Pornography and the First Amendment

[Siegfried von Walheim]

9 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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.

Eh, I have no idea anymore and it isn't relevant enough for me to dig up and determine who's reliable and who isn't. I just assume the Jews exaggerate because they were the obvious victims, and it's probably only half as murderous as it was. Still bad but not that bad. After all there must be some truth to it otherwise the rumors wouldn't...

...but then again with enough lies told repeatedly and consistently a whole false narrative can be created. Either way WWII was a disaster for everyone (save the Communists and, possibly, the Zionists who were having a hard time in Palestine) involved and it could be said H-man was a little too trigger happy and not diplomatic enough to solve his border disputes. 

Meanwhile the word "Socialist" is a bit of a red flag in the name "National Socialist" that strongly implies how they ran their country (into the ground). If they were National Capitalist and waited a few decades, and if Hitler was a family man with heirs, then maybe the regime could have been something special instead of bloody and one failed government interventionist program after another. 

 

Quote

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

They didn't? From what I know thousands used the program to their advantage and it was popular among the SS Rabbit Boys. 

That certainly changes the scale of the damage, however it doesn't change the intent and effect. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[Erwin]

7 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Meanwhile the word "Socialist" is a bit of a red flag in the name "National Socialist" that strongly implies how they ran their country (into the ground).

Actually, Hitler did say that it was an "unfortunate choice of words", due to its association with actual socialism. That's not what he actually meant.

Looking at Hitler's actions in the economy, he privatized the heck out of the German economy, used tariffs to get welfare recipients back into the labor market, inflation dropped, and real incomes rose fast.

Hmm... Why does all that sound familiar... 

14 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

They didn't? From what I know thousands used the program to their advantage and it was popular among the SS Rabbit Boys. 

That certainly changes the scale of the damage, however it doesn't change the intent and effect. 

Well all the google sources say it was a secret program. And the SS Rabbit Boys were.... well... SS. I'm sure they were privy to certain things that the populace wasn't.

In any case, it proves that german girls didn't have anything to fall back on, as far as they knew. So how could it affect their behavior?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Actually, Hitler did say that it was an "unfortunate choice of words", due to its association with actual socialism. That's not what he actually meant.

Looking at Hitler's actions in the economy, he privatized the heck out of the German economy, used tariffs to get welfare recipients back into the labor market, inflation dropped, and real incomes rose fast.

I'm not sure. When Stef interviewed a guy in an old-ish video named "How Adolf Hitler Destroyed Germany", they guy mentioned price controls and how that created massive shortages and overabundance.

It's possible Hitler's policies were beneficial in the short-run, but with price controls his system is essentially just a smarter version of Socialism but still produces the same bad effects in the long run. 

Again I haven't listened to the video in a while and I'd recommend you give it a chance, but the idea that Germany was doing pretty good under Hitler, and would have stayed doing pretty good, contradicts the idea of price controls and Fascistic-style corporatism (which is to say, government paying businesses to produce X Y or Z instead of seizing it and attempting to do it themselves).

 

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Hmm... Why does all that sound familiar... 

Lol sounds a bit like what Trump's slowly doing, but in his case it's looking to be a temporary relief and one likely to crash to due the insanity over at the Federal Reserve and other things. 

Possibly similar as to why Hitler's economic policies, which I knew to include price controls and corporatism, were doomed to eventually crash.

Slightly off topic but the fact he didn't make a family is also a big negative in the long run, as clearly the only way the NatSoc's were going to stick around peacefully was through hereditary dictatorship.

 

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Well all the google sources say it was a secret program. And the SS Rabbit Boys were.... well... SS. I'm sure they were privy to certain things that the populace wasn't.

True, but I don't that was helping them in the long run. I mean, have a lot of young fighting age guys essentially remain with that mindset without the taming benefits of family life and the added sociopathy that comes with the military life, and you have a recipe for disaster for reasons similar as to why the Brown Shirts where getting out of hand.

 

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

In any case, it proves that german girls didn't have anything to fall back on, as far as they knew. So how could it affect their behavior?

Quite simply those that actually did and were provided for would raise children in that environment and over time it would grow either via gossip or simply via births in the program that would slowly poison the system. Besides hypothetically Adolf V Gustav in 2050 could use it as a campaign tool similarly to how the welfare state is used by Leftists.

A whole lot of programs would need removing or modifying for long-term viability.

The only part I really still think worked out was Albert Speer because he's pretty much the biggest genius among them--capable of both civilian work and keeping a massive war sustained. If a new group looking to build a White ethnostate had an Albert Speer they'd be golden as I'm sure he'd lay down the foundations (D.R.O.'s, C.D.A.'s, the stuff that'd replace State police and armies) for abdicating and abolishing government. 

[Erwin]

11 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

mentioned price controls

I totally forgot about that

12 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Quite simply those that actually did and were provided for would raise children in that environment and over time it would grow either via gossip or simply via births in the program that would slowly poison the system

Touché

[Tyler H]

5 hours ago, Erwin said:

If the NAP is not violated when violence is used for defensive purposes, then why object to the use of government to

Because the government is NAP violation incarnate. 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Because the government is NAP violation incarnate. 

The NAP doesn't apply under coercion. So by definition, the use of government is perfectly NAP-compliant if it used against itself, or some other coercive force.

[Mister Mister]

On 5/19/2017 at 8:50 AM, 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.

The solution to the Jewish and all other problems of race is to have an open and honest conversation about it in society.

[Tyler H]

On 5/20/2017 at 9:05 PM, Erwin said:

The NAP doesn't apply under coercion.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

[Erwin]

35 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

As in, the use of force (whether or not through government) is perfectly NAP-compliant in self-defense (i.e. as a means to defend against coercion).

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

As in, the use of force (whether or not through government) is perfectly NAP-compliant in self-defense (i.e. as a means to defend against coercion).

But the government is always the first initiator.  It's funded by coercion, so advocating for any government program is advocating for the violation of the NAP. 

 

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Tyler H said:

But the government is always the first initiator.

This is very much like a "guns kill people" argument. Government can do nothing without the people behind it.

7 hours ago, Tyler H said:

It's funded by coercion, so advocating for any government program is advocating for the violation of the NAP.

Even a government program to cut government programs?

Even a government program to stop our genocide?

Advocating for coercion does not violate the NAP, if coerced against first. Are you suggesting that the response to coercion should never be coercion? Cuz that has no basis in the NAP...

[Mister Mister]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

This is very much like a "guns kill people" argument. Government can do nothing without the people behind it.

 

 

False equivalency.  Guns are objects.  Government is a concept.

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, RoseCodex said:

False equivalency.  Guns are objects.  Government is a concept.

They are both tools.

[Tyler H]

On 5/23/2017 at 10:00 PM, Erwin said:

This is very much like a "guns kill people" argument. Government can do nothing without the people behind it.

Even a government program to cut government programs?

Even a government program to stop our genocide?

Advocating for coercion does not violate the NAP, if coerced against first. Are you suggesting that the response to coercion should never be coercion? Cuz that has no basis in the NAP...

Yes, when I say government I am talking about the people of which it is constituted. 

Being under threat of violence doesn't mean you can go around using force against whomever you want. Advocating for any government program violates the agency of every tax payer, not just the ones who support the government and are therefore initiating force against you. It is also stealing from the unborn through national debt, tell me, how are you defending yourself against them? Doing anything through the government is by definition a violation of the NAP because the government imposes edicts involuntarily and through force, or the threat thereof, on the population inside its territory. 

I'll put aside the moral argument for a moment. I imagine if you're on this board that there aren't too many things you expect the government to do exceptionally well. Why do you want the government to be in charge of protecting us from genocide when just about every task they undertake either fails, or exacerbates the problem?  

The government in its essence is the idea that the initiation of force is acceptable if enough people say so, so how can you use the idea that it's ok to intitiate force to combat the idea that it's ok to initiate force?

[Tyler H]

I also wanted to add that I think genocide is not an accurate description, I would accept eugenics though. If you disagree I'll certainly hear the case. Although, after the earth killing asteroid documentary I watched the other night to scare me into wanting the government to steal more money, I'm not sure I need anything else to keep me up at night, lol. 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Being under threat of violence doesn't mean you can go around using force against whomever you want.

I never said we can use force against whoever we want. Only against those who have used force against us.

In the case of the government program to end government programs, the tax payers have already been complicit in coercion to begin with. Therefore, using government force against them to undo / counter the initial coercion on their part is perfectly NAP-compliant.

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

It is also stealing from the unborn through national debt, tell me, how are you defending yourself against them?

Let's assume for simplicity that each government program costs x $, and there are currently y programs.

So, initial total cost = xy

Adding the government progam, intermediate total cost = xy + x

Once the government program takes effect, final cost = xy + x - xy = x

Therefore, final cost < initial cost. 

Conclusion: you actually dramatically reduce the theft from the unborn. Not the other way around.

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

The government in its essence is the idea that the initiation of force is acceptable if enough people say so, so how can you use the idea that it's ok to intitiate force to combat the idea that it's ok to initiate force?

We aren't arguing over justifying the initiation force. We both agree that it is not acceptable. What we disagree on is whether government is a valid means of self-defense (and you can refute my arguments above).

[Tyler H]

On 5/26/2017 at 6:24 PM, Erwin said:

In the case of the government program to end government programs, the tax payers have already been complicit in coercion to begin with

I think that's true for many, but there are still people who disagree with the system of coercion and people who only have the propaganda who will see reason and change their minds with better knowledge (like us). Very few grow up against the system from the beginning. Those are the people I'm talking about.  Although I do think you make a very good point about the unborn and the national debt. 

Im confused now though, are we talking about reducing government programs or implementing government programs to meet a desired end(ethnostate)?

[Erwin]

14 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

I think that's true for many, but there are still people who disagree with the system of coercion and people who only have the propaganda who will see reason and change their minds with better knowledge (like us). Very few grow up against the system from the beginning. Those are the people I'm talking about.

So am I. Consider this example:

A threatens B to steal from c. Is C in violation of the NAP when he defends himself against B?

18 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Im confused now though, are we talking about reducing government programs or implementing government programs to meet a desired end(ethnostate)?

I was addressing the first case, as it was a simpler point to convey since you we are already in agreement over the assumptions.

The case of the ethnostate is more complicated, since you do not accept the premise of white genocide. So to start there, you said you think eugenics is a more accurate description. What do you mean by that? Who is performing it? On who? How?

[Tyler H]

On 5/30/2017 at 10:04 PM, Erwin said:

A threatens B to steal from c. Is C in violation of the NAP when he defends himself against B?

If B threatens or initiates physical force then I agree that C is well within his moral right to defend himself.  I think in these scenarios it's important to be specific as possible though.  If B threatens C over the phone then I don't think C can go over to B's house and use force against him (not that I'm saying that's relevant to any specific scenario we've addressed, but I wanted to stress the importance of choice and reasonable response in the realm of self defense).  So yes, I agree with this statement contingent upon circumstances, i.e. imminent harm to B from C. 

 

On 5/30/2017 at 10:04 PM, Erwin said:

The case of the ethnostate is more complicated, since you do not accept the premise of white genocide. So to start there, you said you think eugenics is a more accurate description. What do you mean by that? Who is performing it? On who? How?

I wouldn't consider it genocide because I don't see any purposeful and systematic murder being perpetrated in the States.  Eugenics, or perhaps more accurately dysgenics, I think is manifested through democracy and the welfare state.  Democracy advancing people who view violence as the solution to problems and hindering those who wish to deal peacefully, and welfare programs incentivizing the less productive to reproduce and creating the opposite incentive for the more productive.  Both of these things fueling the other, choking out the nonviolent and productive.  They are the catastrophic feedback loop they project outward through climate change. 

What is the evidence that leads you to believe a white genocide is occurring? 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

I wouldn't consider it genocide because I don't see any purposeful and systematic murder being perpetrated in the States. [snip] What is the evidence that leads you to believe a white genocide is occurring? 

Etymologically, geno-cide literally means gene death. Mass homicide of a race or ethnicity is only one form of it. Altering the natural habitat of a race (in the case of whites, a K-selected environment to an R-selected environment) to the point where it is no longer conducive to reproduce at or above replacement levels, is another way of committing genocide. In my opinion, it is a particularly deceptive and manipulative form of genocide since the ((( perpetrators ))) can always say:

"well hey, it's their choice to not reproduce!"

Except that we never chose to have an R-selected environment imposed, and yet they pretend that it is so surprising that K-selected people aren't breeding in an R-selected environment... At our current reproduction levels, our genes will die, hence genocide.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

Etymologically, geno-cide literally means gene death. Mass homicide of a race or ethnicity is only one form of it. Altering the natural habitat of a race (in the case of whites, a K-selected environment to an R-selected environment) to the point where it is no longer conducive to reproduce at or above replacement levels, is another way of committing genocide. In my opinion, it is a particularly deceptive and manipulative form of genocide since the ((( perpetrators ))) can always say:

"well hey, it's their choice to not reproduce!"

Except that we never chose to have an R-selected environment imposed, and yet they pretend that it is so surprising that K-selected people aren't breeding in an R-selected environment... At our current reproduction levels, our genes will die, hence genocide.

I have to say this is a pretty good argument...

...However I have to add one thing; we live in a Republic, which means politicians cater towards what they perceive to be the people's wishes in order to get into power. Although Jewish media moguls have definitely been a major corrupting influence on society, their negative impact is only possible because of the people's gullibility, the Statism of WWI and WWII, and over time the trend towards degeneracy that has risen with the multitude of plagues such as feminism, abuse of the progeny, etc. etc. 

While they're definitely not helping, some prominent ones (like Rand and Rothbart, and Milton Friedman if he's Jewish I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised) have made noble efforts to reverse the trends. The cancer of modern society arises from many roots, with Statism and Republicanism at the root of it. As degeneracy becomes more popular politicians will continue to issue degenerate and suicidal policies to maintain power in the here and now, leading to more degeneracy and so and so forth. The voter is as much to blame as the government since it is theoretically based on popular will. Of course in reality it does what it pleases within whatever confines it can get away with. However the collective body of voters affect greatly those confines...

So, to some up, our doom comes not from the Jews per se--the bad ones are simply exploiting it or products of it, not unlike the other races but they happen to be genetically superior to most and therefore over-represented--but the collective cancers our societies have come upon as a result of both republicanism and statism in general.

[Tyler H]

21 hours ago, Erwin said:

Etymologically, geno-cide literally means gene death

What I found is that it is derived from the Greek genos, meaning race, and cide which specifically refers to killing. 

 

Was there another step to the A threatens B to harm C argument? 

[Erwin]

16 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

What I found is that it is derived from the Greek genos, meaning race, and cide which specifically refers to killing.

I stand corrected, but my point is that there is more than one way to kill a race, besides direct mass homicide. Do we agree on this point?

18 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Was there another step to the A threatens B to harm C argument? 

Well I thought it was self-explanatory. 

If C can defend himself against B, even though A was the initiator of coercion, then the right of defense cannot be contingent on who the initiator was, but only who is the immediate perpetrator.

So then the use of government as a means of self-defense cannot be immoral, provided that it is used against an immediate perpetrator of coercion.

[Tyler H]

9 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I stand corrected, but my point is that there is more than one way to kill a race, besides direct mass homicide. Do we agree on this point?

Yes. I push back on the terminology for two reasons: (1) I believe that people may dismiss the very important facts of what is happening if they perceive the language as hyperbolic, which they will likely do lacking the context we have here, and (2) outright slaughter of a race creates a situation of greater threat and diminished choice for the victim justifying an escalated level of self defense not granted by an atmosphere (purposeful or coincidental) of dysgenics.    

 

18 minutes ago, Erwin said:

So then the use of government as a means of self-defense cannot be immoral, provided that it is used against an immediate perpetrator of coercion.

Just to be clear; who is A, who is B, and who is C?

[Erwin]

59 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Yes. I push back on the terminology for two reasons: (1) I believe that people may dismiss the very important facts of what is happening if they perceive the language as hyperbolic, which they will likely do lacking the context we have here, and (2) outright slaughter of a race creates a situation of greater threat and diminished choice for the victim justifying an escalated level of self defense not granted by an atmosphere (purposeful or coincidental) of dysgenics.    

1) Why is people's opinions relevant to the definition of the word?

2) I would push back on dysgenics, simply because although it is accurate, it leaves out the part where we die (kinda important ). In any case, why is mass homicide a greater threat than death through an imposed environment? Either way, the end result is our death... Is there some additional choice that we have now but wouldn't have under mass homicide?

59 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Just to be clear; who is A, who is B, and who is C?

Well I was going off of what you said. Government is always the first initiator of force, correct?

Therefore, A = government, B = interest group (migrants / Jews / globalists), C = taxpayers and those who must have the law imposed on them (whites)

[Tyler H]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

1) Why is people's opinions relevant to the definition of the word?

They aren't, but if you are using a word that means something different to them than it does to you then you are going to have trouble effectively communicating the important information you want to get across. 

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

2) I would push back on dysgenics, simply because although it is accurate, it leaves out the part where we die (kinda important ). In any case, why is mass homicide a greater threat than death through an imposed environment? Either way, the end result is our death... Is there some additional choice that we have now but wouldn't have under mass homicide?

But we aren't going to die, no one is coming to kill us. That's the difference. We have the freedom to operate in society and pursue non-violent means to effect change. When people are coming to kill you, yes, your capacity for choice is drastically diminished. You never know who will turn you in. If you don't kill someone then it may be moments before they notify the authorities to come and kill you. This is truly a situation of imminent danger that justifies any means for self defense. I can't say that taxing you to breed in order to subsidize someone else to breed, although immoral, is on the same level as such an imminent threat to your life as genocide. 

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

Therefore, A = government, B = interest group (migrants / Jews / globalists), C = taxpayers and those who must have the law imposed on them (whites)

But in this case A is not threatening B to hurt C. B is asking A to steal from C. A better analogy would be B pays A to steal from C-Z. C, in a claim of self defense, then asks A to steal from B and D-Z. I argue that B only has the right to defend against A and C, otherwise how is B any different than A and C? And how will anyone recognize the particular evil of the existence of A when C, who argues A should not be doing what it's doing, uses A itself? 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

They aren't, but if you are using a word that means something different to them than it does to you then you are going to have trouble effectively communicating the important information you want to get across.

Depends on who you're communicating with. Alt Righters rarely use the word genocide amongst themselves, because it is already understood that they want our extinction.

White Genocide is more commonly used with normies, as it elicits rejection, then questioning. Judging by our conversation, it worked.

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

But we aren't going to die, no one is coming to kill us.

It takes at minimum 2 babies per couple just to maintain the population. Every white country is below that. So.... unless we become immortal, we'll be dead. And it's not because they are coming to kill us, they have already imposed an environment that is not conducive for baby-making and then hiding behind the idea that "well hey, it's not our fault they won't breed". So coercion has already been - and continues to be - done to us, resulting in our de-population. Are we supposed to stand here and perish?

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

We have the freedom to operate in society and pursue non-violent means to effect change.

There is no non-violent way to reverse coercion.

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

But in this case A is not threatening B to hurt C. B is asking A to steal from C. A better analogy would be B pays A to steal from C-Z. C, in a claim of self defense, then asks A to steal from B and D-Z. I argue that B only has the right to defend against A and C, otherwise how is B any different than A and C? And how will anyone recognize the particular evil of the existence of A when B, who argues A should not be doing what it's doing, uses A itself? 

You mixed up your variables. B is the interest group, and does not argue against the use of A.

Also regarding C's self-defense claim, we have already established that undoing government laws reduces theft. And why does B have the right to self-defense? They have already initiated coercion.

Lastly, you can recognize the evil of A & B, as the initiated force. C acted in self-defense, using A. To argue for the immorality of this is to argue for the immorality of most self-defense cases since they usually involve similar weaponry. For example,

X attacks Y with fists, and Y defends himself with fists. What a hypocrite! Well of course not, because X was the initiator. Same case can be made with guns, knives, or... government.

[Tyler H]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

There is no non-violent way to reverse coercion.

Sure there is, remove its social support. 

 

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

You mixed up your variables. B is the interest group, and does not argue against the use of A.

Thank you for pointing that out, that last B should have been C. I've made the appropriate edit. 

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Lastly, you can recognize the evil of A & B, as the initiated force. C acted in self-defense, using A. To argue for the immorality of this is to argue for the immorality of most self-defense cases since they usually involve similar weaponry.

But A is not an inanimate object, it is a person (or persons) we would treat as moral actor(s). And the use of A also effects more than just B and C which was why I included D-Z, the main reason for my objection. Using force in defense against A and B is completely justified. Involving D-Z if not absolutely necessary is of questionable ethics to say the least.

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Also regarding C's self-defense claim, we have already established that undoing government laws reduces theft.

Yes, I'm solely arguing against the morality of using the government to create an ethnostate. It's imposing your views through the force of the state rather than the power of your reason. It's the fundamental reason we oppose the state in the first place. 

 

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

It takes at minimum 2 babies per couple just to maintain the population. Every white country is below that. So.... unless we become immortal, we'll be dead. And it's not because they are coming to kill us, they have already imposed an environment that is not conducive for baby-making and then hiding behind the idea that "well hey, it's not our fault they won't breed". So coercion has already been - and continues to be - done to us, resulting in our de-population. Are we supposed to stand here and perish?

And how does this not justify the welfare state to ensure the survival of genes that would otherwise perish in a free society? It invalidates your case against the state. You're falling into A's trap of getting B and C to endlessly attack each other while A profits from the conflict. 

[Erwin]

14 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Sure there is, remove its social support. 

There is no social support for many forms of coercion, and yet they still occur. So, social support cannot be sufficient.

14 hours ago, Tyler H said:

But A is not an inanimate object, it is a person (or persons) we would treat as moral actor(s). And the use of A also effects more than just B and C which was why I included D-Z, the main reason for my objection. Using force in defense against A and B is completely justified. Involving D-Z if not absolutely necessary is of questionable ethics to say the least.

Why does the animacy of A invalidate the self-defense claim of C?

Also, D-Z have already funded the laws lobbied by B through taxation, so they have already been affected. Reversing the law reverses the effect, by undoing the tax. How can you object to less taxation / coercion without rejection the NAP?

14 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Yes, I'm solely arguing against the morality of using the government to create an ethnostate. It's imposing your views through the force of the state rather than the power of your reason. It's the fundamental reason we oppose the state in the first place.

No, we oppose the state as it is an initiator of force, and thus violates the NAP. The ethnostate is force in defense against the initial force initiated upon us, and self-defense is NAP-compliant.

15 hours ago, Tyler H said:

And how does this not justify the welfare state to ensure the survival of genes that would otherwise perish in a free society?

Actually, it is an argument against the welfare state. We would never have this demographic issue if it weren't for the ability of foreigners to get free money / government services, since most of them would never come here to begin with. In fact, the free-est societies in history have been over 95% of one race, either Aryan or Northern mongoloid (18th century England, 19th century U.S., early 20th century Hong Kong & Japan, etc). 

Not only would our genes not perish in a free society, it is all the other races that risk extinction or at least dramatic population reduction as the low-IQ people die off, which is the majority of people of all the other races. Can you imagine what would happen if Africa had a free society when the average IQ is 70? ... They are the ones who need the welfare state for survival, not Aryans.

[Erwin]

@Tyler H really enjoying this btw. The quality of the debate...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

18 minutes ago, Erwin said:

There is no social support for many forms of coercion, and yet they still occur. So, social support cannot be sufficient.

Why does the animacy of A invalidate the self-defense claim of C?

Also, D-Z have already funded the laws lobbied by B through taxation, so they have already been affected. Reversing the law reverses the effect, by undoing the tax. How can you object to less taxation / coercion without rejection the NAP?

No, we oppose the state as it is an initiator of force, and thus violates the NAP. The ethnostate is force in defense against the initial force initiated upon us, and self-defense is NAP-compliant.

Which I agree with in both principle and practice, however I think you should clarify A a bit more since...well, what is an "ethnostate"? It is a political party? Is it an army? Or is it just a bunch of fellow self-segregating Whites acting in whatever means are warranted to defend ourselves against the State and the State's dependents? I.e., an offshoot of the AnCap movement in general plus fellow travelers with other visions on how best a White ethnostate (i.e. a piece of land we call our own country, as to what we do with it--free it as an AnCap society or enslave it with NatSoc, or something in between, I won't bother to argue about since obviously most of us enthostate guys have different visions of making it and what "it" would look like when it's made) can be made/sustained?

I think the idea here, is that it is moral to use violence against the state, seize power temporarily, and use that power to abolish the state as we understand it and chalk out a piece of land, then set up the C.D.A.'s and D.R.O.'s mentioned in Practical Anarchy in order to have a system in place for when the State is, once and for all, abolished by our own hands as leaders of the state. (ideally in our case the whole of America, but as to how much land or whatnot isn't really relevant to the argument in general but naturally some might prefer a more peaceful division of America based on racial majorities in given geographical areas rather than kicking out everybody to one corner or another, the latter of which I personally prefer since America is a White country and therefore all of it should be ours, not divided to be shared, but I wouldn't treat all non-Whites the same since East Asians for example are a "model minority" and I wouldn't mind if they had some "Asia Towns" erected here and there). 

To sum up what I realized is a bit poorly written: form party, take over the state one way or another, use the power of the state to lay the groundwork of AnCap institutions (i.e. D.R.O.'s and C.D.A.'s, AnCap Police and Army respectively) then finally abolish the state as occupiers of state power. And perhaps, somewhere in between, chalk out land for White segregationists either by force or by basing it on which lands are occupied by whatever ethnic super-majority (over 90%).

 

18 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Actually, it is an argument against the welfare state. We would never have this demographic issue if it weren't for the ability of foreigners to get free money / government services, since most of them would never come here to begin with. In fact, the free-est societies in history have been over 95% of one race, either Aryan or Northern mongoloid (18th century England, 19th century U.S., early 20th century Hong Kong & Japan, etc). 

Not only would our genes not perish in a free society, it is all the other races that risk extinction or at least dramatic population reduction as the low-IQ people die off, which is the majority of people of all the other races. Can you imagine what would happen if Africa had a free society when the average IQ is 70? ... They are the ones who need the welfare state for survival, not Aryans.

I'd push back on calling Whites "Aryans" since technically that refers to Persians/Iranians (the root of Aryan is Arianus, the Latin name for Persia). However the argument itself is why I argue a free society is the ultimate bloodless eugenics experiment since it gives the most power and resources the most deserving, and the least to the least--charity not accounted for since the charities that'd last are the ones that actually make a positive difference. 

 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Which I agree with in both principle and practice, however I think you should clarify A a bit more since...well, what is an "ethnostate"? It is a political party? Is it an army? Or is it just a bunch of fellow self-segregating Whites acting in whatever means are warranted to defend ourselves against the State and the State's dependents? I.e., an offshoot of the AnCap movement in general plus fellow travelers with other visions on how best a White ethnostate (i.e. a piece of land we call our own country, as to what we do with it--free it as an AnCap society or enslave it with NatSoc, or something in between, I won't bother to argue about since obviously most of us enthostate guys have different visions of making it and what "it" would look like when it's made) can be made/sustained?

I think the idea here, is that it is moral to use violence against the state, seize power temporarily, and use that power to abolish the state as we understand it and chalk out a piece of land, then set up the C.D.A.'s and D.R.O.'s mentioned in Practical Anarchy in order to have a system in place for when the State is, once and for all, abolished by our own hands as leaders of the state. (ideally in our case the whole of America, but as to how much land or whatnot isn't really relevant to the argument in general but naturally some might prefer a more peaceful division of America based on racial majorities in given geographical areas rather than kicking out everybody to one corner or another, the latter of which I personally prefer since America is a White country and therefore all of it should be ours, not divided to be shared, but I wouldn't treat all non-Whites the same since East Asians for example are a "model minority" and I wouldn't mind if they had some "Asia Towns" erected here and there). 

To sum up what I realized is a bit poorly written: form party, take over the state one way or another, use the power of the state to lay the groundwork of AnCap institutions (i.e. D.R.O.'s and C.D.A.'s, AnCap Police and Army respectively) then finally abolish the state as occupiers of state power. And perhaps, somewhere in between, chalk out land for White segregationists either by force or by basing it on which lands are occupied by whatever ethnic super-majority (over 90%).

Yes, I do think that is the way to go about it. However, I haven't put enough time to think about that situation so I try to avoid that discussion, until I feel more qualified to talk about it.

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd push back on calling Whites "Aryans" since technically that refers to Persians/Iranians (the root of Aryan is Arianus, the Latin name for Persia).

Actually, we used the word Aryan to distinguish from other Caucasians like semites. Iranians are only the eastern branch of Aryans, and research has unanimously concluded that pre-Muslim-rape Iranians were pure-blooded Europids (source), and early artwork portrays them with blonde hair, blue-eyes. See the Aryan migration gif on the bottom.

Aryan is the racial word for Indo-European. Aryans originated in what is modern Ukraine (or around that area). The Iranians were the first to split out south to Pars (hence, Persian), half of whom formed Aryanus or Aryana-Shaher (City of Aryans or Aryan Imperium) and later the Persian empire, and the northern Iranians were collectively referred to as Scythians (the 3 Mejii that predicted the birth of Jesus were Scythian). Further East, they went to Asia where they miscegenated with the locals (which is why we don't care about them anymore, they're brown now). South west, they went to Greece and formed the Greek kingdoms. And eventually they split to the rest of continental Europe.

The Aryan influence is still pervasive in Europe. The ancient greek word for Aryan is Aristos, which is the root of aristocracy (rule by Aryans), and Aristoteles (Artistotle). The celtic word for Aryan is Iren, Irenland meaning land of Aryans, and translated to English "Ireland". Our Aryan origins - common genes, and our meritocratic / free market-friendly nature is purely an Aryan invention - are what binds us as a people, and a huge contributor to the Aryan people's IQ. Otherwise, what would Saxons have in common with Slavs? Or Italics? Or Celts? You think it is a coincidence that all Aryans have all had a different version of the same religion (son of Jehovah / Mithra / Odin, born to the virgin Mary / Yalda / Yule) on the night of the winter solstice, and foreseen by 3 Mejii? Hmmm.....)

You should look up a Richard Spencer interview with a genetics professor, called "The Origins of the White Man". The Aryans were the only ones at the time who could dispose of their military commander without violence, and replace the commander with whoever was most competent. Often, to jostle for power, the candidates would come up with military theory, and experiments to prove that their strategy and tactics were superior. It is not a surprise that the Greeks invented the phalanx, and the Romans invented the legion. It is a deeply genetic behavioral trait unique to Aryans.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

40 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Yes, I do think that is the way to go about it. However, I haven't put enough time to think about that situation so I try to avoid that discussion, until I feel more qualified to talk about it.

Same here. I think the best way is through political action. While I don't consider Hitler to be the hero of the Aryans he wanted to be, he did follow the path one would have to. Which is to say, I expect the best way would be through forming a grass-roots political party in a tumultuous major city (i.e. an ethnically diverse one where everyone is "woke" by default) by making brave and daring political speeches and arguments, slowing growing a movement which will repeat the process in a way similar to the NatSocs spreading out of Munich. Eventually we'd be big enough to run for local offices, and we'd secure them through both legitimate means and the means by which the two-party duopoly has sustained itself (which I leave vague because that ranges from intimidation of opposition, slander, cultural penetration, propaganda, shady horse trading, back room deals, etc). Once we have about a third of Congress, we'll run for President and make it the most dramatic and heated presidential election since Andrew Jackson's and like Jackson establish the party that will last for seemingly ever, and once we've seize a majority we'll begin legally demolishing the system.

Again this is all a hypothetical plan based on following the legal process over the course of time, however circumstances are likely to change dramatically over time. Maybe this kind of thing won't be needed. Maybe it'll be so needed it'll happen in less than a decade. Or maybe there will be civil war, preventing any legal and peaceful means from being viable. I don't know for sure as there are so many variables that one little change can be night and day over time.

 

40 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Actually, we used the word Aryan to distinguish from other Caucasians like semites. Iranians are only the eastern branch of Aryans, and research has unanimously concluded that pre-Muslim-rape Iranians were pure-blooded Europids (source), and early artwork portrays them with blonde hair, blue-eyes. See the Aryan migration gif on the bottom.

Aryan is the racial word for Indo-European. Aryans originated in what is modern Ukraine (or around that area). The Iranians were the first to split out south to Pars (hence, Persian), half of whom formed Aryanus or Aryana-Shaher (City of Aryans or Aryan Imperium) and later the Persian empire, and the northern Iranians were collectively referred to as Scythians (the 3 Mejii that predicted the birth of Jesus were Scythian). Further East, they went to Asia where they miscegenated with the locals (which is why we don't care about them anymore, they're brown now). South west, they went to Greece and formed the Greek kingdoms. And eventually they split to the rest of continental Europe.

The Aryan influence is still pervasive in Europe. The ancient greek word for Aryan is Aristos, which is the root of aristocracy (rule by Aryans), and Aristoteles (Artistotle). The celtic word for Aryan is Iren, Irenland meaning land of Aryans, and translated to English "Ireland". Our Aryan origins - common genes, and our meritocratic / free market-friendly nature is purely an Aryan invention - are what binds us as a people, and a huge contributor to the Aryan people's IQ. Otherwise, what would Saxons have in common with Slavs? Or Italics? Or Celts? You think it is a coincidence that all Aryans have all had a different version of the same religion (son of Jehovah / Mithra / Odin, born to the virgin Mary / Yalda / Yule) on the night of the winter solstice, and foreseen by 3 Mejii? Hmmm.....)

I have to say I found this educational lesson very interesting. I knew some of this (mainly the Aryan migration pattern) but I didn't appreciate how deep it really goes and how far back it really is.

Suffice it to say I can see why it's appropriate to call us "Aryans", and I like it although I wouldn't use it in common discussion since us Whites are heavily divided, and therefore I can't call us Americans the Aryan country (which when you consider how all the descendants of the Aryans came here, it kinda is) until it is an ethnostate.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Erwin said:

You should look up a Richard Spencer interview with a genetics professor, called "The Origins of the White Man". The Aryans were the only ones at the time who could dispose of their military commander without violence, and replace the commander with whoever was most competent. Often, to jostle for power, the candidates would come up with military theory, and experiments to prove that their strategy and tactics were superior. It is not a surprise that the Greeks invented the phalanx, and the Romans invented the legion. It is a deeply genetic behavioral trait unique to Aryans.

Although I consider Richard Spencer's branch of our movement to be folly (because Spencer himself isn't exactly the most K-selected guy and is a Socialist, which is a shame because he makes good points here and there), I will give the interview a watch/listen since this sort of thing really makes me think and, well, makes me happy to hear about how great and rational we used to be and how the best of our times, arguably the late 19th century, was the result of improvement over time

Although the phalanxes and legions aren't unique to us; the East Asians, especially the Chinese of the Han, invented similar formations and have a similar mindset to us around the same time albeit they were more top-down and conformist whereas we were more horizontally inclined and outspoken.

That being said, I have to say: White people are awesome 

 

40 minutes ago, Erwin said:

And this map right here is pretty epic. I mean, it basically illustrates why White people and some Arabians are actually many branches of the same tree roots.

[Erwin]

I think it is important to mention that there are very few Persians who remain white (like Jason Jorjani or Lionel Messi's persian twin). Most of them resemble either semites (Maz Jobrani) or Afghans / Indians (Reza Aslan). Imo, 99.99% of them should not be welcome to our movement whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Suffice it to say I can see why it's appropriate to call us "Aryans", and I like it although I wouldn't use it in common discussion since us Whites are heavily divided, and therefore I can't call us Americans the Aryan country (which when you consider how all the descendants of the Aryans came here, it kinda is) until it is an ethnostate.

Well, Aryan is a great candidate for North America. The consensus in our movement for Europe is either Europa or Imperium Europa. Unlike European countries who have a dominant ethnic majority, a North American ethnostate would be a non-dominant mix of multiple Aryan ethnicities. So... Aryanus? Imperium Aryanus? Aryanland? 

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Although the phalanxes and legions aren't unique to us; the East Asians, especially the Chinese of the Han, invented similar formations and have a similar mindset to us around the same time albeit they were more top-down and conformist whereas we were more horizontally inclined and outspoken.

Yes, they had their versions but I was referring to our creativity, as what is genetically unique of the white man. The fact that we were meritocratic and had a pseudo-free-market in military command, meant that those with the highest creativity made the most money, and thus, the most babies. Hence, Aryan creativity genes.

Consider this: despite the higher average IQ of mongoloids, they were completely incapable of producing artwork that wasn't stick-figure based. They were only capable of doing so using techniques invented - and introduced to them - by Europeans. Same goes for their whole economy, they are excellent copy-cats of white economies, but little to no innovations of their owns.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

33 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I think it is important to mention that there are very few Persians who remain white (like Jason Jorjani or Lionel Messi's persian twin). Most of them resemble either semites (Maz Jobrani) or Afghans / Indians (Reza Aslan). Imo, 99.99% of them should not be welcome to our movement whatsoever.

Agreed. Only exception would be those who are, visually and culturally, white unicorns. (Basically the "if it quacks like a duck; looks like a duck; and speaks like a duck; it is a duck" parable)

 

33 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Well, Aryan is a great candidate for North America. The consensus in our movement for Europe is either Europa or Imperium Europa. Unlike European countries who have a dominant ethnic majority, a North American ethnostate would be a non-dominant mix of multiple Aryan ethnicities. So... Aryanus? Imperium Aryanus? Aryanland? 

I think Holy American Empire will do, since America as the personification of that is white is pretty much a subtle character of Americanism, as it rarely specifies its Anglo-Saxon origin. Since it was the first non-colonial state in the Americas, simply calling it "America" has validity in its own right because at the time of inception, there were no other non-vassal states in the region. 

 

33 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Yes, they had their versions but I was referring to our creativity, as what is genetically unique of the white man. The fact that we were meritocratic and had a pseudo-free-market in military command, meant that those with the highest creativity made the most money, and thus, the most babies. Hence, Aryan creativity genes.

The East Asians have some similar stuff going on as well, hence why I greatly admire them, of course just because it's similar doesn't mean it's bad. Although ours is proven better by the centuries past.

 

33 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Consider this: despite the higher average IQ of mongoloids, they were completely incapable of producing artwork that wasn't stick-figure based. They were only capable of doing so using techniques invented - and introduced to them - by Europeans. Same goes for their whole economy, they are excellent copy-cats of white economies, but little to no innovations of their owns.

I wouldn't call them "mongoloids" since it confuses who is who, after all the Thailanders and Vietnamese are more equivalent to the Arabs and Egyptians whereas the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are the "Europeans" of the region. 

I'm assuming you don't know a lot about Asian history given you assume they just copied stuff from us. They invented the first firearms, a repeating crossbow, cannons, and until Western surgery was a thing they had the best doctors, and their art, well I suggest googling Japanese and Chinese artwork for an idea. More 2-D than ours but attractively so. 

They were selected mainly for utility as compared to creativity, which naturally meant their creativity was mostly in war machines, agriculture, and industry (until we hit the industrial revolution and blew them all away from there). They didn't start to stagnate until the Manchurians took over China and Korea, and the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan started becoming increasingly inefficient and conformist. Otherwise the history of East Asia largely parallels the history of Europe, particularly China to Germany and Japan to England (albeit unlike England rather than explore the world their leaders decided to pretend it didn't exist, thereby going in the opposite direction of development, give or take around the late 1700's).