Pornography and the First Amendment

[richardbaxter]

The First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. On what basis does the first amendment (freedom of speech) apply to pornography? Is their message that ineffable? The first amendment makes no reference to general expression (for example art); it only references religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and petitions to government.

2. What would the writers of the amendment have to say? (At best their intentions had been exploited by lawyers; at worst hijacked by the unprincipled).

3. If a message cannot be put into words does it really exist (or is it really worth protecting under a constitution)?

4. Not all of what has been purported as capitalism is the free market at all, it is dehumanisation. To intentionally misrepresent a human being in the name of capitalism is no better than doing so in the name of nationalism, or communism.

5. If people stood up for this truth then they wouldn't risk being seen as hypocrites. Socialists would have no moral ground to stand on.

6. Civilisation is built on clothing: where prostitution (virtual or otherwise) becomes normalised, there is no future for liberty.

These are my arguments - feel free to counter.

[Wuzzums]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Is it that pornography should be banned because it capitalizes on dehumanization?

[Tyler H]

Even if you accept the Constitution as a valid contractual document, its purpose was to enumerate the powers granted to the government, not to enumerate freedoms granted to the people. The restrictions on government mentioned in the amendments were an attempt to prevent abuse of those powers. 

 

Is it your contention that sex for resources is immoral and should be forcibly restricted by the government?

[Songbirdo]

20 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

The First Amendment reads:
1. On what basis does the first amendment (freedom of speech) apply to pornography? Is their message that ineffable? The first amendment makes no reference to general expression (for example art); it only references religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and petitions to government.

2. What would the writers of the amendment have to say? (At best their intentions had been exploited by lawyers; at worst hijacked by the unprincipled).

3. If a message cannot be put into words does it really exist (or is it really worth protecting under a constitution)?

4. Not all of what has been purported as capitalism is the free market at all, it is dehumanisation. To intentionally misrepresent a human being in the name of capitalism is no better than doing so in the name of nationalism, or communism.

5. If people stood up for this truth then they wouldn't risk being seen as hypocrites. Socialists would have no moral ground to stand on.

6. Civilisation is built on clothing: where prostitution (virtual or otherwise) becomes normalised, there is no future for liberty.

These are my arguments - feel free to counter.

1.) Does a deaf person have freedom of speech? They communicate non-verbally. Speech is the expression in any form and therefore encompasses art.

2.) I'd argue they would say the government shouldn't be involved - it is a social issue, not a state issue.

3.) Is that in reference to "I can't define pornography, but I know when I see it."? Or is that saying visual-only communication shouldn't be covered as free speech? Ever read a novel describing sex? You can translate porn into a written message if that's your measuring stick. Saying it cannot be written down is just incorrect.

4.) 18 year old girls sign up and masturbate on camera from their own homes. They make pretty damn good and easy money doing so. Their lack of "civilized" career prospects is offset by their good looks or willingness to perform a niche fetish for disturbed individuals. How is that -not- capitalism?

5.) Incoherent and unrelated sentences. What are you trying to say?

6.) -That- is the defining feature of civilization? Clothes? I don't understand your reasoning. Are nude beaches uncivilized? If I'm walking around my house naked at 2 A.M., am being I uncivilized? When I shower am I uncivilized? When I have sex with my wife am I uncivilized? What exactly do clothes have to do with civilization?

[richardbaxter]

I am suggesting that there is no reason the US constitution should be subverted to protect pornography. Here is some clarification of the arguments;

1. I completely reject the possibility of historical interpretation of a constitution (apart from the time in which it was created), and I think it is more than slightly concerning that so many qualifications have occurred since 1900 (http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does). Why should precedent have any place in constitutional interpretation? The point of precedent is to allow evolution of law and constitutions are precisely designed to prevent evolution of their law. If any changes are to be made, amendments should be proposed.

The constitution should be interpreted literally, and if this means having to accept the reality that a population which will crush each other to death in the race to escape an imaginary fire is not worth saving (or must otherwise put some effort into finding someone guilty for murder for knowingly risking the lives of a group of people for no explicable reason - without any reference to free speech), then we should deal with it. Is the right to salute or burn the American flag worth changing (reinterpreting) the constitution over?

Taking a constitution as up for interpretation might have all the good intention in the world behind it, but it is exceedingly dangerous.

2. What would the writers of the first amendment think now that it is being used to protect dehumanisation under the guise of artistic value; and that under the guise of speech?

The writers were not infallible, but it is equally worth noting that any changes we make (reinterpretations we assert) are equally infallible. Thus I am rejecting one such reinterpretation (and all others in the name of risk management and proper procedure) while specifying my reasons for the rejection. The only grounds for not paying attention to our modifications appears to be a blind progressivism. A more cautious approach may have stopped any such fallacies from arising to begin with.

3. The pinnacle case is Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938); extending "the press" to "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion". The fundamental limitation is that not all publications which afford a vehicle of information and opinion exclusively afford information and opinion.

Roth vs United States (1957) and Miller vs California (1973) were introduced to prevent this new freedom from implicitly extending to "obscene" publications, but it was unsurprisingly impossible to objectively define "obscenity". Instead of upholding the constitution (by only deeming it relevant to the publication of information/opinions), they extended it to all forms of media with some arbitrary (completely relative) qualifier regarding artistic or social value.

Again, there is a difference between creating amendments (eg the abolition of slavery - 13), or extending the specific voting base and changing (reinterpreting) the constitution. 

Going from freedom of speech to freedom of artistic expression might sound great until one recalls that individuals have quite enjoyed the artistry of experimenting on human subjects. And their subjects might have even enjoyed some of those experiments. Playing with such generalisations is a Pandora's box. 

Moreover, it invites the state to make endless qualifications in a growing pantheon of restrictions; which will eventually contradict each other as is occurring now.  

4. Most people who support the practice of paying monkeys to dress up for sexual gratification do so in the name of the free market/capitalism (assuming they haven't been arrested by an animal rights group). But dehumanisation is the same no matter which system of economics one adheres to.

There is nothing good or moral achieved by upholding a right to the publication of such non-information, and confounding constitutional rights with a right to precipitate dehumanisation (rather than the right to discuss dehumanisation) damages the reputation and subverts the intentions of the constitution.

5. Socialists with any moral fortitude detest modern day "capitalism" on grounds of sexual commodification, and l suggest that removing such commodification eliminates any moral basis to socialism.

6. I am specifically referring to the normalisation of prostitution (virtual or otherwise). Prostitution may have existed in a large number of societies but in any of these where it became normalised (the norm) they had not liberty or a future; certainly not a future for liberty.

[jimofflorida]

1. freedom of speech is either a freedom or it is not; nothing with regard to pornography invokes a call to action that may even remotely be considered something to regulate

what consenting adults decide to do with other consenting adults, well, that is up to them. While I certainly do NOT agree with the current trend of "sex is the equivalent of a handshake with a stranger" attitude that is rather pervasive, they are not actually hurting anybody but themselves. It is less harmful I think than much of the "free speech" trash that comes from movies or, heaven help us, "reality TV" shows.

I exclude from the term pornography anything that is a crime.. because its a crime already!!  Inability to give "consent"...crime!! involving a minor...crime!!

2. I think the writers were truly men of genius as is; they created a document that contained many concepts that, at the time they wrote  them were very forward looking. If they looked at what we have done in the past 50-60years they would probably declare the government is complete out of control and we (the voters) let it get that way when they put a lot of effort in making sure we did not fall into that trap!  and then they would call us idiots and leave.

3. The fact that we are putting this discussing into words would appear to contradict the statement. That said, what is very likely is that the idea of pornography is not a consistent concept across any group of people. It is highly subjective and so while you can define it, you can only do so for smaller groups. Pornography does exist base don each individuals experiences ,it does not have innate sociological response like, say murder or even assault (although, once again, even what one group views as assault can very greatly from another).

4. people make money based on their resources; sometimes that is intellectual, sometimes (ok, often) it is luck, sometimes it is looks...it is still their resource they are using. I certainly feel bad for my sons that they need to work for a living but an 18yr attractive girl will rarely buy a drink or meal, have to change a tire, and can marry a billionaire hehe

5. not sure what you are aiming at with this

6. society is wayyyyy more than clothing. It is an extremely complicated set of social reactions to situations. Some universal within a country down to some that exists only with a small neighborhood or even household. One of the great weakness that pervade america today is that the rest of the world follows our social rules;  Yes, another failing of american education...

 

While you may call something "dehumanizing" others call it a successful career! They are not ashamed and while it may be the kind of career that many disrespect, well, I consider ambulance chasing lawyers far worse than pornographic actors.  I would much prefer time and effort be spent on bigger issues: american citizens going hungry (no, we cannot feed the world until each citizen has been fed), an education system that is second to, well, everyone now; and a huge percentage of the population that do not participate in the workforce because they do not seem to have or even want to. We have veterans that should be getting the best medical care and be first in any line if there are benefits to be handed out. We have a social system that is rewarding the uneducated to have many more children than they can ever afford to care for.The list goes on and on... the very core of what America "was" is being attacked at the foundation.

bottom line in my old geezer opinion, a little nudity and consensual naughty activities is, well, just not even showing up on the old critical meter. Which of course means the federal government should have no business in it at all.

 

[Wuzzums]

5 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

5. Socialists with any moral fortitude detest modern day "capitalism" on grounds of sexual commodification, and l suggest that removing such commodification eliminates any moral basis to socialism.

6. I am specifically referring to the normalisation of prostitution (virtual or otherwise). Prostitution may have existed in a large number of societies but in any of these where it became normalised (the norm) they had not liberty or a future; certainly not a future for liberty.

So we can only keep liberty by taking away the liberty of owning your own body? And this avoids socialism, how?

[Tyler H]

So what is your ideal scenario here; preventing dehumanization?  Or punishing people for violating a standard to which you adhere?  

 

 

 

 

In regards to the Constitution, just in case anyone is interested, Lysander Spooner argued quite cogently against it's validity shortly after the Civil War in his essay No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.  Here is the introduction.

Quote

NO TREASON
No. VI.
THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.

I.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.

[mgggb]

On 4/16/2017 at 9:36 PM, richardbaxter said:

The First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. On what basis does the first amendment (freedom of speech) apply to pornography? Is their message that ineffable? The first amendment makes no reference to general expression (for example art); it only references religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and petitions to government.

2. What would the writers of the amendment have to say? (At best their intentions had been exploited by lawyers; at worst hijacked by the unprincipled).

3. If a message cannot be put into words does it really exist (or is it really worth protecting under a constitution)?

4. Not all of what has been purported as capitalism is the free market at all, it is dehumanisation. To intentionally misrepresent a human being in the name of capitalism is no better than doing so in the name of nationalism, or communism.

5. If people stood up for this truth then they wouldn't risk being seen as hypocrites. Socialists would have no moral ground to stand on.

6. Civilisation is built on clothing: where prostitution (virtual or otherwise) becomes normalised, there is no future for liberty.

These are my arguments - feel free to counter.

Does the first amendment allow for pornography? Meh, probably, the constitution is designed to restrain the power of government, not be an exhaustive list of rights granted to the public, but who cares. I never signed that social contract so I don't respect it as legitimate. 

That said, virtue only exists in the face of abstaining from vice--there'd be no such thing as sobriety if alcohol wasn't cheaply available at every corner store. 

So I'd say it's probably a net benefit. Virtue has to be difficult to obtain. It's not a virtue to abstain from rubbing the head of your penis with sand paper, but now it can be legitimately claimed that chastity is a virtue with the ease of access to virtually unlimited hd porn and the prevalence/normalization of hookup culture. 

[mgggb]

On 4/20/2017 at 6:18 PM, Tyler H said:

In regards to the Constitution, just in case anyone is interested, Lysander Spooner argued quite cogently against it's validity shortly after the Civil War in his essay No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.  Here is the introduction.

Wow that brings me back. Spooner was one of the first things I read that started me on my current path. I thought I'd try to be a really edgy contrarian and write an essay for history class just to mess with the teacher. This was one of the sources I found. Turned out to be a rabbit hole with no bottom yet in sight. 

[Tyler H]

2 hours ago, mgggb said:

Wow that brings me back. Spooner was one of the first things I read that started me on my current path. I thought I'd try to be a really edgy contrarian and write an essay for history class just to mess with the teacher. This was one of the sources I found. Turned out to be a rabbit hole with no bottom yet in sight. 

Haha, nice!

'Tis a rabbit hole indeed.

[Erwin]

(One of) the premises to your argument is the validity of Muh-Constitution, which I completely reject.

Muh-Constitution is at the end of the day, just paper. If your society is founded on merely paper, then your society is on very shaky grounds. It is no surprise that Muh-Constitution has failed to achieve almost all of its intended purposes. Sooner or later, the biological realities of r/k selection, race, and IQ will take their course.

Among all k-selected races, pornography had - up until 30 years ago - been seen as immoral as it is a close substitute for actual sex, which allows men sexual gratification without having to pay a woman with commitment, resources, kids, etc. When we let Muh-Constitution dictate our norms, foreign norms can potentially become normalized. There is only one group of people whose survival relies on the degeneracy of whites by normalizing behaviors that are seen as immoral, and that is the ((( Jews ))). Incidentally, ((( they ))) are the only group of people who openly take pride in controlling the porn industry. The solution to the Jewish problem is the solution to porn, as we would return to ostracizing porn consumption.

[mgggb]

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

(One of) the premises to your argument is the validity of Muh-Constitution, which I completely reject.

Muh-Constitution is at the end of the day, just paper. If your society is founded on merely paper, then your society is on very shaky grounds. It is no surprise that Muh-Constitution has failed to achieve almost all of its intended purposes. Sooner or later, the biological realities of r/k selection, race, and IQ will take their course.

Among all k-selected races, pornography had - up until 30 years ago - been seen as immoral as it is a close substitute for actual sex, which allows men sexual gratification without having to pay a woman with commitment, resources, kids, etc. When we let Muh-Constitution dictate our norms, foreign norms can potentially become normalized. There is only one group of people whose survival relies on the degeneracy of whites by normalizing behaviors that are seen as immoral, and that is the ((( Jews ))). Incidentally, ((( they ))) are the only group of people who openly take pride in controlling the porn industry. The solution to the Jewish problem is the solution to porn, as we would return to ostracizing porn consumption.

Muh Jewish problem is silly. The merchant might be selling but the goy is still buying. Also, jews aren't monolithic. 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, mgggb said:

The merchant might be selling but the goy is still buying.

The goyim never bought public education and public media, which present pornography as a norm to young teenagers and if you disagree you're a white judgmental deplorable bigot. So of course, when you are raised by the government from young age  - as most people are - which cucks its own people to the ((( Jews ))), then of course you will be cultureless. You will see nothing wrong with pornography if its been normalized the whole time.

1 hour ago, mgggb said:

Also, jews aren't monolithic.

Monolothic... like... say... education, media, banks, Jewish state, porn, and the greatest lie ever told known as Hitler?

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

The solution to the Jewish problem is the solution to porn, as we would return to ostracizing porn consumption

What solution is that?

[Erwin]

Just now, Tyler H said:

What solution is that?

I don't know what the solution is yet, but I'm actually exploring for NAP-compliant solutions. If I come to a falsifiable conclusion, then I'll definitely post my theory / evidence.

[mgggb]

29 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The goyim never bought public education and public media, which present pornography as a norm to young teenagers and if you disagree you're a white judgmental deplorable bigot. So of course, when you are raised by the government from young age  - as most people are - which cucks its own people to the ((( Jews ))), then of course you will be cultureless. You will see nothing wrong with pornography if its been normalized the whole time.

If you're going to be this much of an edge Lord you'd better learn to use the echoes correctly. They're supposed to imply jews like (((reporters))). Just putting the word jew with the echoes is improper form since you're not implying anything as you already named them. 

 

In your world whites have no agency. No, whites want to watch porn so they seek it out. They want to be told comfortable lies so they seek out msm. If whites didn't want to partake in whatever degeracy makes you want to clutch your pearls then they wouldn't do it. For instance, there is no amount of (((influence))) that could make you think rubbing the head of your penis with sand paper is beneficial. Hence, the merchant is only selling because the goy is buying. 

39 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Monolothic... like... say... education, media, banks, Jewish state, porn, and the greatest lie ever told known as Hitler?

3edgy 5me. Of course there's a lot of jews in education, media, banks, etc. Those all require high iqs to succeed and the average Jewish iq is 15 points above the average. But again, the merchant is only selling what the goy is willing to buy. 

[Erwin]

39 minutes ago, mgggb said:

In your world whites have no agency. No, whites want to watch porn so they seek it out. They want to be told comfortable lies so they seek out msm. If whites didn't want to partake in whatever degeracy makes you want to clutch your pearls then they wouldn't do it.

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.

39 minutes ago, mgggb said:

For instance, there is no amount of (((influence))) that could make you think rubbing the head of your penis with sand paper is beneficial. Hence, the merchant is only selling because the goy is buying.

Tell that to Africans who mutilate their genitalia because they think it is beneficial.

39 minutes ago, mgggb said:

Of course there's a lot of jews in education, media, banks, etc. Those all require high iqs to succeed and the average Jewish iq is 15 points above the average. But again, the merchant is only selling what the goy is willing to buy. 

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.

Of course there's a lot of jews in education, media, banks, etc. Those all require high iqs to succeed and the average Jewish iq is 15 points above the average.

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?"

[Siegfried von Walheim]

16 hours ago, Erwin said:

I don't know what the solution is yet, but I'm actually exploring for NAP-compliant solutions. If I come to a falsifiable conclusion, then I'll definitely post my theory / evidence.

Theoretically AnCap would work best to undue control from undesirable groups because AnCap by it's own nature gives the most resources to the most K-selected, therefore r-selected adherents to degeneracy and its promoters (be they Jews or otherwise) would shrink over time.

The most peaceful way to upgrade the White race is to let the bad Whites be bad (and suffer the consequences) and let the good Whites be good, 'cause Mother Nature is very fair insofar as she blesses with the most resources to the most K-selected among us. 

As far as porn is concerned, I think it's really a great benefit to humanity because it takes away a very powerful weapon from both women and men who use sex as a substitute for good character. 

Just think about it; if you can get the thrill of orgasm without risking an STD, rape case, etc. from having sex with a random crazy person, why not? By satisfying those urges manually we protect ourselves from being manipulated by evil and crazy people. It makes it easier for men and women to abstain from sex until they meet the great K selected people for whom sex ought to be given to as the best fit for furthering familial survival.

Stefanism (peaceful parenting and RTR) is most easily followed when sex is taken out of the equation. Crazy women (from a man's side) stand out glaringly when men aren't being suffocated in hormones to overlook their crazy, and therefore sane women get the positive male attention. Vice versa also applies. 

In short; porn is wonderful; it promotes K-selection by disarming sexually attractive but dangerous demons! 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 4/20/2017 at 6:18 PM, Tyler H said:

In regards to the Constitution, just in case anyone is interested, Lysander Spooner argued quite cogently against it's validity shortly after the Civil War in his essay No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.  Here is the introduction.

That's quite the article, and a very strong argument.

You know I was never taught anything about this in my government-sponsored public school education...I wonder why.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

15 hours ago, Erwin said:

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.

In these cases that's true, however it relies on the premise that the State is Jewish rather than simply a collection of monsters that happens to have an overrepresentation of Jews relative to their population.

However in terms of the merchant selling, anything Statist is better analogized to a mafia 'offering'. 

15 hours ago, Erwin said:

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?"

That's something I've wondered as well. I have never known a dumb Jew but I also haven't known many Jews, as there aren't that many of them.

I'm sure they're at least as high as the average White because...well, stupid people don't over-represent in their countries. However it is known there is a strong in-group preference among Jews, therefore I'm sure even slow Jews get ahead because they know somebody. 

And of course not all Jews are shysters, the main man behind modern AnCap is a Jew and Stefan Molyneux may be part Jewish himself, thereby "redeeming" them collectively as good Jews are making themselves more visible as if to "cancel out" the bad Jews. 

In general Jews have some of the best survival instincts and I imagine the reason why they're so over-represented in government and governmental-touched areas is because they're the safest areas to make the most bang and buck both individually and collectively, as most Jews have well-established families and kin-groups that help advance each other. Plus some Jewish sects tend to be pretty Islamic about their dogma and those sects in particular are very much the pro-self and anti-non-self racists.

 

[ofd]

There are two sides to a kosher sandwich. No matter if left or right (or libertarian), jewish led groups that teach those positions have the same structure and intend the same outcome. There is a rabbi at the top (Alisa Rosenbaum / Sigmund Freud), whose scriptures are studied like the word of god, who cannot be critisized. Every detail of every day life is prescribed to you. Dissidents will be punished harshly and be pushed out (Nathaniel Branden / CG Jung). The goals are very similar too, weakening the society by attacking institutions that stabilize it and let it progress (marriage, traditional role models, relation between children and parents).

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

In short; porn is wonderful; it promotes K-selection by disarming sexually attractive but dangerous demons! 

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.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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.

And those who do are r-selected and signalling that to high quality men looking for a real woman. How is it a bad thing for low-quality people to signal themselves as low quality?

I prefer that to the guy who pretends to be a millionaire but is in actuality in debt millions of dollars and in signing that contract I am doomed to pay it back for him. 

 

2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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.

Yes, people who go for prostitutes (said to be the oldest profession in history) are r-selected and obtain the STDs that'll sterilize them. If consequences meant anything (i.e. there were no welfare state) then these people would die off, or change their behavior. 

Men who seek prostitutes are signalling to high quality women that they're degenerate. Women who whore themselves out are signalling sex is all they're good for, and porn makes the judgement easy to make because K-selected men are no longer desperate for sex like every other hormonal male (or female for the reverse).

Therefore Porn=r-Selection Detector and Disarmament. r-Selection Detector & Disarmament = K-Selected easier to fulfil.

Without masturbation in general, low quality hotties dominate the relationship market. By calling porn anti-K, you are serving the interest of whores for whom sex is their only value. 

Do you understand the point I'm making? Porn disarms hot messes, prostitution (both the "formal" kind and the "buy me shit and I'll put out" kind) signals a red flag for all to see, and it's easiest to tell if a man or woman is a prostitute when you've just rubbed one off a few hours ago. It's much harder (both literally and metaphorically) when big blue eyes and nice curves are masking the underlying crazy. 

Taking sex out of the equation via porn is a great way to empower men and women to choose their wives/husbands based on character rather than sex appeal.

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

it relies on the premise that the State is Jewish rather than simply a collection of monsters that happens to have an overrepresentation of Jews relative to their population.

Unless those Jews serve the same purpose they have always served: being the middlemen (for Israel lobbyists in the case of the State).

7 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

the main man behind modern AnCap is a Jew and Stefan Molyneux may be part Jewish himself

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)?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Just now, Erwin said:

Unless those Jews serve the same purpose they have always served: being the middlemen (for Israel lobbyists in the case of the State).

 

Every politician is a lobbyist for someone, and ultimately for themselves. Jewish politicians are mainly special because they have a sense of ethnic and religious loyalty that most politicians do not. Similar to the idea not everyone in a group can be blamed for X unless you only count the ones who did X, I can't say Jews are the problem because only some Jews (whether a majority or loud minority I do not know) are, and functionally they're just as bad as our fellow countrymen as Statists and parasites because, well, regardless of who's under the suit a politician is a politician. A gangster is a gangster. Some gangsters are just better at it than others, but not all Jews are gangsters.

On the case that our American government is Zionist, well that's obvious. Jews are a wealthy group of people, therefore they have influence over the gangsters who take money in exchange for doing favors. The Jews (which we call Zionists because every Zionist is a Zionist whereas not every Jew is a Zionist) who manipulate Americans are naturally against us but not evil because they're doing it for their race and religion. And a big problem is that our government is the ultimate prostitute and will whore itself to any radical group with money and materials to help the individual termites of State attain political power. 

The long-term solution to this is the abolition of state, or at least the abolition of Republicanism. Monarchism is harder to buy out because it's members are hereditary rather than elected.

Just now, Erwin said:

Which is why I'm not surprised it took Stefan years to connect the dots that us fashy goyim have known for a while.

He was as indoctrinated about race, IQ, etc. as everyone else was/is. Murray Rothbard invented (or at least in it's current form invented) a great idea, Stefan took it miles further with his great books Practical Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behavior.

 

Just now, Erwin said:

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)?

I'm not objecting to that, in fact I think building a White ethnostate is the best thing we can do to preserve our way of life, K-selection, and overall build the great AnCap that many of us dream of. 

As to how to get there, I figure it'll be a combination of political strongmen, civil crisis, and a group of leaders who followed the ideals of peaceful parenting, K-selection, and RTR.

I'd argue further that enthostates based on specific ethnicities (German, English, Russian, etc.) are the ideal for establishing AnCap, and for us Americans redefining "American" by creating a White Ethnostate here would be ideal for us in particular given many of our ancestries are mixed of various European ethnic groups. 

I doubt the government will ever establish our ethnostate, at least not unless we co-opt it with Nationalists, Capitalists, and AnCaps. It'll be a slow process but it'll be worth it for our (K-selected) White children, (K-selected) White descendants, and K-selected ideals become the new world order for the West. 

And I emphasize "K-selected" because r-selected Whites are just as bad as any other r-selected group--better off weeded out of the gene pool and most easily and painlessly done in AnCap. 

[Erwin]

3 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

And those who do are r-selected and signalling that to high quality men looking for a real woman. How is it a bad thing for low-quality people to signal themselves as low quality?

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). 

[Erwin]

15 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I doubt the government will ever establish our ethnostate, at least not unless we co-opt it with Nationalists, Capitalists, and AnCaps.

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 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

50 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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). 

r and K selection is hereditary, largely anyway. Not totally but stats say it's definitely largely genetic.  Low rent women and men who sell out and die off are doing us a favor. High quality people are all that matter.

If you don't know r/K, you don't know that it's pretty binary. Either you are tempted by promiscuity and degeneracy, or you find it immensely repulsive. You can try to switch over ( I come from an r-Selected background myself) but it's rare and usually the long-term transformation process goes several generations.

Gene death is preferable to low quality Whites. I'd rather see my race die than live on as apes. 

However that's unlikely. Even if 90% of Whites are r-Selected, the remaining 10% will redeem them by taking over and promoting policies favorable to them (and AnCap is the surest and most effective way of doing that. Under our current system, it's best we simply hold our nose at the r-Selected, find a K-selected partner, make a slew of babies and raise them well, and build communities around shared values and long-term creation).

K-selected women by definition won't sell out to r-selected men. Letting the r-selected women who'd hide themselves by pretending to be K-selected (which is historically how Europe evolved, with r-selected genes pretending to be K-selected with only some of them really becoming that way over time) be themselves is the best thing for our race. It shines a big spotlight and will inevitably divide the race into at least two parts: The Few Good Whites who'll build and control the future; the Many Bad Whites who'll be the future serfs and die off lest they don't change their ways and upgrade. 

I don't care for women who can't commit to r-selection. I only care for women who are truly K-selected. Abolishing (or abstaining from) porn will not improve the behavior of r-selected men or women, it'll just make it easier for them to snatch horny fence-sitters (who might make up the biggest third) who'd otherwise rub one off and look for quality.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Changed a word to make it mean more what I wanted it to mean.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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 next 

Yeah, an r-selected and degenerate regime pretending to be K-selected.

I left the Hitler club definitively after learning about the Lebensborn Program, look it up if you haven't heard of it.

It's basically a welfare state for whores, promoting all the r-selection that'd inevitably pollute and destroy the German race the same way r-selected shysters do now.

 

EDIT: It's likely to happen either way. Hopefully this time we can make it K-selected by fact rather than just r-selected and a travesty. If only Stef were an American politician, I'd love it if he declared himself The Leader of the AnCap Party and went about building Kekistan.

[Erwin]

9 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

r and K selection is hereditary, largely anyway

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!

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

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!

Now that's interesting. I was also basing off of Stef's videos as well as the studies he occasionally tweets. Perhaps I got my information from from either his tweeted studies or his videos on the subject specifically. Perhaps you missed the point or I am falsely remembering it, but I'm sure it is at least partially hereditary as that would explain why people are so hard to change and fundementally remain the same within given boundaries.

Politically it's easy to characterize the Democrats and Republicans as general Left/Right, however there is also "conformation level" I've heard used to compare the different K-selected behaviors of Whites and East Asians. Basically some people are high conformist (which is why China has had relatively few civil wars compared to Europe, but the civil wars they have had were very bloody and resulted in systems not that different from before) and others low conformist (which is why countries like England had a civil war practically every 100 years, with each war being not that bloody by comparison and resulting in significantly different systems). 

I'd have to look into the Adaptive Strategies thing a bit more to give a fair analysis, however I think they could both be true as it's easy to divide people in two groups with only a few consistent differences (mainly the K-selected tend to be very familial and long-term planning, while the r-selected live in the moment only and can't plan beyond the next five minutes) and also not all K-selected people behave the same (easy contrast being the no-beating no-abusing Stef with the rather abusive Ted Cruz. Both are K-selected and interested in doing the best their families in the long run, but one is willing to make a 180* turn from what he grew up with while the other is most likely only somewhat different from his background, reflecting the idea that some Ks are very conformist while others are willing to take radical risks. 

Still, on the main subject, I think I must emphasize that we cannot change the r-selected by giving them more power and license to continue being r-selected. Disarming them is a sure-fire way to force a change over generations. This can be seen both positively (in White people being more diplomatic than they used to be) and negatively (in White people have less and less sense of self and group than they used to) over the last 100 years. 

 

[Erwin]

42 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah, an r-selected and degenerate regime pretending to be K-selected.

I left the Hitler club definitively after learning about the Lebensborn Program, look it up if you haven't heard of it.

It's basically a welfare state for whores, promoting all the r-selection that'd inevitably pollute and destroy the German race the same way r-selected shysters do now.

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?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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?

Simple, because that's welfare. By caring for the offspring of loose sex and their mothers, they effectively funded and promoted single motherhood and the degeneracy born of such. While it could be post-war propaganda on this part, I remember reading it being said that German men were encouraged to impregnate a woman before leaving the war. A very r-selected way of increasing the national population which when combined with the relieving of consequences of single motherhood (Lebensborn), it fights against the natural shrinkage and gene death of the r-selected animal in K-selected society. 

Therefore, it is essentially identical to the modern welfare state which makes single motherhood a viable option and promotes bad women to breed freely, and fence-sitters to be bad. 

[Erwin]

31 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

While it could be post-war propaganda on this part, I remember reading it being said that German men were encouraged to impregnate a woman before leaving the war

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.

39 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Simple, because that's welfare. By caring for the offspring of loose sex and their mothers, they effectively funded and promoted single motherhood and the degeneracy born of such. 

[snip]

Therefore, it is essentially identical to the modern welfare state which makes single motherhood a viable option and promotes bad women to breed freely, and fence-sitters to be bad. 

How could Lebensborn been a viable option for single mothers if german women didn't know it existed?