Fashus Maximus

Yet again, even more evidence to support my belief that Stefan will always be against white identity: His allegiance is to his people, not us.

Same way, whoever is closest to us genetically. Thing is, when you're mixed you have a broader loyalty, because you can't afford to be more selective than the race itself. I think this is why the concept of racial identity seems bizarre in Europe. They can afford to be more selective, and so what they cluster around is their specific ethnic identities. North americans, Australians, and Boers being mixed, racial identity is as selective as they can be. Think Identity Evropa vs Generation Identity. Same difference. There is a bell curve for all personality traits, including disgust sensitivity. The less disgust sensitive you are, the lesser your in-group preference; low disgust sensitivity is also the reason behind R-type personality, and adherence to R-type ideologies like progressivism. So your example is perfectly represented in the stats I cite. The thing about bell-curves is that extreme cases like self-hating Jews are just that: extreme. They are not representative of the bell-curve average; exceptions prove the trend, not the other way around. Claiming the exact opposite of what I'm claiming is not an argument. I've presented loads of evidence to support my claim, so I'd suggest you address them and present your own. Your whole reasoning is that we can't assume in-group preference because #NotAll. This is such a famous, obvious, and 3rd World-tier fallacy, that I'm not sure it merits anything other than just pointing it out.

Again a contradiction: the owners forfeited ownership of their assets to the collective when founding it. They can't own their assets and not own their assets at the same time. Also, some concepts have emergent properties outside of any person's control. Such as, the concept of foregoing control over your property. Conversation does not occupy physical space, and yet you're having one. By using conversation as a medium of information transfer, you have accepted its existence outside of physical space. Contradiction again. As per your definition, reality = existence = occupies physical space. Yet, you've accepted the existence of this discussion. I'm just trying to help you here, I'm baffled at how you can contradict yourself every other sentence and claim that I'm having difficulty distinguishing reality and concepts. How can you even know that I can't distinguish reality and concepts when you didn't care to hear about my own theory on the subject? The problem is that you have a bunch of axioms and definitions and all you have to do to prove them is to prove your axioms and test your conclusions against each other. You would have seen all the contradictions in your theory if you held yourself to that standard of rigour. I guess it really is true that some people are more convinced of their own beliefs when presented with counter-evidence.

Even honest conservatives get stuck on certain things. Regardless of political orientation, the common factor is that they take their own racial side, often not explicitly or even consciously. For example, it is Neo-Conservatives like Jew Dennis Prager that support sending white men to die in the desert, much to the benefit of Israel; total coincidence that the Neo-Con movement was founded by former bolshevik Jews. Heck, Stefan's first instinct to the recent Iran protests was to support the protests and condemn the regime, again much to the benefit of Israel; note: by supporting the protests, he is supporting a Jewish funded marxist protest that offers our Aryan cousins liberation to finally be sexual degenerates and cuck their husbands with subhuman violent savages like in the West. Way to go stef; still waiting for you to call on Israel to do the same (but that would be bad for your fellow Jews, right? ). So ya, Sam Harris is one example out of the vast majority of people who take their own side. Nothing special here. Babies as young as 2 months old have a fully developed racial hierarchy of preference, as follows: immediate family > extended family > ethnicity > race. We know this because we can see when the area of the brain responsible for disgust lights up. It lights up the least for the immediate family, and lights up AF for a member of another race. Also, disgust lights up the most for blacks, which makes sense as they are the most genetically distant. Disgust triggers a fight or flight response which shuts off the empathy centers in your brain. The end result being, that you have empathy for your own, and none for the other, a.ka. unintentional in-group preference. Our beliefs are formed through that racial lens. It's just how we evolved.

Your argument is that a collective cannot claim ownership since it doesn't occupy physical space. I'm saying that even a concept can claim ownership. Any founding member could simply take his or her portion of assets from the collective and leave without consequence, if it is rightfully his. In reality, doing so is embezzlement, and the other members of the collective would enforce the collective's ownership of those assets, even though they themselves have no claim to the embezzled assets either. So who's property rights will they be enforcing? The collective's.

But you just said that you wonder why he sees no issue with importing sub-humans. Does he want a billion savages in Israel?

I only know the properties of existence that you've claimed in the context of nationhood, such as: it can be formed, requires direction / individual actors, while also initially claiming the occupation of physical space. Your third property of existence fundamentally conflicts with the first 2, because a nation has the initial 2 properties, but not the third. In essence, it implies that a nation exists and does not exist at the same time. It also implies that a group of people can occupy physical space, as opposed to the people themselves which is impossible. So, that leaves 2 options: either we agree to give up the first 2 properties, or the third. I say we give up the third and here's why: the first property is self-containing (only that which can exist can be brought into existence), so it is true by definition. The 2nd property applies, regardless of whether something occupies physical space (for e.g. a nation requires individual actors just as a computer requires individual parts). It's just the third property that's both contradictory and without justification.

@Siegfried von Walheim I think you've misunderstood White Sharia to begin with. Sharia has always been an Aryan word that means "code of conduct". Sharia did not come to mean Islamic Sharia until the 7th Century, when the Arabs took over the Iranians (and the word Sharia). So White Sharia means white code of conduct; surely you're not against that? You do realize that Europeans have had some form of White Sharia until certain intellectuals came into the spotlight 100 years ago? Heck, in many European countries, the father had to give his blessing in order for a man to propose to his daughter. Often, the father himself would introduce a suitable mate. As for women being property, I think that the ability to behave as a fully functioning adult has been - and is still in the process of being - largely weeded out of the female gene pool. Anything that increases female independence from men, is detrimental to the birth rate. When independent women die off, who is left to breed? All the other women. Biologically, anything that significantly hinders your ability to breed (like female freedom or independence) is a disease. So, the natural conclusion is that the state of being a man's property is the only way a woman can be healthy.f

Implying that America is "our" country. Sam's loyalties are with his people, not us Americans. Of course, he wants us to be surrounded by savages; it leads us - the majority population - to be anti-social, atomized, individualistic, and any other thing that leads to a decline in our birth rates. It's in the best interest of Sam's people for this to happen to us. More of Sam's fellow non-Americans, of course. Ben Shapiro, Mike Cernovich, Bill Maher, Bill Kristol, Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, Peter Schiff... Implying something's wrong with him. He's simply taking his own side. What's so surprising here?

I am using your own definition. This is why I intentionally used your own claims to build the syllogisms. I was illustrating that your logical framework is extremely self contradictory. For e.g., Nations do not exist yet can be formed? How is it possible for that which cannot exist to come into existence? Even after the requirement for ownership is met, you still claim that a Nation cannot exist? How can existence be necessary for ownership when the requirement for ownership is met and you still claim that a Nation doesn't exist? How can there be a Nation without its individual actors? How can you have a requirement for that which cannot occur? You get the idea. What I recommend at this point is this: how about I just lay out my theory as to why a Nation exists and perhaps you can attack that?

That's the problem. The legal arrangement was an absence of a law preventing issuance of currency; quoting the article: "[banks] also are free to issue their own paper currency". An absence of such a law, cannot be a positive amount of law. Talmudic because it's typically a jewish line of reasoning used only against the goyim. You don't seem jewish to me, so I couldn't help but wonder why on earth you have talmudic argumentation. Out of curiosity, do you have a jewish wife or best friend or something? Doesn't really matter, in the end. A better question is how could they not be used as money? The need to trade is always there, and so is the difficulty to barter. So what people will be constantly asking each other "Is there anything I can offer you, in which you will accept as payment, regardless of whether you need it for its utility?" The answer to that is any commodity that is also money, such as rice. You can always accept it as payment, because you can either eat it now, or eat it in the future. Same goes for everyone else, so everyone else will accept it too, no matter how much rice they already have. Before you know it, rice is the de facto money regardless of whether they intended it or not. I didn't think that this would be the comparison. That ounce of uranium took everything since the renaissance to make. What you're missing is how development cycles work with respect to the varying costs involved. E.g. The first pill of any drug will cost you billions of dollars and many years to produce. All the others cost a few cents per pill, and you can make them by the billions. So, if the government were to take over this hypothetical drug after the first pill was developed, and proclaim that it was equally capable of making such pills, I'm sure you can see how wrong that is.

also @Tyler H Proof 2 and 3 remains unchallenged

a) By definition, it is impossible to require that which is impossible. Thus, an impossible requirement cannot exist. b1) The above concepts lack any inherent property that can satisfy any requirement pertaining to themselves. c1) Therefore, the concepts you've listed above cannot have requirements. On the flip side: b2) Your own concession: direction by the founders satisfies the requirement for a nation to claim and exercise ownership c2) Therefore, a nation can have a requirement, and thus, can exist regardless of whether it occupies physical space (Proof 4) If you remove the property that satisfies any requirement, the requirement will not be satisfied. (Shockingly enough) a) Nations are defined as a community of its individual actors. b) It is impossible to remove its individual actors because then it is no longer a nation. c) Therefore, a nation is at all times capable of claiming ownership. (Proof 5) See Proof 5

a) You cannot have a requirement for that which is impossible or non-existent, as it is self-contradictory by definition: It is either not a requirement or not impossible, but not both. b) Your own concession: direction by the founders is a requirement for a nation to claim and exercise ownership. c) Therefore, there is a requirement for nationhood, and thus, a nation can exist and can claim and exercise ownership. (Proof 1) I did not disregard this out of convenience, but because I thought my prior argument was self-explanatory. So, you already have 1 proof of a nation existing. I'll even give you a 2nd proof just because I enjoy intellectual mas***tion. a) That which does not exist cannot be formed. b) To quote yourself: "the nation is still formed on the violation of property". c) Therefore, the nation can be formed, and thus, can exist and claim and exercise ownership. (Proof 2) a) The method of nation formation is irrelevant to the fact that the nation was formed. b) Formation proves existence, as per Proof 2. c) Therefore, 100% of formed nations exist, and thus, can claim ownership. (Proof 3)

We can't make them without violating the NAP. We can only convince them to transfer or sell their ownership of themselves.

Good so you've acknowledged your standard of proof: Direction by the founders is required for the ability to claim and exercise ownership. So by your own admission, a nation with a direction by the founders can therefore claim and exercise ownership. Glad we agree. The definition of a nation makes no claim as to how it was formed. It can be voluntary.

Property is that which requires my consent to take, otherwise it is stealing. The root of property is the self: it would be coercion for another person to take take and use another without consent. Thus, everyone starts out owning themselves, and thus, their actions and any effects thereof.

Voluntary associations are as equally abstract as nations. Its members can mutually agree to treat the association as an entity, and its collective actions as the actions of the entity. If this association were to discover land and erect defensible borders around it, its members would - according to their agreement - either have to respect the association's ownership of that land (and terms of use), or else it is theft. So your assumption - that abstraction disqualifies from laying claim - is not only disproven by counter-example, but that counter-example is the founding story of many nations. So here, you even have the exact way in which a nation can claim land.

If everyone would bother to at least google what they're about to say lol

Sure, but I said that in the context of money being used so I'm missing your point. Compared to which contract? Who's setting fire to what?

I read this and 2 things came to mind: 1) my counter-argument, 2) what a talmudic line of reasoning. And then, I keep reading and sure enough, you've been reading David Graeber; I would highly suggest you be mindful of talmudic arguments when reading jewish books, as you end up believing your own nonsense. A classic talmudic argumentation is to take 2 radically opposite things, place them in the same category, and then conclude that they are therefore equivalent or similar. Allow me to illustrate how talmudic your argument is: a) The presence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement b) The absence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement c) Therefore, the presence of such a law is similar or equivalent to the absence of such a law. If the flaw in c) is not apparent as you read it, I'm just going to have to move on (no offence). I don't understand the relevance of barter, nor is it news to me that the barter system was never a thing. David Friedman explained how it is inevitable for some commonly held commodity to be used as money. Anyhow, the quote: "9000BC - 6000BC] Subsequently both livestock, particularly cattle, and plant products such as grain, come to be used as money in many different societies at different periods. Cattle are probably the oldest of all forms of money, as domestication of animals tended to precede the cultivation of crops, and were still used for that purpose in parts of Africa in the middle of the 20th century." My argument was that government contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to the body of work that culminates in the development of a nuke, and thus, the nuke is not a valid example of government invention. In other words, I'm making a relative claim. So to disprove this, you'd have to compare government numbers with private sector numbers. All you've done is cited government results, which begs the question: compared to what?

Ok, Scotland then. The role of money is in the definition of money. I also didn't think I'd need a source to show that the first evidence of a state was in 3000BC, but here it is. Anyhow, money predates the state. A can't be the cause of B if B came first. Because they are the prerequisites and government played no part. In all 3 things, 99% of the work was already done before the government contributed to the nuclear project or satellites. If you think the prerequisites of nukes and satellites was done after the government got involved, then I see you don't know much physics or engineering.

Everything good in life comes hand in hand with obligation, which is why I deduce that loner = little to no obligations = little to nothing to live for = misery. I used to be a loner, too. I also enjoyed the lack of obligations. I.e., until I met a community of people who are exactly like me. We are united in goals, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, aesthetics, etc., but I have some obligations to my community too. The obligations are definitely worth the payoff. Don't you think you'd be willing to take on some obligations if you thought the payoff was worth it? I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you don't think I'm trying to fix you. Has it occurred to you that you were made to discuss your behavior as people also made the loner / misery deduction above and were concerned? Also, loner = reproductive disadvantage; do you not see how going against human nature is a problematic for yourself? Is there no one in your life for which the relationship is not worth the burden? Have you considered that perhaps you simply haven't met people like yourself?

So there was no man in charge and look at what your mother did. Imagine my shock. Lemme guess, have you tried to talk to her about it and she reacted by lacking agency by making excuses? You've been owned by a woman so no surprises as to the result. You've been free and you respectfully sound miserable when you describe yourself as a loner. Has it ever occurred to you to at least try being a (good) man's property to see what happens? (side effects may include happiness, satisfaction, babies, love, etc.)

To do that we'd have to be in power. Why would we use immigration and the border against ourselves? If your intention is to allow people in regardless, and the only question is who, then sure you'd have to pick the exceptions. But why would you let anyone in aside from our kin? Rejecting people on our land abridges no liberties. No one has the right of access but ourselves. We bled for the land, our women, and our children; no one else paid this price. Also, it is not simply a question of welfare use. It is a question of ethnic integrity. We're not willing to let foreign men in to compete with us for our own women and create abominations. You think we're going to stare at our mongrel babies and thank god we have low taxes, open borders, and freedom? Are you willing to give your daughter to an African in the name of liberty?