Siegfried von Walheim

I knew there were great things Christianity was responsible for (either directly or indirectly) and most of those were knew to me. Got to say I like your answers. I don't have much to add here, since I feel you pretty much said everything either I believed about Christianity or gave me a few new things to appreciate about our religion. However, now this may be a personal interpretation, but for the last question I always assumed and continue to assume that if God made us in his image, "us" are the Whites, and the Whites specifically. Like I said I don't much to add at this time, so I'll just keep waiting for new responses to these thought provoking questions and see what comes out of them.

I will mention right off, this post is not a proof or an attempt at proof of God's existence. And yet, I wonder if I can make godless atheists a bit more....god-full. I heard Stefan Molyneux offer a bit of a personal theory of what happened after Jesus Christ died, more or less presuming his tomb was raided by thieves and maybe--just maybe--the first Christians concocted an elaborate hoax to inspire universal morality and destroy moral relativism in what may have been the most crucial point in Roman history before the Fall. Personally, I've always thought that either Jesus was a Roman philosopher (like say, a 4th philosopher to take the torch from Aristotle) whose philosophy was made into a religion by his disciples in order to unite people too dumb to think philosophically, or he was a Roman politician who managed to become the object of worship because of his perceived boundless virtue. As to whether my or Stef's theories are even remotely true, I cannot say. It stands to reason that most likely if there is a God, he is very absentee and the Church greatly embellishes his involvement in man's affairs, or....well, either he is the God of Whites or the God of Jews in particular as both general groups of peoples grew to become the dominant races of the world (at least until recently). If there isn't a God than the raw horse power of the European genetic survival set was simply the best out there, and God was simply the simplification as to why Whites were so great in a time without genetic scientists to give definitive reasons for the behavioral and physical traits of the races. Around the same time as Jesus Christ was arguably the greatest ruler in European history: Augustus Caesar, First Emperor of the Roman Empire and the very basis for the word "Emperor" in most European languages. When the Roman Empire fell after 250 odd years of decay and ruin, the Holy Roman Empire was formed by Kaiser Charlemagne, the first Christian Emperor of Europe whose empire would last nearly 1000 years (if you include the Austrian and German Empires as being successor states of the old Holy Roman Empire). Christianity's purpose was essentially that of a bully pulpit used to propagate moral values to the illiterate and low-IQ masses. Whereas the three philosophers of ancient Greece attempted to use reason to enable rational activity, Christianity, perhaps from inception, realize the simple fact that all people are irrational and yet believe themselves rational, and that the majority of people will always find themselves subscribed to someone else's theory of ethics or dogma. Therefore, rather than attempting to convince the world to be good for goodness's sake, the Church essentially said "Be good or be damned", which was of course irrelevant to the good people who do good regardless, but critical for the "bad" people and the "morally relative" people who either could not be bothered or were too uncaring to work for a bigger picture. To conclude the topic's purpose, I have a simple set of questions; "Is Christianity a benefit for European civilization?" "Is it better for many people to do good as a result of a lie, or for a few people to do good as a result of a truth?" "Do the ends justify the means, and is Christianity a good means for spreading reason and virtue?" "If we are created in God's image, assuming He is real, who is "we"?"

Spot on. Now this is what every man going through a crisis of faith needs to hear. I couldn't agree more. Great thing to remember when in a moment of despair. The White world has been threatened countless of times, and we have our glory days. The great Roman Empire of 0-200AD, the Carolingian Empire that attempted to revive Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the Hungarians and Bulgarians who were on the Danubian front every time Islam dared to rear its ugly deformed head. In peace were are the kindest, most generous, most inventive and accommodating of peoples. In war, we were and must be again the most ruthless and most cut throat in the preservation of our race and culture.

Will do. I'll check him out later so I can broaden my horizons. Although for Stef, I wouldn't say he doesn't believe in border control, just not in an ideal free society wherein basically economic migrants would have no ability to vampirically live off society, nor would they find a defenseless and neebish population to exploit. At present I know he'd be willing endorse, for example a wall with turrets, to prevent the native American population from being literally displaced by Hispanics. That being said I would rather have a more clear-cut and direct policy wherein race is not some taboo buzzword. As for the Jews, I've come to learn that they're basically just what every other race should aspire to be (in terms of ethnic unity and collective self preservation). I know many and sometimes most Communists were/are Jews, and that Jewish interest groups played a big role in shaping Israel, but I am not so ignorant as to assume they are completely united. For example the Lehi in WWII splintered from the main Jewish guerrillas in Palestine and chose to go with the Axis powers, wanting to be independent of the English-speaking powers. Likewise Muslims and others have their own racially based interest groups. I do not assume there is any long-reaching conspiracy beyond the obvious fact that Jews look out for other Jews, but have different visions of how to build their ethnostate. Another example would be the "Holohoax". While I believe it to be exaggerated, I do not doubt there were racially motivated killings and violence in WWII. While I know Jews heavily influenced Washington, I know FDR was a Socialist himself. Therefore, since many Communists were Jews, it stands to reason that if you ally with one you may also be allying with the other. The Free Market I've learned is the source of human wealthy beyond subsistence farming and looting. I tried Stormfront for a bit but...they're a bit dull when it comes to how a White society would actually have to function. They fear the "Jewish" invention of the Free Market would actually poison the well for the future, when it stands to reason that if a group (in this case, the Jews) is doing well, they must be doing something right. Racial union is held common with nearly every other group, yet Jews alone are on the top. They do have the highest IQ tied with Singaporeans and some estimates of Italians, but they also run their one and only country with a relatively Free Market (although they do seem to be suffering from degeneracy, it is nowhere near as bad as it is in America or the West in general). As for libertarianism, I do think governments are incompetent as civil and economical managers, but they tend to do well with legal and national defense issues. They can enforce the law and protect the borders. But I'd rather let the Free Market handle everything else, since individual experts do better than groups of laymen. Personally, I'd identify as a "National Capitalist" since I believe in both Nationalism and Capitalism, both instruments of moral and economical power. However, I keep myself open to change as it can be hard to determine what is truly the work of the powers that be versus mere reactions by incompetent bureaucrats.

I mainly guestimated your age based on what your profile said. Still, not a bad list of accomplishments compared to your average 25 year old. I certainly respect you. I've heard of him. I'll give him try. Although I wouldn't say Stef doesn't direct much in favor of Whites, though I would rather he directed more. I got my red pilling mainly through...well, let's just say when I when from Communist to National Socialist in my ideological years I really mean National Socialist--not a "liberal nationalism where all peoples deserve nations", but rather: "We have been taken advantage of for long enough. The Brown Sky has fallen, long live the White Lion!" in terms of my level of racial awareness. I like to pursue Stef though because I feel he won't B.S. me or succumb to weak conspiracy theories that be explained away rather easily. Believe me when I say I identify as American I really mean "WHITE American", for I honestly don't believe in any other kind of American, and while I am smart enough to realize I cannot simply demonstrate in the streets to purge non-Whites, I am tacitly in support of radical measures. But again, tamed by the age and wisdom of old men like Stefan Molyneux. I'll give Ramzpaul a chance though since I've seen bits and pieces of him in my Twitter-nazi days.

Hmm...The problem is, for the world to evolve voluntarily the world must be roughly compatible IQ-wise. Because, unless we're talking some kind of sci-fi era genocide projects are being undertaken, there will always be "barbarians at the gates", and sometimes "savages in the streets". Of course East Asians are simply a superior race to Indians or Africans. Why? The cold-climate natural-selection based theory makes sense, in that the least fit genes would have been killed off early. Perhaps the Africans were unable to weed out the bad among them since to be bad in a White/Eastern society is to be "good" in an African/Indian society. Although people's outcomes are hardly pre-ordained, there is a lot of limitations for non-First or Second-world countries. On third world governments; Yep, they're bad. At best we can ally with a "steady dictator" who doesn't mind being a pacifist in exchange for having us keeping our noses to ourselves. Not a bad deal to me. Of course, no-rule in the third world tends to result in a new contest for supremacy, wherein you can't be certain the new dictator is any better (if not worse) than the old. Agreed, anarchy is a theory as it stands. Therefore, this question was based largely on theoretical grounds. While I find I have a lot in common ideologically and in terms of life experience with the people who subscribe to Stef, I do not personally advocate for his vision of the future---at least not the package deal. I am certain monarchism will replace the corrupted democracies down the line, and from what I can tell the best system (proven to work) is a Year 0 to 2nd century era Roman Empire; Wherein the government is as limited as can be and the free market handles all matters economical, resulting in an effectively bottomless tax revenue for the government so that it can afford to raise a large, disciplined army in times of war. However, society is not something that can stay in orbit. It must continue flying in one direction or another, otherwise it will simply crash. Stefan Molyneux's vision of a free society is rather attractive. His teachings of peace parenting are very actionable, which I would say are the most useful to me down the line. However, I also respect his vision and think that while it is bound to be difficult to execute, it is not impossible. First thing's first though: We have to save our people in the present, or at least be ready to pick up the pieces after the storm of war has blown us through.

So those are the books? I'll give them a read/listen when I have the chance. Of course I'd appreciate a few bed crumbs to munch while I float about until I hear/read Stef's theory on it. I just got back from reading the chapter and a half in Practical Anarchy involving Collective Defense Agencies. While it is possible, even with the highest scrutiny, that the chief of the C.D.A. seizes power and restores the state the same could be said of any experimental society, so I wouldn't bother holding that up as objectionable. There are two parts I do find troubling. 1: The example used France and Germany, but realistically I don't think Germany would ever invade stateless France if the rewards are dubious and the costs obviously high. However...most often, the worst invasions aren't mere loot or seize invasions but mass genocides. I'm going to swap France with Greece and Germany with Turkey, since ideologically they're more opposed historically than the rather similar French and German populations. Therefore, in this scenario my main issue would be what if the Sultan or President or whomever of Turkey decides to declare jihad and exterminate all Greeks into oblivion? Well, with C.D.A.'s it is not like they don't have a chance in losing. But if I were smart about invading I'd use the C.D.A's competitiveness to spur on betrayal. Admittedly this "What-if?" isn't fundamentally different than the prior, however I do not know of any national army betraying its country whereas treacherous mercenaries are a bit easier to find, and therefore more likely. Supposing the C.D.A's are beaten, the result is admittedly much like the defeat of a national army. The victor can do as he pleases. If the cause was genocide, well...even the best armed populace is helpless against a well-disciplined force of killers. That brings us to number 2. 2: Because no country with nuclear bombs has ever been directly invaded (Well, 9/11 not counted as a direct invasion apparently. Admittedly it is a different kind from boots on the ground, but the raid alone should have theoretically provoked a nuking, otherwise the "bluff" was called), having some will be a cheap way to guarantee peace. For the most part, this is true, but the glaring exception is the Islamic bombing of several places in and around 9/11. While they're hardly wreaking the kind of havoc they're literally dying to wreak , they were the first to "call our bluff" on whether or not we'd nuke a country that invaded us. Therefore, it affirms my suspicion that nuclear weapons are merely decorations never intended for practical use. My conclusion being: What can an anarchic society achieve that a largely hands-off military-and-law-enforcement only kind of government fail to achieve? It seems very similar. The only glaring difference from anarcho-capitalism and capitalism with a practically non-existent state is the mere existence of an official institution on high.

Certainly impressive, though I wonder what kind of rallies the "Cave of Abdullam" attends and what their politics are. It'd be a shame if these boys are being led down like some kind of cult or militant organization that is against me or my people for some abstract reasons. If my worries are groundless however, then all I can say is: Where are the White role models teaching White boys what the struggles of the White men are? I never had one. I'm happy to say Stefan Molyneux is a role model for me, given he's old enough to be my grandfather and yet he's intelligent, strong, kind, and rational in equal measures. As a general rule though; it means a lot for boys to have male role models, especially for those who aren't used to them.

While I imagine it might surprise most in my age range, personally I've always knew that the interests of the Democratic Party is aligned with the Communist Party, especially when I used to be a layman in the Communist dogma. The Leftists lost the argument, now they will attempt to rig the horse races. If this fails they will bring out the clubs take to the streets in earnest.

The last thing you said reminded me of Stef once saying something like: Adults are broken children, not children are broken adults. Certainly seems to make sense given both the anecdotes he shares and my own personal experience. While I was ignorant as a child I was not blinded by anything. I could call a spade a spade without hesitation and recognize peers who intended harm from those who intended to be helpful. While a child can be fooled, it seems less likely for a child to be fool than for your average "numale" or "faux-man". And of course less likely to be blinded by mob mentality. However I could be reading more into the clarity of childhood than there actually is. From a writer's perspective, you must be willing to commit. No "I may write this someday", it must be "I will start today and aim to write at least a little every day and have a finished product within 90 days to a year (depending on the predicted size and scope of the product)". Also, it helps to consume that which gives us a perspective on the lives of others. I purposely kept that vague because while books help, it is mainly because the best novels tend to give you a compelling perspective to follow, often with deeper philosophical themes. Movies, games, anime, etc. can often reproduce this benefit, though usually in different forms. Your typical RPG, particularly JRPGs, thrust you directly into the shoes of another person, and I suspect that children who play games, specifically games where the player must play a specific role easily analogized to the real world, have more empathy than those who do not play those games. Likewise reading for children has a similar affect: it gives them the opportunity to see things from another perspective. I am not certain which format is superior in teaching empathy, or driving moral/philosophical points across (my assumption would be books for the former, games for the latter), but I am fairly certain they do give another perspective. The trick is making that perspective relatable and interesting. Therefore, using the inner-child as the overarching theme, a good premise might be a single father whose wife died young, and struggles to raise his kids because he lost sight of what it means to be a kid and only sees the superficialities of it. At the same time you write from the perspective of the children, and through these two general perspectives only your imagination limits how themes and values can be delivered. And also, good advice I heard from either George R.R. Martin or Steven King was to write firstly for yourself. Imagine you are your own audience. Not a bad place to start, because we do not all have the same values or perspectives, we are often similar enough and for bridges to be built between us. I personally like to read over what I've written after I've written something to see if it comes off how I intended, or if it is clear and forthright (intentionally, if I aim to be), or vague and ambiguous (unintentionally, If I aimed for clarity). Of course, I am an 18 year old fresh out of high school, albeit one who has written as a hobby since he was 11 or 12, and professionally since 16-17. So take what I say with a few grains of salt since I could be completely wrong, or only partially right. And P.S. It helps to be grammatically correct but simple and casual enough that a high schooler could read and understand. While I like to poke at mistakes here and there, slang and dialectical idioms are not mistakes if used appropriately. Like is a character is meant to be dumb or "unpolished", then it would make sense for his first-person narrative to not be too much more "sophisticated" than his dialogue as a character, as unless the purpose is meant to contrast who he becomes versus how he starts off, there shouldn't be a radical difference from the first-person past-tense and the first-persons present-tense in terms of diction and dialect.

An interesting preposition. Needs a bit of grammar checking though. Not a fan of the second-persons/third-person mix though, as it tends create a mixed association and disassociation, like walking into a room where the speaker suddenly points you out and attempts to characterize you but then suddenly shifts back to his archetype of what kind of dynamic he was originally speaking of. For the finished product, I would recommend sticking to either first person or third person, this way there is a stronger consistency in that either the reader can slowly identify himself with the protagonist by reading her thoughts and feelings "in real time", or from third person watching objectively what is happening and perhaps coming to the philosophical proposition of the "Hero and the Girl" (Or perhaps more generally, the Worker and the Driver, in that one accumulates resources while the other directs where best the resources may be allocated, or, is the main driver for the acquisition of resources. Although if the latter dynamic, wherein one is dependent on the other but gives the other a satisfactory incentive (i.e., love, moral gratification, conversation, future prospects of independence, etc.), then Father-Daughter/Father-Son or Hero/Maiden is actually a very good analogy). It reminds me of the so-called burden of being a parent, or a spouse. My expectation is that your intent is to dispel the myth that being a parent or spouse is inherently a burden, rather for it to be a burden either you (as a spouse) have bad judgement/lack of boundaries, or are abusive/negligent (as a parent). Otherwise it is the ultimate joy to both create and sustain life, watching it soar higher than the prior generation could even dream of.

YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE IS: EXECUTIVE (ESTJ-A) MIND This trait determines how we interact with our environment. 60% EXTRAVERTED 40% INTROVERTED ENERGY This trait shows where we direct our mental energy. 36% INTUITIVE 64% OBSERVANT NATURE This trait determines how we make decisions and cope with emotions. 79% THINKING 21% TACTICS This trait reflects our approach to work, planning and decision-making. 64% JUDGING 36% PROSPECTING IDENTITY This trait underpins all others, showing how confident we are in our abilities and decisions. 57% ASSERTIVE 43% TURBULENT Weird how that rendered the whole page. I limited it to relevant stats, but figured I would type out how I took the test before and got similar results on the post below it.

........ ........ ...... ..... That moment when your realize.... If robots of people are built, many (but probably not most) will reject the flesh for "monroebot"...

As an American I may not be the best person to say what an Englishman ought to do to prepare, either internally or externally, for economic collapse but I will give it a fair shot... First off: Live in a community as racially and culturally similar as you are. In the event that Rome falls, race and cultural markers become everything. If you're English, find a nice English gated community (if you can afford one) or a nice English country community (if you can afford to). If you're not English, then find a community as culturally and racially similar to yourself as possible. Be that Arabic, Black, Polish, Swedish, etc. Second: Make sure you, your spouse, and children are armed. You never know what might happen. Third. Make sure, after finding a safe, reliable community, that you and your family is well-off and capable of moving. Digging up a bomb shelter would be a bit extreme if the chaotic frenzy of post-Rome doesn't happen like we think it will, but it will protect you completely if it does. Short of that, a gated community that could easily become a citadel in defense. Fourth: Make sure you, your spouse, your children, and your reliable family members are morally and emotionally prepared. Fifth (and perhaps most importantly): Make sure YOU are morally and emotionally prepared, armed with your convictions. For the last part: Remember, until the inevitable happens you are watching a movie. Maybe you'll have the chance to become a community organizer or your child will become the next King of England. Not likely, therefore expect primarily to be watching in slow motion until the inevitable happens. Make peace with what may come, as well as what is already happening. Remember that your spouse and children are the only people that matter in a life-or-death scenario and that no sacrifice is too high for your family's survival and longevity. Is this what you're looking for...?

The main question is this: How can an anarchist society flourish (or even survive) surrounded by statist societies? The main reason I bring this up is because the only two things I see a government capable of doing right at least most of the time are national defense and law enforcement. While I can conceive of more localized law enforcement under an anarcho-capitalist society much like of Stef's vision, I simply cannot see how such a society would remain free so long as "enslaved" (I will use to Greek definition of liberty: free from rule) societies remain. If America were the site of a free society, the main obstacle would be a heavily militaristic and morally relativistic Mexico. Should Mexico actually transform from a crime infested hell to some kind of nation state, I would say Mexico would probably repeat old history an attempt to invade America, at least to reclaim their old territories and gain some more as a bargain. If there is no standing army in this hypothetical on the part of the Americans, then the Americans would be doomed to fail as history does not favor a mass of localized militias (I assume militias would act as armies in times of need in an anarchist society) without central authority or military discipline. I use America as my prime example mainly because I am American and feasibly the only statist society that might invade for *inset reason here* is Mexico, whereas in Europe the political dynamic would be a bit byzantine in that essentially every European country has historically been under pressure to be the local hegemonist or be conquered by another hegemonist. In America I see a free society being the most feasible as the only historically militaristic society liable to invade that could not be handled by a couple of cities' militia would be Mexico. My own answer to this problem, which I will subject to change if you guys can give me the arguments, is something like this: We need states so long as states exist, therefore states will always exist unless one state conquers every other state and disbands itself (by state I mean government, not a Germanic province). As a side question: has Stef written a book on what his vision of anarcho-capitalism might be? If so please give me a name so I can read/listen and give myself a better picture on what anarcho-capitalism applied might look like.

Now and like before, certainly hitting the mark. Although, while there isn't a "society" (i.e. a collective) that is divorced from individuals, there is a society that is a collection of individuals who happen to be similar enough to be collectively identified (the common similarities being mostly genetic markers and shared history). Off topic: This reminds me of how Stefan proved governments are not things unto themselves but merely people given powers no other people would be allowed to have if there wasn't the superstition that a big government is necessary. Now you, who from what I can tell of your bio, are about...21-22 years old? Already having taught kids for about 4 years? Certainly impressive, I will certainly endeavor to have achieved even greater merits by the time I'm your age now What is the common culture of Vietnam like for boys? I imagine the type that thinks physical punishments actually works only to discover the blow back of either neebish or overly aggressive youths. But not too different than what is/was the norm in White countries. I'm curious what you did to help him in particular. While most of my multikult youth was mostly arbitrary conflicts, the exception was with a Vietnamese boy I grew up with up until we went to different high schools. Small boy, but very smart. As for the use of exercise as a relatable analogy, I can certainly empathize. It seems God (or genetics, or luck. While I am a Roman Catholic I will admit I am open to scientific explanations where possible. Although since God is a no-null-hypothesis in that I could easily say science is the study of God's powers or something to that effect...) had blessed me with the ability to look and be moderately fit with minimal effort. Beyond some occasional boxing practice I've never had to take care of my body to look fit (again I say look because I wouldn't say I'm fit in actuality, just in appearances). Therefore when you mention a regular exercise regimen I can relate that to my writing, since I've been practicing since I was about 12, and writing my first publishable novel since 2015, I can relate to how since after I've graduated I've spent about 4-5 hours a day regularly writing the next couple chapters of my first book and/or looking ahead and determining what the world in the book's future will be based on past events. Indeed food for thought, since it doesn't matter if I write say, 10 page's worth of an 11 font (give or take 2-4000 words) per day merely that I make some kind of substantial progress so that I am finished before I'm 19 (i.e., that I have a product to show for my long-term investment in the end) so that from there I can work on publishing.

I would definitely say you hit the nail on the head. I was certainly not in a great mood when I originally typed this, but it is definitely a question I've been mulling over on and off, both with a therapist (given the hectic present I would not be surprised if a significant percentage of my age range is subscribed to some sort of therapy) and alone. My answer is usually something like: Yes, but I must recognize who is "Western" (i.e. who shares my values--although democracy is not one of them, for reasons I'll probably hit on in an appropriate topic), versus who is not. For example, while all Whites are European, not all Whites are "Western" in the sense they are able to receive new information that they can adjust to, and/or belief in some kind of free market minarchist system, etc. Therefore the question becomes: Who would fit the definition of "Western"? I think after spending a while mulling it over and hearing Stefan talk about it on and off, I've gotten pretty good at telling those who are self-aware and willing to look forward from the here-and-now devil-may-care types. On the other hand, it is frustrating how limited my impact is on society. While my ability to impact current events is not guaranteed to be limited, it is tough determining what is the best course for we individuals who struggle internally with our external environment. A good Christian quote goes something like: "God, give me the power to change that which I can affect, the ability to accept that which I cannot affect, and the knowledge to tell the difference". Not an exact quote but I think the meaning is clear. Also, I think it was recently when Stef interviewed one Scott Adams (?) who mentioned that while it is hard to shoot the goals we aim for, we can easily work towards making ourselves as capable of seizing upon opportunities as they come rather than ignore them in favor of one single goal. Also, and perhaps most important to us all personally, the foundation of all nations is the family. While we can most often not affect elder relatives, we can determine who we marry and raise kids with, and by being good parents, teaching our kids philosophy and negotiation, as well as self-defense, we can re-shape at least our own slices of Earth and give them the tools needed to capitalize on situations as they come.

Hello all. I've been following Stefan Molyneux for about 6 months now, and have enjoyed his content and the information he brings to bare. I've had a rocky political life, starting out as a full-on Communist, then a National Socialist, and now a....National Capitalist? Something like that. I'm still trying to figure out this forum. Took me 19 days just to wait for validation, now I'm wondering why I can't give myself a profile pic or edit the blanks in my profile. Do I have to wait for permission, or do I need to post more until I'm "trusted" enough to manage my own profile? As much as I love Stef, he really knows how to make signing up to forums difficult. I suppose it is to protect against trolls/hackers/etc. But still... Either way, hello all.

Is Western Civilization worth defending? Right off the bat I will mention I am 18 years old, I have minimal family relations, no prospects on marriage or future children. I lived "multiculturalism" since the day I was born, raised to believe anything White or Western is evil and oppressive, and even for a while was groomed to be a leader in the Leftist movement. Only recently (since around 2014) was I "red-pilled" and started realizing that there is such a thing as American culture and American nationality. Until then I was firmly convinced America was a failed experiment and a hodge-podge of incompatible culture, and that was only curable through a totalitarian Communist "paradise". Eventually I grew out of my Socialist/liberal days and became more aware of the nation-state and the value of culture. As of about 7 months ago I've been watching Stef and became a lover of the Free Market, but now I have to wonder; is the West worth defending? I know that because of my age, I have little investment in the future. If I had children I know I'd have a somewhat different tone. However, I also wonder why I should bother starting a family in the first place if the West is doomed to begin with. I grew up never feeling one with my country, and in fact raised to be its antithesis. I now realize that I was being brainwashed by the leftist narrative but I do have to wonder if it is not simply a result of the West failing to perpetuate itself and its cucking, just simply the result of inherently inferior White people. All things must end, perhaps we Whites have simply outlived our time on Earth and are doomed to die. If that is the case, why should I care about Western Civilization? Or more precisely, why should I continue to care? I cannot deny there is a very strong fundamental part of my being that really aches in despair as the days go on, but I really just want to cut that part out of me and let the world burn on its own.

I suppose the Truth About George Washington would answer half that question, and Stefan's general lines here and there the other half. From what I understand so far, the Revolution was largely waged as a result of idealists who wanted to experiment with a philosophically-based free market, minimal-government system. The taxes part was certainly an impetus as the British Empire generally had a very low tax demand on its people, and protected its colonies from both other colonial empires and local barbarians. While it would be cheaper for most people to simply accept Imperial rule, the founders generally believed the Empire was unsustainable and therefore it would have been best to impose their free market limited-government creed on the 13 colonies rather than rely on the winds of fortune to continue blowing the sails of the British Empire. With the hyping of the scandals of the time, a significant number of Americans were able to be militarized into waging a revolution, which took a few years to end and about a decade for the last fragments of British strays to be chased out. Was it worth it? Depends. From the American perspective, the moral principle of self-governance is enough. However the people of the time identified more strongly as either British colonials or Dutch/Germanics living in British territory rather than a clearly defined nationality. Economically it was a burden to self-govern and compete with the Empire at first, but eventually we managed to stabilize and become the economical superpower we were by 1900. From a British perspective, things were largely the same trade-wise but somewhat cheaper as less tax money needed to be spent protecting Imperial interests in the Americas. From any other perspective, not much of a change although the republican nature of the revolution did inspire further revolutions, which could be consider an indirect result.

While governments are not tangible, they are real. While they are not a thing of themselves, divorced from their parts, they do hold a collective level of accountability. In terms of the chicken-and-the-egg, it is man that created government as a means of managing people, for one reason or another. Then, the government influenced man either to serve government or some sort of creed the government was created to orient people towards. Are the creators slaves to their own creations? Depends on the meaning of "slave". If by slave, you mean are owned by their creations, then of course not. While most men are "slaves" (I mean this broadly as few governments directly own people although they most often have some sort of carrot-and-stick relationship with people) to the state, the state itself is also a "slave" (in that it is beholden) to the powers that sustain it. Originally that power might have been its ideological founders and/or the army at its behest. However, just because some men "own" the government does not mean all men "own" the government, likewise just because most men are "slaves" to the government does not mean all men are. To repeat, for the sake of clarity: The founder is generally a "free man" (assuming "free" means "free of control") albeit beholden practically to either the military under his command, or morally to his ideology/religion, while the people that live under a government would fulfill the Greek definition of slaves insofar as they are beholden to a government, which is most often beholden (or "enslaved") to whatever sustains its power. To answer the last two questions: A servant can hold leverage over his master, perhaps forming a de facto partnership much like the army to its general. The General is only the commander so long as the army is willing to accept orders from him, or so long as the enforcers of the General's orders are willing to enforce. And I would say a thing created can be worth more than the sum of its parts, like a cell phone is worth more than the stuff used to make it. Or, to use an easier example, a table is worth more than the materials used to make it at least because of the less-obvious cost of labor.