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 June 15

Siegfried von Walheim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

56 Excellent


About Siegfried von Walheim

  • Rank
    Graf von Walheim

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • 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.
    And now Financial Literacy.

    If you're smarter or wiser than me, I want to know you. Especially if I can impregnate you!
  • Occupation
    Novelist & Wannabe Success Story.

Recent Profile Visitors

3423 profile views
  1. Siegfried von Walheim

    End of free speech in europe

    There was NEVER free speech (in the sense that anyone could say whatever they wanted without fear of consequence from the government or fellow townies) in European history. Even in America, free speech only applies to the citizen's relationship with the government. In companies (be they business or personal) free speech is only as free as the Overton Window is wide. Even in Churches, where in Catholicism they are supposed to be sanctuaries (and thus totally Free Speech), you could never discount the possibility of an angry mob taking offense to what you say and thus treating you accordingly. Although I am pro-Free Speech, I am anti-sensationalism. Europe may have a crappy Union, but it is still a lot better than what was there in the beginning of the 20th century. Give the EU props for 50+ years of peace; as much as I dislike them, I believe they're owed it because Europe has never had it better. The price of individuality, beyond what is allowed, is exclusion from the dominant group. I'm not saying this is good or bad--it's just how nature works. And even as an excluded individual, that does not necessitate gene-death/life-end--it just means you have to tread new roads and be a pioneer, because the beaten path is not for you. Everyone alive today in the West ought to be grateful for what excess they have and are allowed to get away with; there is no better time to be alive. The future cannot be predicted (at least by someone like me), therefore one must not resign oneself to a deterministic world view that X is going to happen because of YZ. I say all this to snatch the Black Pill out of the mouths of those overdosing on Red Pills (or "false Red Pills") as checking out of society or of life is just surrendering the future to those with the willpower to make it their own. Modern times obviously has a Hell of a lot of problems, but we ought never forget what advantages and benefits we have as the result of our ancestors' hard work and wisdom--likewise we ought be critical of where they fell short, but without forgetting where they were strong. I'm curious if anyone else who follows these forums have had the same thoughts or observations I've described above; I think too many of us are either Black Pilling or distorting reality based on our limited vision of it.
  2. Siegfried von Walheim


    "Post-meritocracy". Good God, Linux is about to get blown out of the water... Well, termites are a damnable problem everywhere they infest, and I'm certain they'll inevitably lose just because they can't live without a host (so all it takes is pioneers to say "no" and suddenly the termites don't have a host to feed off of anymore).
  3. Siegfried von Walheim

    When you observe yourself

    I am observing myself, as I exist, as I am growing into this or that--trying to make sure I'm growing upwards rather than shrinking. I have no way of knowing how reflective animals are and I don't care; I'm a human supremacist lol.
  4. Siegfried von Walheim

    Finally dating someone awesome

    Considering most of our ancestors were either primitive barbarians or cruel savages, I hardly consider that an argument. "Creepy" is an expression; I made no argument because I have no intention of changing your mind. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong, practically speaking. That would be interesting. Grooming a girl into womanhood is sketchy from and outsider's view--where the Hell is her dad? I guess we know what kind of family she comes from, then--and the best possible scenario I can imagine is essentially semi-incest because you're simultaneously "dad" and "lover" practically speaking. Ultimately though; I'm looking for a sweet, serene, and motherly woman I can rely on. I'm not looking to groom a girl or domesticate a wild mare. I have no idea where I'll find a remotely decent woman but I'm sure she's saying the same thing about the men. Billions of people make for a big world.
  5. Siegfried von Walheim

    Finally dating someone awesome

    You do realize it's far more likely for Uncle Joe to take advantage of the young girl (not even a woman) rather then "respectfully/honstly groom her", right? It's damn creepy; the balance of power, mentally, experience-wise, etc. is so great I would leave it to your imagination if I had a young daughter and she was dating some 30+ year old. Considering I'm looking for a woman that is--in short--serene, sweet, loving, and motherly, I don't think inspecting cradles is the best way. My mother is 12 years younger than my father so looking up, I can see a Hell of a lot of reasons to NOT go looking below deck (however he was in his forties and she her late twenties, so at least they were adults). Besides, that example of a guy and his wife growing together is not possible with an already-grown man grooming a much younger woman. If you really don't like Middle Eastern grooming gangs, why are you endorsing its softer equivalent? And what you say is "not nothing for a young girl..." is also true of young boys (and really, young men too). However I don't expect some slightly older woman of great character to notice me before I'm a proven male and to take great interest in me. And grooming me? Good God that's suspicious, don't you think? Morally the wrongness is obvious: the balance of mental power is so significant I'm tempted to call it "rape". Refer to my first paragraph for more on that. Practically it's variable: for a weak man that wants a girl he can control, sure--I guess. But for a decent man looking for a woman he can rely on? Definitely not. I won't discount the possibility of a younger woman, especially once I'm approaching 30 (assuming I'm unmarried by then), but several of the key reasons why he's looking for someone so young is explicitly to not be challenged, to be deferred to, and of course for the fertility window. While I empathize with the third thing, the first two things are red flags. He could say "not be challenged" in the context of not being nagged or pointlessly challenged (like by someone who clearly doesn't know what she's talking about) and "to be deferred to" in regards to things she knows little/nothing and he knows something, but I'd rather to just find a woman who knows what she's talking about then try to find an obedient girl.
  6. Siegfried von Walheim

    Virtual reality and the unemployable

    It is a horrible idea. Capable but mildly depressed people will also engage in total escapism (which isn't free--other people have to sustain it somehow) as well as the worthless and the result is civilizational implosion by Holodeck. However it could work as a eugenics program since the few that don't succumb to satanic temptation will be the ones that wind up making babies and thus seizing the world of the future. But I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the population was capable of rejecting the literal blue pill, and even more surprised if half of them are young and female. I'm not arguing whether it's possible (because I have no idea), just that it's an extremely terrible idea as the temptation to escape reality in a way even the best of video games cannot would likely result in most people (smart and dumb) checking out of the gene pool (and civilization in general) with only a minority remaining (and we have no reason to believe they won't "pull the plug" and do some unpredictable societal reordering that could be good, bad, or a mix of both). Ultimately I'm against it but not to the point of making it illegal as I think (in the long run) the minority that choose the red pill will wind up reigning supreme in this scenario (however that would like mean untold suffering and death as I'm sure many would want to "pull the plug" on the Holodeck parasites while the rest would rather try to sustain it--and the end result would be either civil war and/or foreign intervention which could result in foreign conquest or the nation being ruled by radicals of one ideology or another).
  7. Siegfried von Walheim

    'EQ' of substance?

    I know Stefan Molynuex commented about "EQ" in the past (and where he did the videos are titled with EQ/Emotional Intelligence so they aren't hard to find) but from what I remember "EQ Tests" are very much game-able and the results are subjective based on what the test-taker thinks. I think the correlation between high EQ and (success? You'd have to see his old videos on the subject for proper details) -something- was so small as to be totally unreliable. While empathy and charisma are obviously useful tools, "EQ" is just a very poor attempt at numerating something that's as-of-yet untestable (to my knowledge) the same way IQ is.
  8. I suspected this; after all, pregnancy is proof of a lack of virginity (and supposedly breasts were too: as they may have once been retractable and only "came out" when a woman was pregnant/gave birth) and that can be arousing. After all, if X found her attractive enough to impregnate, maybe I could too? Or something like that. I also suspect that the more "Earthly" a woman is about her sexuality and reproduction system (rather than mentally splitting and creating a "lustful/evil" and "loving/good side", realizing that it's both lust and love in the creation of a baby and making more of them) and perhaps the younger she is (at what point is "ideal" versus "too young"? I don't know, but I do know 18 is generally the safe age legally so maybe it's around there). I'm not sure if it's intelligence in a woman that might make her dislike children and childishness. After all, most of the abusive bitches by peers grew up with were damn-near retarded! And personally, as a guy with a big IQ cock (not to compensate or anything 0.o), I really enjoy playing with children and fantasize about making babies and then raising them into adulthood. And if I, a high IQ guy, really want to make and raise babies, then surely high IQ women can as well. Maybe there IS a correlation between high IQ and not-wanting-to-raise children that is in fact biological rather than high IQ people being more likely to eat the infertile "wait until you're 80" crap. But I suspect it's really all a matter of mindset: if you love children (specifically the idea of your own children--personally I don't really care about strangers' children all that much, while I do care about children related to me, and definitely care about the children not yet made by me) and view making and raising babies as the best part of adulthood and the "real beginning" rather than an end, then I suspect making babies, birthing babies, and raising them into adults becomes a Hell of a lot easier. I'm highly skeptical. Perhaps is a mental or biological thing; maybe it's Dad vs. Chad or K vs r. Maybe it's a total mindset thing as I've never really cared for the petty oneupmanship (I'd rather be the guy that beats them in whatever matters that they never see coming, or more directly at like boxing or whatever). If I was with a bunch of guys and they started egging each other on about who has the balls to get some woman in some bar, I'd be the guy chastising them for their stupidity and tell them to either ask her out for a one-night-stand or do the smart thing and wait for marriage. I'm a good Catholic boy... If I had a problem with some guy specifically, I wouldn't be so beta as to go for his wife. I'd go directly for him (in whatever way is permitted by law) one way or another. I'm not exactly averse to physical confrontation... and almost thanks to that, I haven't had physical confrontations since I was a teenager. Of course, part of it was just being able to spot real danger instinctively. I'm not some sort of hard-nosed tough guy, just a talkative guy who isn't afraid to state exactly what he thinks and feels so long as he knows the consequences of doing so wouldn't put him 6 feet under (like you know I wouldn't be so frank with a gangster with tattoos all over his face--I'd keep clear of him). Yeah if I knew a guy like this I'd kick his ass to the curb. How much of a weakling could he be? I've got my own insecurities, but acting upon them in such a way? Disgusting. If I was a woman and took this as an example of most men's thinking, or I didn't know better men, I'd probably be a feminist after reading this. Just switch the genders; I could easily imagine a feminist saying this to justify female cheating of men. It's "masculinism" in the sense of being "male feminism". Point is, the behavior you describe is incredibly beta and frankly subhuman by my own standards and way of thinking. I'm sure there's a class go guys who think/act like this but any woman with a brain would be able to smell these guys a mile away and avoid them. Any woman with a brain doing anything with these guys knows it'll be a one-night-stand or asking for long-term trouble (or both). To be clear, all of my descriptions before about male mindset towards cheating is based on how K-selected family types think. I don't really care about human vermin, and neither should a woman who is thinking long-term, beyond keeping them as far away from me as possible. It's impossible to generalize all male or female sexuality because of the big K/r and Alpha/Beta divides. What you describe sounds like the way either a Beta K or r thinks (as Betas tend to be either manipulative and/or cowardly; r selected people are short-sighted and immoral). Theoretically an Alpha r wouldn't even hide his "cheating" so it wouldn't be cheating (because he'd be very up front with his future/potential disloyalty and therefore sexual monogamy was never "part of the deal" so to speak). Not to mention I have a hard time imagining how succumbing to weakness makes a man stronger or better. It just makes him a weakling unworthy of respect. If I knew his wife, I'd probably encourage her to cheat on him because he not only broke his vows but also proved himself too beta to be looked at in the eyes. However if I knew such a woman, she probably wouldn't be married to a beta male... How is it viewed differently? I only ever hear that line from Leftists and even then I've never heard a real difference because the common thread is a breaking of loyalty. While the consequences were surely different historically/biologically, practically it's the same: man hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks his trust); woman hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks her trust). The typical difference is the consequences: when a man cheats, he's investing into a new gene pool. When a woman cheats, she's removing her husband from her gene pool and inviting a new man. Either way... I have never met anyone who wasn't a whore (and I don't mean just slutty women; I mean slutty men too) that had a complicated view of cheating. It's dead simple: breaking vows/loyalty=cheating. Even in the case of hypergamy, that IS a power-move as the higher status male is presumably someone who could dominate the lower status male. And since it's not too hard for most women to control most men... well, it's indirect, but it's power.
  9. Siegfried von Walheim

    my fiance is pregnant

    You're welcome! I'm confident with the rocket of Fatherhood flying up your ass, you'll have all the energy and commitment you need. Your adulthood has just begun; pretty much everything before your wife's pregnancy was pretending. Enjoy the richest decades of your life! I can't wait till I'm in your shoes :-)
  10. The answer is "no". Usually European intellectual goods (for lack of a better word) comes from European immigrants/settlers not so much from what they natively create in their native lands. America has always been culturally distinct from England, France, Germany, and other European countries in spite of being genetically composed of these countries for a reason: (and I don't know the reasons for sure, but I think one reason is:) we're geographically distant and politically independent of Europe. This may spark some resistance among Conservative Americans though; which is to say an equivalent bill is very likely to be fought hard (or harder) in America due to having a Europe to act as an example of what happens when traditional American values like Freedom of Speech and ideas are struck down.
  11. Siegfried von Walheim

    Finally dating someone awesome

    This is actually an interesting update that I just didn't notice. I'm not sure whether to congratulate you though: on one hand I cannot fathom loving a girl (compared to a mentally mature woman) however I know that's your thing and if you can get a girl than I can surely find a woman. I'd rather see fellow eccentric males succeed than fail, after all. But it's also too early to say; I suspect she may have lied to you about her lack of virginity as it's considered shameful to be a female virgin in some parts of the West. However I guess there's one obvious way YOU could find out and verify... ...But that's none of my business. The important thing is that you found a girl to... groom? Honestly it's creepy as fuck but I guess it's better than a feminist or reckless nut-job. But just about anyone is. And your tastes are almost the opposite of mine, so I guess it's hard for me to congratulate what'd be a failure for me.
  12. I think you're dead-wrong--as a young unmarried man anyway. Men do not want to cheat; men want to be loved. If men don't feel loved by their wife, they will find love wherever they can get it (and that doesn't necessarily have to be from a woman btw; it could be a pet, close friend, or close relative). Some cynical traditionalists even endorsed male-cheating as a lazy way out of just being better wives/mothers. Even some lazy men chose to let their wives cheat rather than be good husbands/fathers. However this is obviously not a solution worth considering... ...Instead, I recommend to all women that they act motherly--this guarantees a man's faithfulness. The exceptions are with cads who are simply too rabbit-like to be familial. So don't bother with unstable/unreliable guys in the first place (and in my experience: they're super easy to spot). But reliable guys (and I'm tempted to think this is most guys by my own personal experience dealing with males my age) are very easy to keep: just hug them, love them, and otherwise be good to them. You maybe want to use them as "practice" before becoming an actual mother since the basics aren't even that different... As for guys: I don't know how to "prepare". But I do know if I found a good woman, I'd act "fatherly" so long as she was "motherly". Meaning so long as I felt loved and wanted, I would not only act loving and protective but also wanting of the woman. Like, we'd be magnets! I think any woman who is motherly and chose a reliable guy has nothing to worry about from cheating. Men are naturally repelled by the idea of cheating and only consider it if they feel unloved, unwanted or otherwise like a slave or a bastard. I hypothesize this is especially true with motherless men. EDIT: About all the above posts I've made: I apologize for their disorderliness and repetitiveness. I wanted to make a point but it wasn't until the end that I was able to shorten it and make it sharp, you know? I hope I've helped (you do provide me with some insight--especially about motherhood--and that's why I enjoy reading you in the first place. It helps me prepare for what I could expect from a woman as well as think about what to do as a solution for certain problems--like isolation and difficulty of pregnancy/birthing).
  13. "Society" doesn't exist. In history, it was "family" that ensured the marrying and the birthing and all that. I don't want to assume, but perhaps you or women you know/knew have a jealousy problem becaues--frankly--why does it matter if some stranger gets attention? Why do you need attention? What's wrong with being the shortest, ugliest, etc. on the bloc? Wouldn't you rather be surrounded by people that are amazing? Especially compared to you or me? I know I would. (And to be clear: I don't mean to say "I want to be bad so everyone is good by comparsion", I mean "I want everyone to be great so that I have only up to look). Isolation is definitely a big problem--especially within families. And it seems awfully strange for women to seek attention from strangers rather than their husbands (maybe that's the solution to the problem you're describing; re-focus that desire for attention onto the husband and children by being a great wife/mother). If anything (I kinda repeat), a man/woman should be focused mostly if not only on their family. It's harder nowadays entirely because a lot of us have to "rebuild" our families as we lack parents or grandparents to support us. Therefore we must be our own "founders" and make it so that our future children have parents (us) and their children have grandparents (us) to give them the guidance we didn't get.
  14. EDIT: I kinda wrote this after the second paragraph since I thought the jealously/status thing deserved attention. Basically, please take what I wrote down below with a grain of salt as I used a unicorn as an example for a horse. == Because what does any of the rest described matter if you're (not YOU but Tomi or similar types) not going to have kids? Adulthood really begins with parenthood; until then we're just faking it, really. Maybe I'm unusual because I actually looked forward to fatherhood and have since I was little (I remember being 5 and wanting to be a daddy and had fun coming up with names) or maybe I'm actually "better fit" or "oldschool" in some kind of way because I think the common norm of today is actually very unusual and bizarre from a historical standpoint. Having children for their own sake was a very commonly accepted ambition; the greatest kings in history (and when I say "great" I mean lived a long time, did a lot, and otherwise wasn't just some easy-come easy-go) had literally dozens upon dozens of children--including adopted children from friends, former/dead enemies, their concubines, etc. It was very normal for the alpha of alphas to be a very family-oriented person. An easy example being Cao Cao of ancient China, founder of the Wei Empire: at the time of his natural death of 66, he had 28-ish children by 12 women. Among those children were step-children (he was unusual for his time in that he had a preference for widows over young and inexperienced women) and he raised them in the same setting as his biological children alongside his wife (who mothered about 6 children who lived), concubines, and close friends. He was basically a big family man when he wasn't waging wars for Chinese unification. Now as you might imagine, Cao Cao is an example of "historically made to be.../evolved to be..." to an extreme. He was literally a super-genius (he was--and is still considered---one of the greatest poets of all time, as well as a musician, general, politician, administrator, and family patriarch) and basically the kind of guy that would make Christian Gray look like a pale imitation (in terms of being super-successful, youthful, and alpha in terms of his interpersonal relationships. Personality-wise, Cao Cao was famously easy-going and casual in a culture where stiffness and over-politeness was the norm. He spoke to the commoners, soldiers, and nobles as social equals and is known to take criticism well and encourage public debates between the smartest and wisest of his country. He's basically perfect). Point is though, guys like Cao Cao were not unusual in terms of generally keeping a close family while also working ensuring there was an unofficial system in place that groomed males to fight and work as well as females to love and breed. Basically men were taught to be men while women were taught to be women. From what I know, families used to actually be a thing. Meaning Grandpa would actually be involved in who his children and grandchildren married, their work, etc. while Grandma, aunties, etc. would assist other females in handling the struggles of pregnancy as well as ensuring the least amount of scarring, malfunction, etc. possible. Women used to give birth to literally dozens of children and less than half would survive. Modern women have it much easier than historical women; perhaps modern women are weaker than historical women. And I mean that physically--perhaps being a farmer or a rancher helped strengthen the muscles necessary for being pregnant and birthing children as well as playing with and meaningfully engaging them. I can't be sure, but I have to wonder how most historical women could give birth year after year after year while modern women can't even handle a single pregnancy. Perhaps it really is a physical thing; maybe it's best young women--like 18 to 20--do the birthing because that's when they can do it with the least amount of physical damage and scarring. And then maybe as the female body gets used to pregnancy and birthing it isn't so destructive to the bowels. After all, contrary to popular belief, medieval people were not only sanitary but quite smart about family organization. In East Asian houses would be rather big (kind of like compounds) and made to house generations of family members in fairly close proximity so that elders could assist/educate the youth and basically mitigate--if not eliminate--all the problems you described. Mental strength may also have been far stronger; in the past having kids at a young age wasn't just the norm it was the ideal. A young man, around 16-18, marrying a similarly aged young woman before actually embarking on his career (and of course impregnating her ASAP) was the standard fare and young men effectively became men once they had a strong driver to do manly work (namely raise their children). Likewise what separated a girl from a woman was whether or not she was a mother (and presumably, the younger a woman was the best fit she was to have that first pregnancy and first birthing). Honestly I'd rather be a woman because I'd be very willing to risk all the pains and struggles you've described just so I could have that physical closeness with my future children. There is nothing more I want in life than to make babies and raise them to adulthood and then see them make and raise babies. I think a big problem (not just young women but young men too) is that people don't have the "familial mindset" that we used to have nor the culture that structured boys and girls to become men and women. There was no patriarch/matriarch in the modern sense of a domineering bastard/bitch (although they obviously existed, they were neither the ideal nor the accepted norm) but rather an informal but highly functional system of men who groomed boys to take their place and women who groomed girls to do the same. Basically older relatives raised younger relatives; young people, once ready, got to work and made babies. Older people helped the younger people work and raise those babies. Then eventually it was pretty easy to pop out a baby a year because women's bodies were well-adapted to it and the men were actually men because they had children to strive for. Men respected their women because they'd see them birthing/raising and women respected their men because they saw them working/providing. Men would naturally want to play with their children when women were too exhausted; women naturally would want to assist and comfort their men when the men were exhausted from laboring. Obviously there were horrors and craps and all that; but the point is--there used to be an unofficial system in place that "got things done" and ensured the birth rate (not counting still-borns or those that died before adulthood) would be a 5 on average rather than a mere 1.1. == EDIT: I didn't want to totally re-write the above (nor delete it all since I think I made some good points you might not have known or considered); but I think I could have made my point in less words: boys had dads/uncles/grandpas; girls had moms/aunts/grandmas. Modern times, we lack these (effectively). Why? I don't know for sure. I think mindset has a lot to do with it (blame feminism?). Re-focus your (or any girl who has this problem) desire for attention of complete strangers onto husband/children by becoming a great wife/mother. Embrace the awesome journey of making and raising babies instead of treating them/seeing them like parasites. Stefan really loves being a dad (I never heard him complain); maybe it's because of his mindset and the way he treated his baby girl. I don't know. Point is: I think the solution is to "rough it" in our generation so that our children have us to support them when they make babies; and their kids will have us as grandparents. This is basically how we rebuild the family unit. Making it harmonious and good? Not totally sure. I believe mutual appreciation, respect, and love helps a lot since these things are sorely lacking nowadays (especially on TV/media/fiction). Men want mothers; women want fathers; I think this is a very simple way to figure out how to do things. The complicated part is identifying "father/motherliness" as someone lacking these examples.
  15. Does this have any impact on Americans who use the Internet? Or does it only apply to Europeans under the E.U.?

Important Information

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