereditary disorders poisoning his gene pool, at least no more than the norm. Incest and endogamy are not synonymous, for while incest has hereditary genetic springing up much more often than usual, endogamy has no known increased risk to genetic disorders, especially relative to exogamy with foreign races wherein disorders unique to that race would sprout up in the White's gene pool. This also totally disregards the deviation to the mean, and the fact that mix-race children are not even in the same racial net as other mixers of the same general pedigree (i.e. a half white half black is not of the same "racial net" as another half white half black). It also creates genetic disassociation from families to their multi-racial off-spring, as literally any random White person would share more of my genes (assuming I'm the White mixer here) then my own biracial child. Even when mixing high quality East Asians with Whites the disassociation and higher potency for sociopathy occurs. A great example, albeit an extreme one, being Stalin. Symbiosis should be the norm and rule for sub-cultures, not parasitism or viral culture clash and counter-cultures. In other words, for Western Culture to survive, it must require the integration of immigrants into the greater Western culture. It must also require that the elements which are hostile or destructive to Western culture in entering or evolving sub-cultures be eliminated. A nation that is united by a dominant, primary culture is strong and vibrant and resilient to the stresses of new cultures. A nation that is divided by culture or multicultural is weak and susceptible to balkanization. A culture that eschews any outside cultural influences is subject to internal corruption, similar to cancer. On a cultural level, I agree that immigrating cultures must be assimilated into the host culture. On a genetic level, this may be impossible (according to Definition 1) as the races are essentially (i.e., their essence rather than merely their physique) are different and largely incompatible. Therefore by Definition 1, racism is good because it is the ability to recognize the inability for biologically incompatible peoples to assimilate. Meanwhile should amalgamation be the chosen rout, assimilation becomes impossible as the off-spring as the median of their parentage. If 100 IQ Whites mix with 75/85 IQ Africans/American-Blacks , then the median of the newly formed "Grays" would be 85/93, and while that would be a genetic upgrade (as far as IQ) goes for the blacks, it is a degrade for the Whites and both races would be effectively exterminated through exogamy. Remember, for there to be full amalgamation it is not possible for only IQ 100+ blacks to intermix, all blacks of any IQ range must mix with the Whites for their to be a full synthesis. Again, this would result in the local genocide of both components and the rise of a mongrel race functionally similar to South American Hispanics, who are themselves a large scale testimony to the failure of racial amalgamation. The key to the survival of Western Culture is to maintain and strengthen strong cultural ideals and values which help protect and maintain universal individual liberty while simultaneously engendering a strong sense of cultural unity and belonging for all members of society. It is possible, and I maintain most optimal, for society to promote its dominant culture (provided it is a healthy and beneficial one) and embrace those from different cultures, inviting them to share the healthy and beneficial aspects of their culture. In truth, it is not dissimilar to the principle of Pax Romana you referenced previously. The key is the adoption by immigrants and the rising generations of the culture and philosophy that makes Western society great, which may be summed up in a few ideals: Universal Individual Liberty, Personal Accountability, Free-Market Capitalism (Mutually beneficial, voluntary trade), and adherence to the cardinal virtues of Kindness, Generosity, Honesty, Equity, Tolerance, and an Appreciation of others (especially those different from oneself). "Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society" -Aristotle For there to be a Western/White civilization, there must be intolerance towards those who come from societies that do not share the same values. Whites are unique in that we are able to feel empathy and love for non-Whites and even non-humans. While useful in Europe, it was never exploited to the point of personal genocide. Likewise we must recognize that while we can work and trade with non-whites we can not breed with them, like a man with a wolf pet. And if we do not amalgamate, we do not assimilate, therefore annihilation either quickly or slowly becomes inevitable. I was not raised by Whites, outside of my single-mom household. I was raised with a variety of cultures and none of them were tolerant for more than was necessary, nor did they "respect" the "differences". I was indirectly raised by these cultures and understood from a young age that only Whites are capable in aggregate of tolerance of diversity, and the more tolerant we Whites become the less of an identity and will be have, until we're cucked out of existence. Therefore the "Western cardinal value of tolerance and appreciation" are not reciprocated by non-White ethnicities, and often not even reciprocated by White ethnic groups with each other. We must abandon tolerance, and only appreciate from the perspective of the bird-watcher who studies the birds to understand their hunting techniques, and apply them to his own life. Something I learned the Japanese often practices centuries ago, studying birds to understand their hunting behaviors in order to replicate them personally. Yet, like the Japanese never bothered to interbreed with their bird pets, I am not interested in interbreeding and intermingling (in aggregate) with the Japanese, although I would not mind visiting or even living in their glorious society. Just never becoming Japanese, or inviting 100 million of them to rape 100 million of my own kind. Respect for boundaries often leads to mutual respect. I had a lot of Asian friends growing up, and so long as I respected their racial boundaries they respected mine and a few even treated me as a brother. Boundaries are key, for few like to have their own people or culture cucked out by others. Any failings in Western society can be traced to a failure by large segments of society failing to embrace these ideals in one area or another. Highly damaging subcultures are working (in some cases quite deliberately in my opinion) to destroy Western Society by promoting ideals contrary to these, including a sense of Victimhood and Lack of Personal Accountability, A lack of Trustworthiness in others to exercise Individual Liberty, a destruction of Free-Market Capitalism, and a general hostility towards other members of society, especially increasingly so on the basis of Race. I believe most of those responsible for these actions are doing so not because of a deep and abiding ideological belief in the messages they are promoting, but rather, nothing more than the pursuit of power and influence over others and the accumulation of wealth without creating or exchanging anything of value with others. Such destruction comes primarily from the Left; but there is also, to a lesser degree, a lack of Honesty, Equity, Tolerance, and Appreciation of others that is coming from the Right which only serves to exacerbate and justify the arguments from the Left. Again, I would say this is all the result of "diversity". The solution, either Assimilation, Amalgamation, or Annihilation--should we wish to live together. A better plan would be to partition the 50 states so that each ethnic group had its own independent state, and allied with those states they preferred. I'd rather partition Mexico and Canada for the non-Whites, but using America as the picture frame, diversity is only possible with segregation and ethnic independence. Ideally, if I had the power to do so, I'd simply make Mexico the living place of Blacks and Hispanics, while conquering Canada for the East Asians. This way we would live with our superior East Asian brothers while putting all of our ethnic and cultural enemies in one place. The basic reason being, aggregates determine the culture, not exceptions. Black geniuses barely affect black culture like White wiggers barely affect White culture (outside of diverse mostly non-White and cucked up neighborhoods at least). Therefore we must base our racial policies on aggregates, not exceptions. ...Does this make sense? If not I'll go into greater detail or rephrase the less obvious or confusing bits. EDIT: The parts that are black were red when I posted. Perhaps there is a bug.

This is not the same thing as classifying an entire race of people as being superior or inferior, inherently more inclined to moral or immoral behavior, or in some other way deserving of different treatment based solely upon race. If the men in the street with the red armbands were all of the same ethnicity or race, it would be racist to assume that all members of such a race are militant Marxists. While it would be inaccurate to assume a majority of people of a race are militant marxists, it is accurate to assume, for instance, that a majority of a race subscribe to a religion. For example, most Whites are Christian (with specific denominations being common to specific sub-groups), most Arabians/Persians are Muslim, most Asians subscribe to a form of Buddhism, and most Africans (not American Blacks) subscribe to some form of pagan voodoo/tribal religion. I guess it would be racist to assume, Johnny Dunn, for instance, is Catholic but since Johnny's Irish it is most likely he's Catholic. Would you please elaborate on what precisely you mean on "the idea of using force to subdue political opposition", since this seems to be in direct contradiction to your next statement about opposing "the use of force to 'win an argument'". Meaning; while I'm against men in brown shirts interrupting debates I am not against said men interrupting Al Sharpton from starting a riot. Or, in political militants forcing favorable regime change. Or the suppression of criminal/treasonous elements by force. None of these generalized scenarios have anything to do with free speech, as they're all a matter of using violence against a violent opposition in order to redirect the violence in a favorable direction. In terms of an argument, literal arguments like the one we're having, I would consider it very cowardly to use force to "win" because (at least to me) it is a declaration of defeat. Likewise I'd extrapolate semi-secluded debates to include public debates. If I had a "National Capitalist" party debating a man from the Socialist party, I would not encourage the use of force to win the argument, just make sure the other party didn't try to force his way either. On the other hand, if the Socialist party demonstrated in the streets then that is an act of terrorism against their opposition and a challenge to combat. In such an instance I'd be in favor of leading or sending people to push back their columns and ranks. Does this make sense? In short, actual debates or general comments should not be suppressed, but rabble rousing and mob driving should be. Also, I should mention I'd say freedom of speech is fine even if the speaker is saying very unfavorable things about a politician, but he should expect a direct physical retaliation from said politician if his words aren't things to argue but mere insults. And naturally there shouldn't be a law against the use of certain words, phrases, or ideas. All ideas should be spoken freely. It is only when rabble rousing and fist raising is involved that I believe force is desirable. That's racist. Why, yes it is. Facts are very racist. A good question would be; what is wrong with being racist?

Didn't mean to "poison the well" (except for the first part because all those !! sounded frantic). Although I did mean to come off strong. However, if peoples are objectively unequal do they not objectively rank differently based on qualities? If I had to rate races (I really mean nationalities here) by height, wouldn't I put the big Swedes and Dutchmen on top and the Vietnamese on the bottom? If I had to rate IQ, wouldn't I put either Jews or Singaporeans on top and Equatorial Guineans on the bottom? If I believed IQ to be the main measure of a people's compacity for higher thought and self-organization, and for the sake of a standard, capability in becoming like a White/Western nation, then wouldn't IQ be the golden rule for determining which societies are objectively superior relative to others? If East Asians have the highest IQ and in general and the most able to adapt Western customs, then East Asians are the most likely friends of anyone sharing the umbrella ideology of libertarianism. Not saying China is a free market (quite the opposite it is), but Chinese people are among the best able to assimilate into a free market-based country, like say America. Meanwhile anything darker than Mehmet seems to have an IQ south of 100, which is below optimal for a free market and very likely to result in crime and violence. However if you mean objective standard, as in best fit for their own environments.... Well, the Afrikaners and Rhodesians were doing very well in Africa until the West decided to abandon them and team against them. Meanwhile East Asians do very well in White societies, therefore Whites and East Asians would be (using the fitness measure) neck-in-neck as #1 and #2 for adaptability to disparate environments. For a colloquial definition of racism, judging by the way people my age group (16-20) use it, it would mean either "Someone who believes there to be more than the Human Race" or; "Someone who asserts races are genetically and/or culturally dissimilar". I know older people say racism is synonymous with prejudice or superiority complex, but that definition is woefully uncommon for my generation. EDIT: I said cherry picking to mean for this case: "using exceptions to define a norm". I.e., using the best of Asians and Blacks to weigh their races, which judging by the best of them would be neck-and-neck, which is not proportionate to their aggregates. I realize I misused the term, which actually means choosing examples to best fit a narrative.

Yeah, that's how I saw it. Felt like P.C. Principle had arrived. The word racist is really just a silencer to arguments. However in terms of actually being a racist, simply identifying there is race is racist therefore just say you're a racist and disarm your opposition. They can't insult you if you don't find them insulting. I'm probably one of the few people here who actually is a White Nationalist and "White Supremacist" (I assume that means I'd like a Roman peace and not world domination), therefore I don't disagree with being called racist so long as it is accurate. To have prejudice assumes a lack of knowledge, however most if not all racists either recognize racial differences as the result of awareness or some scientific justification like IQ. In the end it is a selected survival trait to build a sense of collectivism right off the bat. I take Donnadogsgoth(?)'s stance for the basic application and definition, but I'd go a step further and try to disarm whatever negative potency the word holds for you so you can stand your ground in intellectual battles, be they personal or interpersonal. EDIT: And now all my posts appear at the snap of a finger. Come on, Stef! I'm going crazy here!

Wait, how can you quote me before my posts even show up?

As to who is a race is also uniquely defined historically. 500 years ago every nation was in itself a race. It is rather new for race to be simplified for the sake of science or global politics. However if the argument is IQ by large aggregate, then clearly the dominant race is the East Asians (I am not using the oldspeak of "-oids" or grouping extremely different peoples together, such as Indians/Pakistanis with Chinese or Turks/Arabs with Germans/Slavs). Historically the baton of dominance was handed back and forth between Italians and Chinese, later Germans, English, and French. For the past couple centuries, Americans (believe it or not there was a time when Americans could be defined ethnically without sensitivity to "minorities"), Englishmen, Germans, and the Japanese were the main batonists. IQ by nation is arguably more relevant than IQ by race, although races are hardly so internally different as to not be easily stamped collectively (assuming you use the racial scheme of: European Whites, American Whites, African Blacks, American Blacks, East Asians, West Asians, Central Asians, Australian Whites, Australian Blacks, Amerindians, and Hispanics--for lack of a better collective term). I have another post waiting to be moderated, so please wait for it.

You know what I love about the word "racist"? It means something different to everyone. Using your definition, yes we are all racists because we acknowledge there is no equality among the races. While not everyone would admit that because most people, even Stef I'd say, skirt around "coming out" because of the "negative connotations" the word "racist" has. However if you believe in IQ, and consider IQ a valid way of measuring people, then collectively the "Master Race" at the moment is the Singaporeans at 110 and the...Omega Race (?) Would be the Equatorial Gunieans at 59. If Racism is merely the acknowledging that there is more than one race, (which I found a more common definition as a millennial, as nearly all callers of racist try to deny even race exists), then we who have eyes to see at least basic skin color if not bone structure are racist. Again, I assume most people here are just "in the closet" as it were but we cannot logically not be called racist, either because of definition A or B above. And I see no problem with that. Heck, 100 years ago racist meant somebody who studied bio-diversity as a science. Basically anthropology. Saying things aren't equal doesn't require that they be hierarchical. One race may be "superior" to another in certain areas of human abilities but who's to say what areas are the most important? It's all very subjective. Even if we hold intelligence to be the most important human ability, why do we then decide to divide by race first and then intelligence? Why not divide people by height first and then say the 5'8" people are superior to all because we happen to have the most intelligent people on average!! First off, I don't know if you are but I'll say it anyway, please don't get all "I'am Not A RACIST!!>!>!" hysterical on me just because "racist" is the White equivalent to nigger. I think superiority can be objectively measured if we're willing to settle upon what makes a nation or race superior. Any child can figure out simply by looking at pictures that there is no equality. If individuals are unequal, it stands to reason collectives (which are just multiple individuals grouped by common characteristics) are also unequal. Intelligence, specifically IQ, seems very reliable as a measure for the value of a nation and its culture.White and East Asians have the highest IQs, as well as the most functional and powerful societies historically and presently whereas the other races are living essentially like their ancestors from B.C. If that isn't enough grounds for "racism" I don't know what is. Be it "hierarchical" (what does that even mean? One being the best followed by a runner up down to a bottom? Political or military dominance? I'll assume a mixture of the three) or de facto (as in which race has the best survival characteristics in the long term, which can be argued. If mere living is enough than any reproductively successful race could steal the gold but I'll instead focus the meaning of "de facto" to mean "the race that is best armed, materially and mentally, to be dominant in the future" in which case the Chinese and the Russians, as sub-groups of the East Asian and White races would be competing for the top), the fact that races are unequal and that it can be easily demonstrated through history (I assume you aren't some anti-history conspiracy theorist) should make you at least subconsciously racist. Also, when brought down to the individual level the argument breaks down. One person of one race can't say he is objectively superior to one person of another race based solely on their skin color, ethnic background... If we're arguing IQ or national development as measures of race, then how could you say "superior based on skin color/ethnicity"? Don't straw-man me, man! If I said I'm superior than the average black it isn't because I'm White it's because my IQ and achievement for my age is higher than the average black, and if I extended that to race I'd say most Whites are superior to the average black based on IQ, therefore (considering all that IQ ties into, if using only that measure and not history as a brutal measure), Whites are superior to blacks. At least on aggregate. ...or the achievements of other individuals he has no connection to other than the fact that he has placed himself in a category with them by separating the categories by race. Facts can't be racist, saying Asians are smarter on average than Caucasians is not racist. Saying William Hung is smarter than Ben Carson is racist. I'm not calling our favorite Ricky Martin cover singer stupid, actually I think he's pretty smart (Berkley) - I'm just saying assuming he's smarter than Ben Carson based on their races would be racist. In summation if you say this individual person is [this attribute] (not one scientifically linked to race or a definitional descriptor - i.e. skin color, hair type, genes, etc.) because they are [race] - that's racist. How is saying "William Hung is smarter then Ben Carson" racist? I only know the latter, therefore I assume the former is another doctor or something to that effect. If you think Hung is smarter than Carson, and have some evidence (either a straight IQ test or maybe a review of their life choices, etc.) then it'd be fair to say Hung is smarter than Carson and therefore superior, although if they're roughly similar in the top-tier than what superiority one has over the other is small and subjected to being surmounted. Meaning Carson and Hung might switch places as they make better or worse life choices... However this is cherry picking. Even if we compare the exceptional members of the races to go head-to-head, as it were, it wouldn't mean much as they are "exceptional" and therefore not "standard". But then, I would be interested in why there aren't any historically relevant black philosophers, great black rulers (i.e., ones like Augustus or Charlemagne), or great black inventors. The East Asians can be neck-in-neck with Whites because they like us have great philosophers and rulers, not to mention the generally reliable IQ measure, although we were superior for the past few centuries thanks to inventiveness. Im not sure I articulated correctly exactly what I meant to say, but let me know if this is helpful. Well, I did enjoy breaking down your paragraph and attempting to hit the various points I disagreed with.

I've already given the example of the Austrians, and the Yugoslavians also serve as a fine example. The three means which peace can be maintained is by Assimilation, Amalgamation, and Annihilation (a bit more eloquent than my previous phrasing). I think your idea is assimilation, to assimilate disparate cultures into one dominant culture supportive of racial bio-diversity. While a minor improvement over the Multikult, I believe it equally mistaken and equally doomed to fail. At best we can give every nation a state (to us America as an example), and all they'll wind up doing is forming racially motivated blocs rather than assimilating as one union. At worst, violence and annihilation will ensue. Because I'd rather not aim for a "lofty" goal like a salad bowl that will inevitably cause more pain and death in the long run, I'd rather we exist as isolationist nation states that interact with others of the same bloc or act as imperialists and exterminate those that do not fit into our bloc. Otherwise it is eternal war and suffering into an experiment tried for nearly 200 years (or longer, depending if you count the later half of the Roman Empire). The result then was the Dark Ages, I'm sure the current future would be no different.The best age was the 17th to 19th centuries when the Europeans for the most part formed two co-operative blocs and dominated the world. The European peace was not always peaceful, but compared to the Dark Ages or the Thirty Years War, it may as well have been paradise. America from around 1815 to 1915 was easily the best time to be alive, and the most capable of trying the multi-generational process towards either anarchism or min-archism. Now that we "ran out of time", we must reset the clock and make the second dark age as quick as possible.

Good question. I first heard of it reading (the audio book of) Mein Kampf, I think, but from looking again at his wikipedia page his mother comes from Bavaria, I assume his father is Austrian, and his wife is also Bavaria. Therefore unless the "Slavic" part meant he favored Slavic interests politically, I can't find much immediate evidence to a Slavic gene pool. He may not have been Obama but he would be Bush III (iJeb!) cucking out the native Germans in favor of foreign "fertile" Slavs.

So humans of different moralities can co-exist without violence or synthesis? Do you have any examples of such a magical society where diversity does not equate with death and destruction, or the assimilation of one into the other, or the synthesis into the median of their parts? You are aware there are people known as "Muslims", right? Muslims don't like non-Muslims. They either kill or enslave non-Muslims when and where they can. You are aware of "Black Lives Matter", right? They frequently attack and lynch Whites in the big cities, and expose the privacy of "racists" for racial violence. Or perhaps a more racially similar society; the Austrian Empire (post Holy Roman). In Austria, there was only a minority of Germans in the Empire, and the Slavs were, much like the Germans of old Rome and the Muslims of today, demanding more and more of the Empire which had at its final moments a Slavic Kaiser, who mourned the death of his Slavic son who advocated for Slavs but for some reasons was killed by a Slav from Serbia, unleashing the pent up violence of a people (the Germans in the Empire) who, despite founding the Empire, were treated as second-class citizens in their very own capital, Vienna. And what the Austrians suffered from biologically similar Slavs is very little compared to what Whites suffer from biologically opposed blacks and Muslims. If two similar peoples cannot assimilate or successfully amalgamate, they will destroy each other. I don't need to tell you what happens with two very opposite peoples...

Hence why a Nationalist society that only allocates the military and law to the government is one that can both maximize profits from the free market and also support the finest and possibly largest military in the world. Invaders who could be called "savages, barbarians, Muslims, and tyrants" would be met with extreme retaliation. However I don't think we can rely on mercenaries (a C.D.A. is essentially an open-books mercenary organization), and if for some reason they appear "too big" or "too expensive" then the country hiring them will suffer for it. Better than nothing, as the draw backs tend to be similar with most statist armies, but not as good or efficient as a tax and local fed machine wherein everyone has a vested interest in its perfection. Combined with low taxes and either low or no regulations, the revenue for spending on an army would be enormous if not wholly unprecedented. So long as the spenders are wise and not like drunken sailors, I'm certain it will be effective.

True. Theoretically, at least from the sect of minimalist rule I subscribe to, the King, Kaiser, or President is beholden to the land owning class. More precisely, if the Kaiser wants men for the army, the landlords must consent as a majority that the war (if aggressive) is justified. If defensive he would have full power to conscript men to protect the border. Law enforcement would be a communal matter, i.e., the land owning class would vote locally for which laws they prefer after the nation as a whole carved out its golden tablets at the nation's inception for what cannot be disputed as law. Note: I also subscribe to the idea that if there must be voting or political activism, it must only be by those who have a vested interest in the minimizing of the government; which is to say the land-owners, which vaguely encompasses all businessmen who own land and the specific person (not family) who legally owns the house their family lives in.

Don't blame the birdwatcher for stating the nasty way birds have sex....

I trust by "genocide" you mean genetic amalgamation and not wholesale murder? It's good to be clear here. No, I meant wholesale murder. There must be homogeneity for there to be a lasting peace in a country. Therefore, all must become one either by assimilation, amalgamation, or genocide. If group A cannot assimilate into B, then A and B must become C otherwise A or B must die for the other to remain whatever it is/was before proximity.

I was just thinking that'd be the problem. Although if a "C.D.A" were managing the border, it might be capable although hardly incorruptible. Although an army isn't incorruptible it is much less so than mercenaries or local warlords.

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that there are two different concepts floating around in the thread: what will a free society look like in the future, and how do we deal with problems now. Philosophy is like nutrition; it helps us make good decisions on a daily basis to avoid disasters in the future caused by the build-up of bad decisions. Nutrition can't help you during a heart attack and philosophy can't do much when we are in the middle of a statist cluster-f**k of violence and quasi-slavery. The OP was directed at possible atmospheres conducive to a hypothetical free society in the future so I will focus on that. Agreed. The most important thing to remember when contemplating a free society, in my humble opinion, is that it will not come about until there is a philosophical and moral revolution. Just like slavery is outright rejected by all civilized societies today, so will be the initiation of force in the free society of the future. A free society and a majority of enlightened citizens (for lack of a better term) go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other. This is such a gradual transition that I can't believe there would be such a huge disparity between nations that one the size of America would go an-cap and any of the others would have the resources or global support to invade, but it's fun to play with the ideas anyways. Certainly. We cannot expect anarchy, or min-archy, to be sustained unless there is a conscious objection to governmental power, especially in its inefficiency. So how do we protect this society from invasion? The nuclear option is probably an emergency action of last resort even though historically it seems to be an effective deterrent. Assuming we all agree on the benefits of free markets, we know that the wealth created by this society will be unimaginable to us. If there is a need to amass a significant amount of resources to mount a defense then there will be no problem in their procurement. It appears that we will have terminators (hopefully without the associated A/I) to help with that long before we get a free society so it's hard to judge what the defense would even look like, but you can see how being the wealthiest society would significantly deter other societies from attacking. Well, I cannot predict the technology. However uniform armies, particularly in stable chains of command, have historically performed the best. A great example being the Swedish Caroleans. Only 30,000-50,000 during the Great Northern War, but capable of devastating grossly inferior conscript armies led by North Germans, Poles, and Russians, until it was over-stretched and exhausted. A free society may have C.D.A. (Collective Defense Agencies, which I read either in Practical Anarchy or Everyday Anarchy, I think it was the former. Theoretically it could serve, but I question the value of mercenaries. I doubt the Mexicans (in the example I provided) would beat high quality mercenaries, however I don't know if in a more convoluted European example if say, Denmark, could depend on mercenaries to protect itself from say, Sweden or Germany (especially if they are min-archists, using the power nationalism, martial discipline, and the largess of a free market). Keeping in mind that the population of a free society has rejected statism, the invading nation has a significant problem in controlling the populace. There is no system in place to extract taxes from people. It will need to be taken at gunpoint or looted. Considering what's possible with bitcoin if wealth is stored digitally theft will be practically impossible. Certainly. However a genocidal motivation would be on the table. A good example might be the Turks invading Free Greece. These are just a few of my thoughts, let me know what you think. To me, maintaining a free society is the easy part - getting there though... It's a tough row to hoe for sure. Agreed. I'm not as worried anymore as mercenaries may not be so bad compared to Leftist statism, but compared to min-archsim's military I'd be worried. A note on the thread title - I don't understand why minarchists hold the position they do; they understand that competition and free trade are beneficial in all areas of human interaction, but when it comes to defense suddenly a forced monopoly somehow transcends this natural phenomenon to produce the best possible result. If you allow for the initiation of force in any area at all, it can always be justified by power-hungry sophists to be necessary for some other reason in some other area. The is the very reason why the minarchy the United States started as has become the empire we see today. As someone who might be a min-archist, given I agree that the State is either inefficient or incapable of substituting the free market but great with the military and law enforcement, my position is that the America until 1916 and the Rome until circa 250 were ideal societies (although the slavery bit was not ideal, at least it was small in Rome's case until...it wasn't.) I would argue America's minarchy becoming the most powerful empire a great example of why min-archy is so great. Unfortunately the Empire is no longer min-archic but becoming more Leftist and anti-self. If it wasn't becoming Leftist, gynocentric, globalist, anti-self, etc. (basically if feminism and Communism never corrupted the system) it might be perfect.

Well then, go for it cowboy!

I think you are conflating European Civilization with the European Union. They are not synonymous, there are also crucial cultural differences which actually I for one embrace and enjoy. As an Englishman I relish those aspects we have in common, I am proud of what culturally my nation has contributed, but I am also in awe of a great many of the cultural achievements of my neighbours. I think it would be a very boring world were we all the same. No, I am not. I said "European union", not "the European Union". I meant White nationalism not White globalism, i.e., the existing institution that masquerades as a White nationalist organization. Onto God, indisputably Christian denominations have been at the beating heart of our cultures for over a thousand years. However that too speaks of differing approaches, you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the many branches of Protestantism. All of which have produced variations of music, art and architecture. Historically the particular sect seems to have more political meaning than moral meaning. Although if I had to insist on the "true Christianity", I'd argue either Roman Catholicism or Byzantine/Moscow Catholicism. The East-West Catholic Churches are the ones most important to European history and future European fraternity. However I keep wanting to come back to the enlightenment, working towards the separation of church and state is crucial. I'm a man of faith myself, but that is my own personal and private experience. My culture is one that recognises this and everyone is afforded the liberty to pursue or not pursue a religion as is their choice. I am reluctant to make Christianity any sort of default, as ideally I want my brothers and sisters of differing faiths, or indeed atheists and agnostics to feel like vital and fully invested members of our shared culture. After all there have been colossal contributions to our culture made by such people. Diversity + Proximity + Scarcity = Thirty Years War part 2. Homogeneity is preferred. Otherwise dividing of particular subsets of people into nations/states/towns is ideal for mutual survival. Also, for European union, religions like Islam which is antithetical, and more benign ones like Judaism which doesn't often lead to violence but stymys assimilation must not be tolerated. As Socrates (or Aristotle?) said: "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society". That being said I would not belitle the contributions of non-Catholic countries, especially England and America which had both at their peaks revived the Roman Empire of the 1st and 2nd century. We should also be cognisant of the pre-enlightenment times when nations march under religious banners, even when purporting to worship the same deity, well shit tends to get broken so let's not go back there for heaven's sake... The First, Second, and Third Crusades come to mind as when religious banners saved European civilization and simply Europeans in generally. Plus almost every war fought by Whites had zealots and fanatics for either the fatherland or Christ in its ranks. Although my personal stance is "Do what you will so long as it does not initiate violence against me or my kin", I realize the best course of limiting future civil strife is to remove all cultural, racial, and religious diversity either by segregation long distances, or the genocide/assimilation of all into one.

It was hard getting on and figuring it out, but I'd say it is worthwhile thus far. I mostly have put up a few topics while gave my two cents to some existing topics. Feel free to message me anytime for a text-based convo, since I don't have the equipment for video or voice chat.

Better, but I'd still figure that a "girl" who replies to you might actually be some bad guy kidnapper in disguise or something. P.S. Damn man, if I were gay I'd be hitting dat

Well, the purpose of competitive statements is motivational. As for an age to have children, ideally between 20 and 30 as that is the most fertile time frame. Therefore the best men are able to be stable providers around the age of 25. Waiting until the 30's is waiting for lower quality women more likely to pass on their problems, or waiting to pray upon younger women without the same level of agency as an older woman, or competing for the virtuous virgin with the virtuous though perhaps not as financially stable man. Therefore I aim for mid 20's as an age range for marriage, and within the first 2 years, having the first child child with a second on the way. Otherwise I either have to only have one child who may not be "all there" because mommy and daddy's baby making parts are pushing out the weak stuff, or marry a younger woman who may not be well-equipped emotionally and mentally. Ideally the most productive man gets the most virtuous and fertile woman, however more realistically there will be a compromise. Of course there is the intangible X factor of whether or not the couple match in terms of interests and beliefs, which is pared well with virtue as virtue means consistency in ethics. I could go on, but basically I have to be ready to go by my mid 20's. Since my career does not require college, I have an advantage in that I have 6 extra years to devote to work and personal development.

This is was one the first topics I saw while waiting for validation. Come on Stef, give us a new biography/truth video! Ataturk wouldn't be a bad guy to start with.

Pro tip: Most women with brains find anonymous dating creepy, or they'd question the intelligence of a guy who'd stick his neck out for the possibility of a cat fish, gang bang, kidnapping, or worse.

You do realize the harder your childhood, the more admirable the fact you did things I wouldn't have the courage to do myself. Although I doubt I'd thrive in China (Harro prease? Any wan speak Engrish?!?) I've never left my home city, so I have to admit I'd find transitioning difficult, even if it were from my crappy city to a really nice one. Asia's vague. I can easily imagine Vietnam and other states south of China behaving as you describe, but since you mentioned China, I assume you mean China as well? And the people, were they Chinese Chinese or simply other ethnic groups living on Chinese soil? I know the East Asians are hardly so much as a step forward than we are in terms of how we treat our children, but...from what I've been exposed to, beatings are done in private more often than not. However my limited exposure is mainly just Eastern China and Japan. You've actually been in some of these countries so I'll defer to you on that point. On a more personal level, I think nearly everyone (sadly) has internal challenges they ought to overcome as soon as possible to avoid repeating the bad histories of their ancestors' pasts, and I myself have most definitely been working on my own weaknesses as well as familial-inherited behaviors that wouldn't be...great...to replicate in the future. That being said, I plan on being four times your net worth, married, and with children by the time I'm 25. Consider that a challenge.