Erwin

Ok, thank you. So to come back to what you said: Given the definition we've agreed on, collectives are entities, given that they exist and have identity. Am I missing something?

I see. Are you treating "Peaceful Islam" as a separate set of doctrine? If so, I would disagree there on the basis that "Peaceful Islam" is a rejection of violent practices, and by definition, not a doctrine at all. That leaves every other type of Islam, the least radical of which is Shia Islam and they're still pretty brutal. Not necessarily toward you. Towards whoever is being aggressed. For example, a Soviet citizen has every justification to revolt even violently against the USSR, because that Soviet was being aggressed. But if Stalin were to walk down the block, I don't get to just punch him. However, it would be horrible of me to associate with Stalin. Let's say Stalin wants to eat at my restaurant, I would be helping to keep a mass murderer alive (which helps him continue mass murder). No, I fully recognize that there are those who call themselves Muslim, but don't really practice it. I'm just saying that even identifying with it is immoral.

the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment

Would you agree that entity = that which has agency?

What do you mean by doctrinally centralised? That's not how the NAP works. Violence is only justified as self-defense against coercion. Immoral association is not coercion unto you personally, it's just that: immoral. At most, the only NAP-compliant response to your example would be to refuse to associate with muslims, so as to not promote or normalize Islam. It sounds to me like your argument is the ole' "Not all [Enter Anything] are like that". Which is bizarre considering I don't see how it fits with your first argument that Muslims don't know what Muslims are. So to summarize, Muslims call themselves Muslims, yet they disagree on who are Muslims and they don't know what Muslims are, but not all Muslims are like that.

With that logic, then how can we define anything? If they are a credible threat, and such a big threat that the minimal force required to defend yourself is nukes, then sure. But that would never be the case tho.

I totally forgot about that Touché

Which brings us back to our previous question, why call themselves Muslim if they don't know what it means? In fact, it is grossly negligent to denominate yourself in a certain way without considering the practices that denomination is associated with, because: ___________________________________ Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. Who are you referring to by "they"?

According to one famous Imam: *on the subject of having an opinion that is not related to the Quran* "If it supports the Quran, we don't need it. If it refutes the Quran, we don't want it. If it does neither, why have it?" In any case, that begs the question: if Muslim tenets do not define what is a Muslim, then what is a Muslim?

Actually, Hitler did say that it was an "unfortunate choice of words", due to its association with actual socialism. That's not what he actually meant. Looking at Hitler's actions in the economy, he privatized the heck out of the German economy, used tariffs to get welfare recipients back into the labor market, inflation dropped, and real incomes rose fast. Hmm... Why does all that sound familiar... Well all the google sources say it was a secret program. And the SS Rabbit Boys were.... well... SS. I'm sure they were privy to certain things that the populace wasn't. In any case, it proves that german girls didn't have anything to fall back on, as far as they knew. So how could it affect their behavior?

Correct. It is impossible to be both Muslim and NAP-compliant, because: ____________________________________ Punching someone on the street is never NAP-compliant, unless that is the amount of force required to save yourself from an aggressor. Moreover, I don't think beliefs can ever be immoral unless acted on. Communism when practiced is nothing more than theft + mafia-style virtue signaling because they help the poor. Is it immoral to defend yourself against the mafia? I don't think so. In this context, I am referring to the same thing.

Nevermind that it's not falsifiable as a theory (given the absence of written documents), I read it too, on jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Jews also said there was a genocide of 6 million Jews, as far back as 1918 (before the Nazis were ever a thing) . Pretty safe to say they are a pretty good litmus test for calling bs, especially regarding Nazis. How could Lebensborn been a viable option for single mothers if german women didn't know it existed?

Actually, the only issue I see with the Lebensborn Program was that it was funded through taxation. Otherwise, I don't really see a problem with it because I don't agree that it promoted R-selection. Single motherhood and sex before marriage was extremely frowned upon, which resulted in ostracism for the single mom. Lebensborn didn't glorify or normalize single moms, unlike modern welfare states. It simply cared for needy babies and their mothers just as many charities used to do. What's the problem?

I was going based on what I heard on Stefan's videos. I tried looking for some studies but couldn't find any. Can you point me to a link about this? Sidenote: While looking for research, I came across Gideon Butler, a Marine researcher who says that R/K selection theory has fallen out of favor, and replaced with Universal adaptive strategy theory (UAST). I actually think this explains biological difference in our society even better than the R/K model. The equivalent of R-Selected folks here are the Ruderals, who thrive best in high-disturbance (predatory) & low-stress environments (high abundance). But K-Selection has been split into 2 categories: Stress Tolerators, and Competitors. They both thrive in low-disturbance environments, but Tolerators need High stress, whereas Competitors need low stress. I think these explain very well why Conservatives and Libertarians / An-Caps differ in some ways, such as why Conservatives are less entrepreneurial but great employees and vice versa for libertarians. I think Stefan should do a post about this!

I think there's a more elegant method. Let's shove the government full of democratic socialists, so as to re-create the Weimar... We all know what comes after that

Because gene death. R / K selection is epigenetic, i.e. it can be switched. High quality K-Selected people face gene death in R-Selected environments, and they have to make the switch for gene survival. No matter how K-Selected a woman is, selling vajj at a low price is better than not selling at all (biologically speaking).

Unless those Jews serve the same purpose they have always served: being the middlemen (for Israel lobbyists in the case of the State). Which is why I'm not surprised it took Stefan years to connect the dots that us fashy goyim have known for a while. If the NAP is not violated when violence is used for defensive purposes, then why object to the use of government to create an ethnostate (or a NAP variant thereof)?

That might be true if human behavior was constant, but in reality, people adjust their behaviors. In this case, we need to look at the economics of sex. Since porn is a close substitute for sex, it makes women have to compete even harder. The vast majority will have to lower the price of vajj. For example: Historically, it would cost men the price of marriage, kids, commitment, monogamy, to obtain vajj. Today, men can obtain vajj at half the price of a low-end prostitute. Not very K-selected at all.

I disagree with the premise that it is possible to be Muslim and NAP-compliant (see my previous post for justification). However, I think even calling oneself Muslim is anti-NAP in itself. It is impossible to publicly denominate yourself as part of a voluntary group, without necessarily implying that the group is good or ethical (otherwise why did you join it?). Doing so to Islam, has the effect of normalizing Muslim practices, and normalizing anti-NAP behavior is anti-NAP.

If they get to cherry pick their practices, are they really practicing that religion? I think not, based on the same rationale as the pro-life argument. Let x = the number of Muslim practices; at what point from 0 to x are you then considered Muslim? Of course, there is no way to come at such a number. Therefore, if a so-called Muslim fails to initiate force, then why call it a Muslim?

Soldiers are recruited because they are paid other people's taxes. Anti-NAP right off the bat. For the sake of argument, let's suppose the funds were somehow earned voluntarily. It would depend on whether or not the military in question had a history of coercive behavior. An example of such a military force is BlackWater (or wtv name they go by now). Ignoring the government contracts, I would say their history of violence is purely defensive.

Which is why I explicitly specified voluntarily practicing Islam. In other words, a situation where someone explicitly chooses to practice it, as opposed to the usual case you describe.

I don't see how practicing Islam ever involves voluntary actions. The example you provide doesn't match the circumstances of my test case. It is possible to stop associating with Islam and - with reasonable security measures - not be killed. You can never choose to not associate with government without being kidnapped or killed. So of course, living under a democracy is not the initiation of force, as force has already been initiated unto you.

Nope. MSM used government licenses as barriers to entry to push out competitors, and government subsidies to keep themselves afloat. Therefore, MSM was never sought out. Want proof? Now that we have Alt Media, MSM is dying off. I.e. people are seeking out Alt Media, as opposed to MSM now that they have the choice. Tell that to Africans who mutilate their genitalia because they think it is beneficial. If the goyim were willing to buy, then why is education, media, and banks government-imposed through taxes / subsidies / licenses? I don't think you understand the concept of willingness. Not all. Education majors have the 2nd lowest IQ of any major. Journalists aren't that high either. I'm also very skeptical of the Jewish IQ. They don't exactly have the best track record of honesty. I can't help but think "is that another lie?", "was there a jew among the researchers?"

Does the NAP also apply to collectives, as opposed to only individual people? Clarification of "collective": What I mean by a collective is a group formed via voluntary association. My Stance: Yes. My Theory: By choosing who we associate with, we are also choosing to be associated with anyone that the person / entity is known to be associated with. Therefore, by choosing to form / join a collective we are choosing to be at least partially responsible for the consequences of the collective's operations up to - and as of - that point. Test Case 1: Voluntarily Practicing Islam By practicing Islam, Muslims are choosing to associate with rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. Given that this case is an obvious violation of the NAP, I would say the evidence supports the theory.