Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Siegfried von Walheim

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Siegfried von Walheim last won the day on December 24 2017

Siegfried von Walheim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Good

1 Follower

About Siegfried von Walheim

  • Rank
    Graf von Walheim

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    siegfriedvonwalheim@yandex.com OR aloiswalken@gmail.com
  • MSN
    Note on above: those are my email addresses. I do not have an AIM account.

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    History, philosophy, authoring, gaming, anime, and great rulers and pioneers.
    And PUTIN.
    Also Ieyasu Tokugawa--the only man could boast to have given his country 400 years of peace.
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

1639 profile views
  1. What Women Actually Want in a Man

    Yeah, a BIG hook!
  2. What Women Actually Want in a Man

    Frankly I think the fear of hypergamy is invalid. A smart female sociopath ought to know she can't bag the best man if she cheats on her existing one to get him because the best man, by definition, is wary of disloyalty and wouldn't commit to a woman who herself is proven unreliable. Hypergamy is merely another word for "discriminatory" or "selective", i.e. having standards. A dumb and/or low impulse-control women are never going to climb high because good men smell them from a mile away and steer clear. High IQ/high impulse-control women however will not only select quality but commit because they know once you go in, there's no going out because the highest quality men (and women I'm sure) aren't interested in hand-me-downs and/or those with a history of either being unreliable or choosing unreliable. In other words, hypergamy is great because it cuts the wheat from the chaff. I.e., it makes the bad women obvious (trail of either bad men or betrayal of decent men) and the good women also obvious (has no history of commitment then betrayal/abandonment). 100 years ago bad women had huge incentives to pretend to be good, requiring men be far smarter in sussing them out whereas now bad women are out in the open. Not ALL of them (I'm sure, like I said above, the smart female sociopath is acting good because she knows better) but the overwhelming majority of them.
  3. Are women capable of agency?

    This applies to men as well, though replace mothering/wifering skills with fatherly/worker/masculinity skills. I'm a pretty rare exception nowadays to be both concerned for my future as well as actively looking to build myself up as both a man and as a worker so I can both attract the fine family friendly fertile females and also have a yearly net income that let's me live in a nice Midwestern suburb (because city life is crap unless maybe if it's a fun city but my experience and wants don't really match city life=fun. While as men we're more concerned with female behavior and wants than male (since males generally follow females), it's not totally one-sided and we have some work to do as well. Statistically there ARE decent women out there. Decent men just need to set up a beacon to attract them (either metaphorically by being a good man, making good friends, and therefore finding good sisters/daughters/friends--or literally by being an internet hero like Stefpai or Mike Cernovich) and together provide a visible example to younger people to change course.
  4. Vanity, and Approaching "The Wall"

    Maybe it's not a beauty thing but a mid-life crisis thing? I.e. you're afraid of decaying and dying. If you have a bad relationship with your parents/grandparents, it may also be a fear of looking like them. I'm taking a reach but it's something I noticed with my mother. Do you see a therapist about this? I think resolving this could not only make you happier but a much better mother in the long run. I'm sure your sons will have something in the vicinity at some point (like maybe a girlfriend who cares a bit too much about looks or maybe even they themselves feeling insecure--probably won't happen if you raise them to be reasonably confident but if it's trend in your family lines it may reoccur genetically). You're welcome. On the other end maybe the problem if "you fighting yourself." Physical attractive is not nothing. Far from it. It's an indicator your value as a woman. Not the only indicator but it's 99% of people's first impressions and passing glances. And when I say "value as a woman" I don't mean just sexually/fertility wise. I mean looking good implies having self-discipline; it sometimes implies moral virtue because, rightly or wrongly, I think people are conditioned to see physically attractive people as being morally superior to ugly (by their own fault not genetically though I'm sure there's exceptions) people. While I'm sure beauty can only imply so much about someone, I do know it's a good offhand indicator of a person's self-worth, self-confidence, and potentially a "voucher" against insecurity, laziness, and some other undesirable behavioral traits. Personally I knew growing up that in many ways "the clothes make the man", i.e. men are judged by how well they keep themselves and the authorities will often act accordingly. I kept clean and dressed decently, especially in school, in order to avoid that terrible "blacklisting" many male students get by (often female) teachers. Now I know there's more to my own "vanity" than just wanting to impress authorities and stay out of trouble (like the white kids that look like Eminem or the black kids that look like anal lovers) because I'm sure part of it is me being a male wanting to impress available females as opposed to being "rejected", even by females I had no sexual interest in (and I had no sexual interested until I was around 13 and not really until 14-15). Possible you also have a certain "urge to impress" and "fear of social rejection" based on looks. I'm not saying it's totally rational (I mean my generally honest behavior probably had a lot to do with how authorities treated me as well) but it's not totally off either (because there are lots of superficial people and looks DO have some character implications). I might be taking another reach but I think an alternative might be you simply fearing rejection via bad character (as implied by lack of self-maintenance). That's not far from what you seem to think it is. And my solution is to try to figure out WHY you care about your looks and come to value them because they are wonderful to have (especially if you have to work to maintain them). I don't know if I said this but forget makeup in general; most of what makeup projects can be projected naturally depending on the mood you're in anyway. I think taking care of yourself + realizing why your looks matter (as opposed to either saying they're mere smoke and mirrors or all 100% of everything) and realizing why you're anxious will assuage your concerns. Also don't be afraid to be honest with your husband. Men hate nags but we hate dishonest (which includes not saying anything) women far more. I'm sure if he has any sense at all he's noticed something though, and he may have some helpful advice for you. More helpful than FDR possibly given he's your man after all. Also in general men love to help women they like so long as they're praised/rewarded for it, so there's that aspect in case you didn't know. Men naturally enjoy knighting because there's both a thrill and a hunger for a reward. So long as you aren't constantly needy or needy for things he can't solve (because first and foremost I think men look to "solve", therefore if he thinks he's powerless he might get frustrated if you keep asking him for help in a matter he thinks he can't do anything about) I think being needy at all is more than fine. Men get bored and like to know they're doing something to keep their wives. I assume vice versa too, since men have problems and like to be helped though I'd assume the kinds of problems we have and the help we want is somewhat different since if it's external we can usually do it ourselves.
  5. When intransigent minorities control the majority

    "A land long united, will inevitably be divided; a land long divided, will inevitably be united" -Intellectually lazy but telling saying about Chinese history by some guy and most famously used to characterize the Three Kingdoms period (184A.D. -290A.D. -ish), the bloodiest period in all history till WWII and the most romanticized part of Chinese history at large. While cool-sounding deterministic sayings are by no means arguments, they definitely reflect the mindset of the people writing from and/or of the time. In this period China was divided into a hundred pieces and then by 220 China was forged into three kingdoms: Wei in the North (the biggest by both land and population, 5 million people), Wu in the southeast (second biggest,2.5. million people, strongest maritime power with hegemony over the east coast as well as rich trade routes), and Shu in the southwest ( a mountainous region populated by only 1 million people by the high point of it, which was relative to a pre-184 Chinese population of 50 million). By 263 Shu was bled to death, it's male population almost entirely crushed by the Wei Empire and the Wei Empire collapsed from dynasty weakness (i.e. the ruling family had become both incompetent and had no "moral authority" unlike an established European or Japanese ruler therefore the Sima family rather easily usurped the Wei in forming Jin) and lastly the Wu (which had become the counterbalance to Jin's unification of China) were the last to submit by 280 when their ruling family and endless corrupt government fell upon its own sword and failed to put up a siginifcant resistance to the Jin's invasion. By 290 China was forcibly united by the Jin Emperor Sima Yan, however only a hundred years later the Jin Dynasty would be utterly crippled by barbarian invasions and internal disunity, losing the northern half of China for many centuries till the Jin Dynasty's fall and the rise of the Great Tang in the 10th century. Before the bloodiest civil war in history (in which famine and war-related diasters were the main culprit) Han China had a population of 50 million. After forcible reunification by the Jin China had merely 13 million people and the birth rate during this time was what kept the warlords armies full in spite of the huge loss of life. China today struggles to maintain hold over its ethnic minorities and spends more than it's own war budget simply to "keep them in line". I bring up the point of China as the weakness of a centralized and collectivist authority; they get too big, too expensive, too inefficient, and eventually fall on their own weight. At the same time the Roman Empire was experiencing similar difficulties. I do agree and notice centralized forces tend to be superior to decentralized forces. However small, centralized forces tend to be superior to big, centralized forces. An easy example is the rising Prussian Kingdom versus *insert any other neighboring country here*. Under Fridericus Rex the Prussian Kingdom expanded greatly, defeating far larger and more ancient foes and becoming an empire in all but name, eventually forging the German Empire by blood and iron. This empire, brought about through force and guile, collapsed not even 50 years later during WWI and shrank further in WWII. In contrast there is the Russian Empire which was forged slowly over time through the assimilation of city-states (both forcibly and not) and it lasted from the 1710's to 1918-ish (when the October Revolution destroyed it). Also, the latter Chinese Empires which adopted the "Han System" of soft power to influence the world around them, which kept them powerful without having to move large armies across thousands of miles, however by the time White folks came knocking it wasn't big and busy China that answered the door but rather small Japan minding its own business. It wasn't the big and busy collectivist empire but the nation-state that chose to close itself off from the world. Japan became a great power while China became a divided cake to be eaten, until WWII when Japan was humbled and China was again forcibly united by radicals. The purpose of all I've said above is this: big countries with multiple ethnic/cultural/linguistic groups and busybody antics tend to evaporate rather than thrive while small countries (or big ones with one sparse but well-connected similar ethnic groups) that mind their own business tend to beat the crap out of big countries. Therefore the trend for who is most powerful is definitely on the side of nation-states, not empires. Britain will, if she minds herself, surpass the whole of Europe in fighting power, longevity, and survivability in due time. Meanwhile the EU states will fragment and eat each other alive. Britain might fall into the hubris trap of getting involved, and so might Russia. However I think there are clear benefits to being small and compact rather than big and lanky. America is lucky because America is unrivaled; Canada's a big pu__y, Mexico's a sh__hole, and South America in general is backwards and populated by self-cannibalizing cuck-publics. America can do whatever America wants because, like the Roman Empire, he's basically "the only man in a town of women". Unlike Britain or Russia or Japan, who have to compete and resist the temptation of imperialism. They may become the stronger for it, who can say for sure. I can say however that historical trends are seldom broken without exceptional circumstances. Though I am not sure what the OP means by "intransigent minorities", it is always a minority that rules and in general the smaller and better vetted the better society will be for it. Hence why I'm an AnCap; ultimately the best and brightest rule when there are no rulers.
  6. Are women capable of agency?

    I have a better idea; we men need to go Galt (i.e. focus on ourselves and not settling for bad women--not exactly going Galt so much as making better choices but I'll call it "going Galt" anyway) then take over society by allowable means once it reaches the crisis point and use the past as our "Never Again" moment to reshape the government and legal system. You know Russia learned from the Soviet Union. America can learn from itself too. I'd rather tunnel in and wait for the current society to collapse so I can join the good guys in remaking society as current society simply isn't worth fighting for let alone dying for.
  7. What Is Moral?

    If morality is subjective then there is no morality; just preference. Therefore morality cannot be redefined as anything other than "that which is objectively good vs. evil". It's easy to morally excuse killing animals because of the NAP and other principles; animals as a species are in constant violation of each other's property rights and if humans behaved as such they'd be jailed, killed, medicated, etc. Also feeding starving people cannot be moral because what if they are, for example, pedophiles? If there is one foreseeable case in which it is immoral than it is not automatically moral.
  8. What Is Moral?

    If morality=logical consistency than a hitman can be moral if he is willing to be "hit" himself. On the topic titled "Socrates Jones: Pro-Philosopher" I have something more on this as I'm reading UPB from start to finish for the first time. Basically morality=logical consistency only because it is possible to come to very terrible though consistent conclusions.
  9. Socrates Jones: PRO-PHILOSOPHER

    Update: past 1:22:00 ish of the 5 and a half hour youtube audiobook of UPB I have found my point; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvTXFxPwb0 Here Stefpai states that it is illogical for a gunman to use violence as his "argument", i.e. it is UPB to reason not use force. UPB has been defined as being universally preferable behavior by everyone. Honest debate is subjective. To the gunman in question, he may prefer all debates be resolved through force because he knows he will usually win because he has a gun. He may even state a preference to being shot by a superior gunman to changing his ways (i.e. he's truly consistent and not a mere brute). This is a potential loophole, depending on the definition of murder. After all the gunman in question consents to being shot whenever he argues therefore he would not be murdered--because he "asked for it" by universalizing the principle that "might makes right". While it is not immoral for the gunman if he makes it abundantly clear and contractually binding that arguing with him involves the high likelihood of death, it is a problematic potential oversight. In other words this aspect of applied UPB is not a moral question, therefore UPB (in this context) is not a moral tool. However I admit this is one case. I don't know if I can confidently argue UPB is absolutely not a moral tool because I haven't finished yet. He may have something prepared for the objection I just made. However again, if he hasn't, that doesn't necessarily disprove UPB as a moral tool because it does reveal that which is a moral question versus a preference question. I.e. shooting someone in a debate can be made "amoral" if both participants agree to resolve their dispute with violence rather than arguments. It also means honest debate is NOT UPB. Because someone has a different idea of what constitutes an "honest debate". However the preference for an honest debate of some form could be UPB because even the morally consistent gunman prefers all debates to be resolved by force--which he considers "honest debate". That could however create some terrible hypothetical scenarios. I'll hold off on that because for now this is all I've heard and could reasonably debate about--and my above point could be disproven further in the book. I'll put up further updates as I find something that I am either skeptical of or functions as a disproof to my potential objection (I phrase it that way because I haven't read UPB therefore I cannot object to it, however Mishi2 has and this was originally his objection--namely where's the moral compass that determines whether something is moral/immoral and prevents these kinds of scenarios).
  10. Socrates Jones: PRO-PHILOSOPHER

    At first I thought I understood it well enough from hearing it being argued over hundreds of podcasts. However Mishi brought up an excellent point and since no one really responded to it it must either not be a good point at all (i.e. a sign he missed something obvious) or it was a very good point and hard to refute. Since I'm inclined to think the former I decided to put some time to actually listen to the audiobook of UPB because although I think I know the basic argument the more I poke at it the less I actually know, therefore I ought to learn it and see if I understand it afterwards. In other words, until recently, laziness. As of recently, business (in that I haven't finished it yet). EDIT: I didn't mention it in this thread but I wanted to avoid arguing UPB until I've actually read it. However clearly I didn't hold to my own declaration as I attempted above to argue something I, perhaps clearly, only have a foggy idea about. I thought it was as simple as "can I justify this to all situations without changing the definition?" If yes, it's moral. If I can never justify it then it is immoral. Obviously I'm missing something. I apologize for possibly wasting your time since, as I have only read a little of it, I have only a foggy idea of UPB based on Stefpai's podcast debates on the call-in-show, which clearly isn't enough to actually know it. I'll try to resist the temptation to speak of something I am ignorant of in the future since that's obviously a bad thing to do and well... Arrogance isn't something I want to allow myself to have, so for now I'm going to avoid the subject till I've finished the 5 hours and 45 minutes or so the audiobook goes for.
  11. 3953 The Immigration Debate | Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux

    No!!! Definitely not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; and that is doubly true of moral actions! It may be less evil for me to kill someone by accident ("how does a gun work? Whoops...") than to do so with intent, but it is still evil and I need to repay that somehow (how I don't know so I'll keep my hands off of dangerous looking tools I have no experience with). And I doubt illegals aliens are THAT dumb. They may be statistically retarded but even apes know the rule of the jungle and if an alien is wiling to use might to justify his "right" then he ought to be held accountable.
  12. What Women Actually Want in a Man

    o.o Is that a euphemism for what I think THAT is????
  13. Money(Fundamentally)

    Actually we could do those things. The problem is with a government we'd be arrested/shot/persecuted for it. Mafias, gangs, militias, etc. have existed since forever. A government only gets in the way of them taking action, for better or worse. That being said sometimes that's a good thing since vigilantism isn't always right and can be often wrong. However I think Stefpai's argued well enough that we don't need a government to have a legal system, and it's a legal system that I'm really referring to that can stop the mob from making the wrong decisions.
  14. Money(Fundamentally)

    Okay, what's the alternative to having a currency? I don't disagree government monopolies of currencies has a nasty tendency to backfire in the long run (whether it be through inflation-funded wars, economic bubbles and bursts, etc.) however until I hear a reasoned argument for an alternative to a currency I don't see the point of complaining about currencies. Of course I am pretty sure most folks here agree government monopolies of a currency is bad and has terrible consequences. I think this issue is a dead horse. What's interesting is that you imply by stating there are problems with currencies that we ought to have another means of exchange. What's this other means?
  15. Vanity, and Approaching "The Wall"

    I am neither old nor a woman, but these are my thoughts on the matter. Your fears may be correct. You mentioned you married and impregnated before self-knowledge so there's a decent chance you married the wrong man and have terrible friends. If that's the case your body is basically warning you that you will almost inevitably have a terrible second-half of your existence--in which case the best you can do is teach your sons what not to do and who not to marry so they don't make the same mistakes. Alternatively you may only be partially correct. Your husband may not have chosen you (initially) for your virtues but he came to find and like them, in which case I strongly recommending focusing on being a good woman/wife/mother so that your husband doesn't require sex to "tolerate you" (which honestly is most men's relationship with most women; women are not inherently attractive because their personalities and modes of being/thinking conflict with men's. From men's ability to compartmentalize our problems/issues to being more "rational" than emotional, there's quite a few negatives on our end to being straight. Nothing against you, just letting you know that by default a typical woman must be somewhat sexy to compensate for being a typical woman) --which is a pretty bad and sad thing to be depending on, right? This is where S.K. and understanding men comes in. Otherwise you're screwed (and not in a good way). Therefore, since I have no idea who you are, just a few bits and pieces, I recommend capitalizing on your best qualities (like, presumably, being a good housewife, mother, being supportive--but not enabling--, rational--relative to the average trigger-happy woman at least--, patient, composed (don't know how many men want/require this but I can say a woman who isn't easily miffed is easily in the 7+ territory even if she's plain--no need to be hot when you have great personality traits though being both makes you a 9+!) and staving off the physically debilitating part of age through regular exercise (not this surgery crap and as far as I know makeup is literally poisonous so I wouldn't recommend that except for extremely special occasions) so that you can get around without hobbling about and falling over yourself (it's a lot easier to be fit and do things under 30 than over 30, and 40+ is a nightmare if Stef's anecdotes about how he HAS to work out to keep remotely fit is any indicator). In short: be a wonderful personality and source of love, comfort, and wisdom and you will have nothing to fear. It doesn't hurt to exercise because that will keep you healthy for more of your old life and may extend your "SMV" for what that's worth (which may frankly not be much because men DO lose testosterone as they have children, raise children, and age. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he just isn't sexually interested in anything outside the internet after a certain point and that might be a good thing because it frees you from having to look younger than you are and also it means you two can bond as human beings rather than as flesh suits--although that being said it's not mutually exclusive. A man and woman who love each other can bond both as souls and as bodies, I'm just saying without stress on the latter the former might be easier and better developed. Kinda like how a blind person's sense of hearing might be extra-powered). However I didn't account for what your husband and friends may be like. Obviously you don't want to be the one doing all the work. Make sure your husband stays fit (enough to please you, do his job, and raise his children) too since I'm sure you'll be far more motivated if he's keeping pace with you rather than lagging behind. Also I don't know what your friend-circle looks like but if you haven't done some house cleaning post S.K. then sooner is better because the last thing you want is Iago or Jezebel poisoning your, your children's, or your husband's ears and badly influencing them. Again, I repeat, I am neither a woman nor old and have no experience with women nor children. I am 19 and a virgin. However I am pretty damn sure this basic advice isn't far from the truth given how few families do it and how the few that do do it tend to do well. EDIT: Important question: what do you mean by "vanity"? That's a word that gets thrown around and now has some vagueness in it's meaning. I'm asking because vanity=/= fear of being ugly/desire to maintain attractiveness.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.