Search the Community

I was watching a video this morning. It was the live stream between millennium woes and Faith Goldy. They were talking about identity politic and preserving the western world. They also talked about preserving the white race. This reminded me of this issue that I have been thinking about for a while. I was thinking of how to preserve the west, where will my children grow and under what system, I was thinking of freedom and migration. So if you want, sit down and listen to what I have to say for a while =). Let me start with my political history. When I was young, I was indoctrinated by the communist party. This indoctrination would, in the long run, changed me into a certified sociopath. By looking at what we were proposing and the real world, I realized that this political system was complete crap and I left it (no pun intended). Then for many years, I believed that politic was complete bullshit; that it did not work; that no government had any possibility of working and that it was a waste of time. Then came the migrant crisis and Brexit. I really believe in Nigel Farage. I started to advocate strongly on the net for his cause. I read all I could about conservatism and Churchill. I made hundreds if not thousands of debates online to promote Brexit. Then came Trump. GOD I LOVE THIS MAN =). I started advocating for him and felt a huge sentiment of accomplishment when he won the election. I then joined the Canadian conservative party. Met some pretty good people. But when I saw the results of the leadership race, I lost faith in them. I then came across books about libertarianism. I read some John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, David Boaz, Thomas Paine, learned more about Jefferson and so on. As a scientist, I have to try to drill has many holes in a hypothesis and then see if it still floats. If it does, I must accept it until some other hypothesis disproves it. And so far, I have not found a single situation that cannot be solved with the libertarian way of thinking. Now I look back at conservatism with a libertarian lens and I now realize that there is something terribly wrong with the conservative principals. If you want to preserve this society, you will have no other choice but to impose legislation, enforced by the power of the state, to prevent any change. You will try to prevent any change in culture, any change in demographic. You will create a huge coercive force and your civilization will die out because people wont want to invest themselves in such an oppressive regime. The right is the same thing as the left. They will both use the state to impose their will on the people. To find a solution, we have to go off the beaten path. Stefan is right when he says that the real enemy is the welfare state. But even if we build a wall and stop migrants from coming in, men are still oppressed inside our borders. Men are treated as disposable commodities that are made to be used, despised and discarded. Every minute, we men, spend under this oppression is unacceptable. But if we stop 3rd world migration, rebuild the economy and save our culture, the very next morning men will still be exploited. T he real solution is to bring the entire house of cards down. As quickly and dramatically as possible so that no government could adapt. Before we do that, we need to stock up on goods, gold, weapons, commodities. We need to build communities and so on. We need to preserve the seed with which to rebuild after the collapse. We could expect a decade or so of chaos, but afterward we can build a system based on merits, free market, non aggression and so on. And it is not hard to bring this house of card down. we only have to stop pushing against the storm and start pushing in the other direction. We could create 50 millions genders: fish gender, pokemon gender... Demand for the most absurd classes be thought in academia. Why arent they teaching Kpop dancing in University RACISM!!! why are they not teaching navajo literature RACISM!!!! call the SJW racist because they do not acknowledge your frog gender. Ask for the most absurd project. Like a bridge that leads from Greece to Egypt. And every time the government tried to back out of it: RACISM!!!!! The western government have removed every mechanisms to fight back against those accusations. So they will have no choice but to comply. And dont worry, once this socialist gynocentric world goes off in flames. We will feel relieved and free for the first time in our lives.

I have been thinking of some things for a while. Civilisation started in Sumer, then Babylon, then Egypt, Then Greece, Then Rome, Then Europe, Then America. We can see a pattern here. Aside that whites were the founders of all these nations, each and every one of them fell and the next flourished. We know that traveling long distances was not easy in the past and we know that people migrated between those empires. We know that some Greeks and Egyptians moved to Rome. We know that Italians moved to different parts of Europe. We know that Europeans funded America. We can now assume that Sumerians moved to Babylon and that Babylonians moved to Egypt. Many of these empires existed during the same time period. Can we assume that the high IQ population were able to realize that their civilisation was going to shit and decided to move to a younger more promising civilisation before shit hit the fan. And, can we assume that the exile of the high IQ class prompted the downfall of the previous empire. I do not have a master in history like Stefan, but, we do see this phenomenon happening during our time. I see a lot of Europeans moving to Canada and at a faster rate. We have seen this happen in Venezuela when the working class was taxed to death, 2 million people fled the country. Let me explain why this question is so important to me. I’m a biochemistry student, and I plan to start a family pretty soon. But I’m seeing the west collapsing. If I am to plant my seed somewhere, I want to make sure that my descendants will be able to thrive. You do not plant your crops next to an active volcano even if the soil seems fertile at the moment. You know that in the near future, your crops will be burned. So here is my observation. I’ve talked to a lot of people in my city and all around the country. I have come to the conclusion that we could easily fix the problem and prevent the collapse of our civilisation, but that the people are too stupid, too indoctrinated, too lazy and too cowardly to prevent the fall. I give my present country about 10 years max. Then it will be Venezuela 2.0. Stefan would say at this moment that we have to reach out and change people’s minds. But I’m looking at it in a pragmatic way. It’s basic math. - We live in a democracy. - The majority wins the vote. - Very few of us are willing to make changes. - Our government is importing massive amount of third world migrants. We have to come to the conclusion that we are outnumbered. When such a scenario occurs the logical solution is to adopt a survivalist mode. We need to encourage the people who love freedom to move to a country where they will be able to wait out the storm. During that time, Canada will fall into chaos. It will be ugly. But the right people to rebuild will have survived and will return after the storm. They will return after the socialist government has collapse. Lets be honest. The only way you can remove a socialist government is to allow it to crash (which it does inevitably). Please, let me know your thoughts =)

We all know how socialism is changing the west today (the welfare state reversing natural selection, the importation of low iq high crime voters, the destruction of western culture and values etc.), but I know very little of how it has affected socialist/communist/collectivist countries of the past. Some of the ones I know about: Communist China: if you visit China you see how the polite buddhist culture (you normally see in high iq asian countries like Japan) is gone, people are very rude. I have been told by several chinese it changed under communism, anybody can confirm? They wanted to get rid of the old "evil" religion and also got rid of all the good traditional values in society. Another thing: the population exploded under communism from less than 560~ mio to 1265 mio in only 50 years. I have been told the communists heavily rewarded people who got lots of kids, and since there was mass starvation a lot of people got many kids. I bet it wasn't the most high quality people that followed the government's incentives, so that probably affected the genes in a negative way? Yugoslavia: seems like a lot of the same stuff goes on in europe today also happened in Yugoslavia back then. The high iq christian serbish group was the producers, the low iq high crime muslim bosnien group was the receivers. During the communist regime population changed, muslims got lots of kids and outbreeded the serbs. Serbs got pissed and went on a killing spree. Check some of the last replys in this forum post. Soviet Russia: don’t know much, but I bet the same stuff happened here. Just look at the chaotic impolite high crime culture of russia today, was it really always like that? Looking at Russian culture before the communists it seems very different. And shouldn’t the tough winters have created a different gene set, i.e. only the smartest and toughest can survive there, you would had to work together to survive, etc.? Any other places people can think of where collectivism fucked up culture and genes and how it happened?

Some people are more equal than others and it's not us.

From the outside Japan dosen't seem so bad. Sure, we know that the economy is fucked by keynesianism and they probably have lots of crony capitalism like in the west. But the japanese socialist hasn't created the welfare state yet (as far as I know), they haven't destroyed the family structure replacing it with single mother culture and feminism, stuff like ostracism still seems to work, the socialist hasn't started importing low iq voters yet, and crime is still as low as it gets. But when you look at the problems in Japan one would think that the country had big government and full blown socialism: Low birthrates Men and women not intrerested in each other High suicide rates This culture called hikikomori, young people withdraw from social life, stay at home all day What I'm I missing? I'm sure the usual suspects (government and socialism) is behind this somehow? Would love to hear some explanations from people with insight on Japan. And btw. visited Japan last year, absolutely loved it. Can recommend it to anybody that hasn't been there

HI, My name is Felipe, I'm a citizen from Brazil and I'm doing a series of videos showing outsiders our socialist crappy truth. So far I've made 3 videos about Olympics, Gun Control and Censorship. The goal is to show people how is it to live in a real authoritarian environment produced mainly by the last 13 years of government led by the Workers Party. And I hope this can be a good alert for those in countries with growing leftist tendencies. Thanks for your attention. Take care! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoQPEWh0ayWKmaPjEoFta3g

I found this book and it's absolutely mind-blowing. It's like someone took a chunk of Stefan and put him in a Dane. The book is about the psychological manipulation of collectivism that has Scandinavian countries in its tentacles. I think this is really important because one of Bernie Sanders's main talking points is "Ooooh look at Denmark they're the happiest country in the world! Socialism!" and this book pokes some serious holes in that commonly held belief from the eyes of a red-pilled Dane himself. The site where you can get the PDF or audiobook is http://manipulism.com/

Man is this election cycle interesting and sort of exciting. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm an anarcho capitalist so this changes none of that but I enjoy observing and interacting with the statist to try to get them to think amongst the chaos. I have actually succeeded in not only getting through to some to get them to actually listen (maybe not agree but have a pleasant convo) but I had a few of them actually step out of the statist indulegence of political advocacy and at least peak behind the door of anarcho-capitalism. I rarely reveal my 'persuasion' unless they ask me directly. I keep it ambiguous and simply stick to the mental exercises to snap them out of the rhetoric. I will share some of my tactics. And I go in with low or reasonable expectations. I don't expect them to go from statist to non statist by the end of the conversation. I go in hoping to give them pause, thought and insight that will hopefully carry with them and be a beacon in their brain even after the fuss of elections that will draw them towards their path to find their answers....which of course I hope will be anarcho-caplitalism or 'worst case' libertariansim. And this was mostly with Bernie supporters! Here's how I did it, this is my general forumula: Bernie supporter: I don't support him because of the free stuff.... (we've all heard this one) Me: So you voted for Ron Paul in 2012? Bernie Supporter: No, why? Me: He was basically Bernie without free stuff.. Bernie Supporter: ..... oh Me: Yeah, it's best to not look at which party line these people choose to run on because of the Commission of Presidential Debates. BS: the what? Me: The Commision of Presidential Debates, it's common knowledge for those who follow actual anti-establishment candidates as they have been known to expose this outright or at least the symptoms of it. Look it up and make your own judgment but it's the reason why Donald Trump, or your guy Bernie Sanders is even running on main party tickets and don't really have the 'freedom' to run as a third party, so it's odd that Bernie doesn't point that out and Trump actually has, Ron Paul has, Ralph Nader has. You can see how they treat people who expose this and Trump is actually getting further than any of the others, which is incredible and will expose the level to which the establishment will go to try to shut him down or steer people away from him. BS: I'll look into it. Me: yes. Look...I don't agree with B.S. but I wish he could run in whatever party he seems fits his platform the best. I loath the 2 party monopoly and I would rather work together with all the voters on this issue than bet on the horse-race. Exposing this would liberate voters from the 2 party monopoly and liberate future candidates so they can run on any party ticket they want without being blocked from media and getting their message out and they can speak as frankly and be their genuine selves without having to be P.C. all the time. BS: Makes sense. Another approach: BS: Free college....help the poor....bla bla bla...I'm donating to BS Now! Let's do this! Activate your friends...get them to donate, buy merch.! Me: Wow, that's incredible how much effort, time and resource such as your money or expertise and energy to rally people to voluntarily give their money to a man for a cause you believe in. BS: Yes....we really believe he's the one to finally...bla bla bla Me: Great. Tell me, have you ever put this much effort in actually helping a poor person or the poor or needy in general? BS: ............avoids question completely. Me: I mean I look at Bernie. He has a lot of interesting things to say, he's seems like a nice and likable guy, he knows how to rally young people, he cares about the disenfranchised and you guys are willing to help him in this cause and you work together, voluntarily to raise him hundreds of millions of dollars! That's incredible! BS: It really is. I mean when you care about these issues you do whatever.... bla bla bla Me: I get it. I guess my only question is, how many poor people could this effort to raise his hundreds of millions actually help if it was given to them or given to the proper organizations directly? How many studen loans could this campaign money pay off? How many private school tuitions for poor kids could this pay for? How many medical bills could this pay off for people? BS: ..........How much time do you put in to help the poor? Me: (gives list of my effots) BS: Well...there aren't many people like you and why we need....bla bla bla Me: But wait...there are. I mean Bernie's campaign proves how many there are and there are MORE because I don't support BS and do my share and know many others, that's the point. BS:...... Me: I just find it to be a charity with high overhead BS: what do you mean? Me: Well you put in all this time and effort and get everyone involved to raise a LOAD of cash for the guy you want to solve the inequality problem. Then you hope he wins the nomination and dump more money into his campaign. Then you hope he wins the election and dump more money into the campaign. Then once he's president you hope Congress will pass his policies and if he does, it's been several hundreds of millions and then they need to tax everyone to make this plan work when he had people willing to VOLUNTARILY work and donate to help poor people but refused to open a charity with the guy or use this momentum to actually go out and do it. Every month that he brings in tens of millions and it doesn't go to poor people or uneducated people is another day of hypocricy. BS: I..... I mean.... yeah but.... I don't even know what to say. Me: Me neither. Ther eis no reason you and all of his supporters can't do this as an actual charity rather than (and this applies to all campaigns) go out and use the same effort and cooperation and volunterrism to solve the issues you find most important. But you are rallying for political power and force to help when you already prove the voluntarism WORKS, otherwise the guy wouldn't have a dime to his campaign. BS: ......... stunned silent. Me: If you have more to respond later once this sinks in, i'm available to listen but never forget how well voluntarism has helped you help him to help the poor...but it's a WHOLE lot of overhad and risk that has no or little guarantee when you could just simply....help the poor. And another one: Me: How will we pay for all of Bernie's plans? BS: Wallstreet, taxes and future generations. Me: Having the future pay for it doesn't bother you? BS: No, why should it. that's very common thing and guarantees we can get what we need and what' sbest...bla bla bla Me: Well, then you are simply enslaving the children. Could you look a child in the eye and at least explain to them the implications and ask their permission before you sell their future wealth? BS: oh that's ridiculous. Me: I know, so you are taking without asking or you couldn't live with yourself to have to face them in the eye while you take their future wealth knowing they have no idea what's going on or the implications. Me: tell me, do you enjoy now having to pay for past decisions that use your tax dollars today but you receive no benefits for? BS: Huh? ME: Well, most of the income tax goes to interest on borrowed money and this is for things that were voted on when you and I were too young or not even born yet and certainly couldn't vote on. Those benefits have been used up, are not available for you and me and we are still paying for them. And you are sitting here complaining that our generation is out of money or it's unevenly distributed and we have no benefits or not enough. Don't you see the problem you are repeating? BS: yea but the money is spent anyway so what does it matter ME: that we can have some moral, ethical integrity and disciple to at least be the generation that stopped this cycle. Our elders sold our future and we feel now what that is like and you have no problem doing the same to the future? Are you giving any guarantee that they future who will be held to pay for this will have anything left for them or how long do you want this cycle to go on? BS: I guess I can see how paying for the past decisions I wasn't a part of didn't work well for this generation. Me: Exactly and if you have kids or think of having kids, this is the exact posiiton or feeling you will be heiring to them. Now you call yourself moral and good and altruistic. Do you think our elders were moral and good and altruisitc when they made these decisions for you to pay for? BS: absolutely not. Me: ok. so you can feel moral and good now but when your children grow up, they will see you as freeloading jerks as we see our elders. Bs: yea...I guess that's true. Sometimes I ask if they think money is private property. Typically...as leftists do...they ask me WHY I'm asking. That is so they can scan and try to sniff out any advantage and wiggle and move the goal posts. But I just ask them again until they leave the conversation or answer me. of course it always ends with them realizing that taxation is theft. Doesn't mean they will instantly switch to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism but at least they have come to terms with taxation is theft. ...always a good start.

In a resilient attempt to vaporize the hopes of anyone who have even a modicum of respect for sanity, the Swedish government has decided to try and help the lost and lonely refugees better acquaint themselves to Scandinavian lifestyles by giving them a full on taxpayer funded arms training course. Just in case you had any questions as to what the level of depravity and insanity is when it comes to those who wield the power of the state. Here you go. http://www.allehanda.se/angermanland/solleftea/laddade-for-prickskytte http://newobserveronline.com/sweden-state-funded-muslim-sniper-training/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM&persist_app=1&app=m

Came across this interview with an ex-KGB officer about the hidden warfare against freedom and truth as a whole. It's eerily prophetic seeing how it's from the 80's. It even makes strong allusions to the social justice warrior movement we see everywhere today. In the second video he presents in more detail this process of moral erosion. After watching these I feel like I'm living in a slowly sinking ship.

I understand that voluntarily voting in a eletction is morally unjustifiable as you are participating in the decision-making process of a force-initiating armed gang. It is also seen as consenting to be ruled over by the government. I have read some of the discussion about referendums on this forum (from 2007) and I get that voting in typical referendums (i.e. ones which are for a specific law) is in the same category as voting in elections. However, a new dimension is added when a referendum is not for a law, but for the actual abolition of a state (or in this case, not the full abolition of the British state of course but the abolition of its jurisdiction over Scotland). I live in Scotland and for me the issue is not (as it is for most here) a decision between voting yes or no to independence, but between voting yes or not at all. The way I see it, if I were to vote no, I'd be consenting to the rule of the British state, which over its history has given me a bounty of reasons never to do, so that's that option out the window. So, not voting means I'm not contributing to the chance of secession (assuming that the referendum isn't rigged of course, which we can never be sure of) but I do keep my full principled integrity by not consenting to be ruled over. On the other hand, voting yes increases the chance of having a more local government (yay) and practically, the state couldn't care less if I consent or not of course, but I do lose out on some principled integrity. Another factor which (to anyone who knows what the Scots are like) obviously doesn't phase the population of Scotland is the fact that it's a very, very socialist country and therefore any genuine democracy would result in the government becoming "larger" in the American sense. I'm not sure "big government" is ok just because it's geographically small. Anyway, I think I've expressed the fact that I'm in two minds about this well enough. I'd very much like to hear what people on here have to say about this, especially since there is nobody else who would actually understand this perspective or take it seriously. Apart from literally one friend, the only people I know here who oppose the state are "anarcho" communists so I'm not getting any useful feedback from them. So, to vote or not to vote?

The case for free tampons. Humorous and cutting video on feminist "issues" and "free"-dom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1TL8Sps1I&list=UUr3qf3JVwW_41j4LUQZtu9Q

This article wound up on my Facebook feed. Basically, the author wants everyone to feel guilty about happiness they find in a career or for creating jobs for people with low skills. Throw in some pity for academics, women, and the ever-exploited entry level worker. This paragraph makes me giggle every time (DWYL= do what you love): "Ironically, DWYL reinforces exploitation even within the so-called lovable professions where off-the-clock, underpaid, or unpaid labor is the new norm: reporters required to do the work of their laid-off photographers, publicists expected to Pin and Tweet on weekends, the 46 percent of the workforce expected to check their work email on sick days. Nothing makes exploitation go down easier than convincing workers that they are doing what they love." Snapping pictures! Pinning! Tweeting! Refreshing email! The man's keeping us down!

A very interesting, but not surprising outcome. I would certainly enjoy seeing more studies of this kind. What are your thoughts?http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457000

Theres a fella called Cameron, who hosts a channel called 'Libertarian Socialist Rants'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6a7WySFsUIt's got about 19,000 subscribers and he seems pretty popular, though his latest video about Feminism has put him lower on the scale thankfully...He believes that jobs should be collectively owned by the 'Workers' and that equality is more important than liberty and individualism.But what confuses me about his whole philosophy which he never seems to answer is... How can a free, anarchist society exist, and at the same time have a force involved that states that all businesses need to be collectively owned and managed?Surely an element of large force is necessary in order for businesses to go by those terms. Seriously the kids a nut.But could anyone give me any guidance or information on why An-Com is stupid?

I've been fielding a lot of questions on my channel about "the free market" and a common retort I get is an example of Big Corporations running wild -- that is, until you consider that the only reason they have all this power is because they made a bee line for the very government institution which is supposed to protect us from such excesses... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVVObVO59Y&list=UUmkSQppUOY6r7qd-sbcftBQ

This is the best thing I've seen in a long time. Just watch the videos on their channel & check out the website. All children should have these toys & this coupled with peaceful parenting will make awesome children. http://thekronies.com

Venezuelans, already struggling to find basics like milk and toilet paper at the supermarket, are now confronted with empty appliance store windows and clothes racks at shopping centers. Malls have become deserted in the oil-rich country, with stores straining under government-imposed limits on profits, rents and access to hard currency. Venezuelans have always loved to shop, even under a socialist-inspired government that frequently lambasts capitalism and consumerism. But in many shopping centers, stores are closing and the shelves are nearly empty in those that remain open. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/malls-empty-venezuela-economic-woes-184027250.html

I've looked around the internet for a solid critique of the 'Communist Manifesto' from a Laissez Faire position but have not found any (interestingly enough I found communist critiques if the book). So I have decided to write a page by page critique of the communist manifesto in the vain of Hazlitt's 'Failure of New Economics'. I'm about a quarter of the way through but I'm not sure where I could post the entire critique. If anyone knows of a good place to post it please reply to this. "There is a specter haunting America, it if the specter of AnarchoCapitalism" -Me

Read it and weep. Or laugh. Or be inspired? Just kidding. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-economic-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for-20140103 I need a nap.

I have an older brother who lives in England who loves socialism. Unlike him, I do not have a Doctorate in Philosophy I have an associates degree from a trade school in IT. He's returned to southern california and the inevitable debates have arisen when we meet: 1. You cannot rely on the market to solve your problems because it is 50/50 chance of a solution, where as a law will make people uncomfortable and force them to change. His example: Whether or not I have created a Dispute Resolution Agency, it is still fifty fifty that the girl abused by her father will get any immunity from such services, nor if they belong to a collective such as Christian Conservatives, abuse will be condoned and resources pulled will be aggregated towards a DRA that supports their views, where as a law will outlaw that. His secondary premise is that people are comfortable with things and nothing will get done if they are comfortable that's why there needs to be laws. 2. The reason why Compton sucks is evidence that the market has failed. Because they choose shitty services when they can choose better ones but don't. They cannot rely on fixing the neighborhoods the way England has. England uses social welfare to make sure that people get better and more humane treatment, because socialism helps people become liberated and individuals, and without that there would be no recovery. Even though these practices are corrupt he thinks you cant destroy something just because it is corrupt, because everything is corrupt. 3. You need a central authority because if you don't have it, people will hurt one another and some people may become exploited and not be able to market their skills and become solid individuals. He states something about how a free market company called Phil Jones Gas sucks and takes 24 hours to get a gas repairman which means icy cold death for people, when British gas does it right away, and that people can choose to use British Gas (socialized gas) but use Phil Jones because it is easier and it's already there, which means with no regulation people will get shittier service. 4. Redistribution is good because of John Lock's philosophy about property, which says it would inefficient to have people share everything and it would also be inefficient for people to have too much property. He also uses Plato and Aristotle to similarly make the claim the redistribution is good and necessary for the government to do. 5. Even though the government is corrupt, it must stay in place because no one will have any order without it. Regulations are good and what keep things fair. After hearing these revolting 5 points, I must say, it's much too difficult to argue, I know it's wrong, I can't allow it to go unchecked, and I hear now that my brother want's to get into politics in England. What kind of counters does everyone see in some of these points, I apologize already if it is hastily typed, I can try to clarify on any of the points. Thanks guys.

Russell Brand hasn't voted and can see the corrupting of the system... his solution is "egalitarian socialism"... He's a popular celebrity in the UK, trending and well worth a Stef-stab? His article: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution