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 August 19

Siegfried von Walheim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

40 Good

1 Follower

About Siegfried von Walheim

  • Rank
    Kaiser of the Holy American Empire

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

884 profile views
  1. Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews

    I sorta understand. I don't like where I have lived and grown up; It's easy for me to just say "screw it" and relocate once I've made money enough to do so. You know it's interesting because a lot of my old school friends were Slavs, and interestingly enough it was somewhat dependent on their accent whether or not they would associate with each other. Generally speaking Russians and American-sounding Slavs didn't judge based on ethnic history while the Serbs (the one I knew anyway) did. Of course I know the Kingdom of Serbia shrunk after it was merged with its neighbors in forming Yugoslavia, and later civil wars. As far as I know they're the most red-pilled on Islamic terrorism/immigration of their neighbors, similar to the Magyars of Hungary. You know, speaking of video games, I grew up with a certain game called "Ogre Battle", and while the one I own wasn't the one directly based off the Yugoslav wars and ethnic cleansings (which were referred to as such in the game "Ogre Battle: Let Us Cling Together" in a way that very much contrasted its cutesy pixelated dioramaic form), the one I did play, "Person of Lordly Caliber", themed very heavily on the idea of fighting for idealism over realism, the distance between the military, the citizenry, and the countrymen; as well as the corruptibility of martial power and radical revolutions. Pretty progressive for 90's games I'd say. Well, I remember reading a scene similar to how you described your life back when I was a freshman in high school. The way the main guy warily approached others and the "woke" guy who seemed to not be genuinely indoctrinated. It's not that complicated beyond the idea that evil does evil for power's sake. Like Animal Farm, once you get it the magic wares off. Also a book I read in early High School back when I was a Communist. All this I completely forgot. Very interesting and definitely makes sense of the otherwise strange story. My only qualm is how could the Enclave nuked Hopeville when they no longer exist...unless the player is in his 30's. Which I consider a bit of an imposition on the whole "role playing" aspect of the game. I agree, given context, he makes a sensible villain. I wouldn't feel too badly for him, since he could have used the same trauma as an impetus to join a group like the Follows of the Apocalypse and basically be a post-apocalyptic Stefan Molynuex instead. I'm hugely skeptical of any group claiming to be founding a mico and experimental society, mainly because of what the motivations and mindsets of the leaders might be, as well as the consequences of trying to assimilate into such a group. It could very well be a cult. I think the idea of this one in particular is interesting. Or at least would have been interesting if what you thought they were about was the truth rather than a masturbatory hippy-dippy commune of doom. I think it would be cool if a city like Rapture could be built and sustained; humanity's ultimate ego trip. I mean the city, even as a ruin, was pretty cool in the game and seemed like it would have been a nice place to live minus the added crap Bioshock 2 revealed. I mean, the godlessness of the society left it vulnerable to religious extremists. I think for AnCap to really stand the test of time (arguably Rapture was a hypothetical AnCapia) it needs a moral backbone based on Classical Liberal and Christian principles as well as, especially for the inherently duplicitous and stupid, a God-figure to be the moral stick which keeps the donkey from lazily sipping carrot juice. (What a wonderful metaphor I made at midnight, eh? Point being good people need not a disincentive for bad while "neutral" and bad people do).
  2. Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews

    Hmm... Why do you live in California if you hate it so much? I get it if it's financial, as that's why I still live in a place where I'm a hated ethnic minority. Once that's settled though, I'd recommend leaving the area for somewhere in the Midwest. Serbia's not exactly a "small pocket" given their former Kingdom was the main force in expelling the Turks in the 19th century. Even if it'll take centuries, that's hardly a bad thing. It's not great, but it's bearable. We humans can only do so much in our short 50-year lives, we ought to take pleasure in nudging the rock even if just an inch, for every generation that pushes it an inch is a generation less it'll take to be gone with the boulder. Given what you've described, I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable point. Reminds me of 1984... Unfortunately I can't remember enough to comment. I know I did the DLCs (every time) out of order, so that might have screwed up my knowledge of their extended story lines. It doesn't hurt I have historical cousins living by the Volga. Or maybe formerly living by the Volga given WWII. Also they have a strong Christian moral code that I respect, even if they may or may not be close to Libertarian. They could get there. Russia has little history of being free, yet they're freer and wealthier now than ever. I wonder what their "peak" would be... In the shorter term (next 5 years) I plan on moving to a more conservative country in a freer, safer state. Ideally one without regulations against homeschooling and low taxes. I don't know what Russia's tax and homeschooling policies are, but I have heard they respect freedom of speech more than we do and are wiser to BS. I don't discount the idea of changing my citizenship to Russian and assimilating into the Russian culture--it depends on circumstances and how well I can learn the language as well as what ever happens here in America.
  3. Where I live we have "Squatter's Rights"--basically a 6-month grace period, that could be extended significantly, to get out or be dragged out. A whole lot of criminal grafting is involved in squatting in some neighborhoods, in an effort to coerce landlords into paying deadbeats to leave. I'd argue being allowed to physically remove tenants the day after the contract allows' is far more moral and efficient than what my berg has. Problem: Who would consent to such a contract when given a better alternative? Meaning, in time, punishments against violators would/already has soften over time as wannabe tenants most likely prefer the guy who merely throws deadbeats out than drags them into dungeons. Also chances are most aristocratic monopolies are inefficient and would therefore naturally break once exposed to local or national competition. I'm not saying feudalism is, at least based on what you've explained, immoral, merely less preferable to more modern forms of landlord/tenant relations and therefore bound to disappear unless the big landlord manages to establish himself as the most preferred landlord in his area. Perhaps by having cheep rents or allowing would-be tenants more autonomy than others', etc. etc. Lol. Moda Fuka is an interesting way of euphemising through "Asia-fying"... I think it's safe to say Feudalism is more moral and right than early modern totalitarianism or "republicanism" as it respects the rights of the individual far more. However it can (and historically was) also be highly protectionist and therefore a violator of the NAP. A feudal system without protectionism (i.e., without tenants being forced to live on their lord's land or forced to abide by their lord's contract without ability to negotiate) isn't very different from what AnCap desires: respect for private property and the NAP.
  4. Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews

    Yes it is; Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and all that. I remember you work in California, guessing based on what I read in a field where Leftists are commonplace... Who can say? Did anyone 2000 years ago predict the GERMAN BARBARIANS or the BLUE-SKINNED SAVAGES would one day rule the world and be all Roman Law and Christian? Well, I figured "South Slavland" but adding "land" in English doesn't necessarily imply "nation". I think given time and the right conditions, that could change. Germany, France, Scandinavia, and mainland Italy used to be heavily divided. Heck, Russia used to be dozens of smaller countries! Now it's breakable into roughly 3 based on religion and geography. I think you're taking what I said months ago too far. I have changed a fair bit here; Don't be too hard, internally, against the victims of abuse. Recognize they're victims, and move on. Recognize "who can be saved" based on subtle tells (are they curious? Do they act in adherence with what they say? Do they ever concede points willingly?) and decide for yourself if that person is worth reaching out for. You lose time, but could gain a friend. Of course if your job involves these people, don't risk it. I don't know what you do, but if it's something where you can choose who you work with or relocate, I'd suggest that. As an author I can be highly selective of who I work with and, eventually, who and how I'll publish. Chances are I'll either indie-publish or self-publish since the Regressive Left has infested the publishing world... I know Stef has commented about this sort of thing, I'll refer to him on it. I'll try to paraphrase what I remember: recognize your limitations in a given scenario, and work from there. Don't try to change it, rather instead keep doing what you're doing for as long as you must until you have demonstrated yourself so well that your "bohemian politics" become "quirks". On that aspect, I won't. On others, I must! I remember when I was first in a fight with non-Whites. My experience at home was different. My mother wept, and my father taught me to fight back with my fists. Sadly this meant getting into trouble with the school system which punishes victims as well as aggressors. Eventually I just grew big enough and savvy enough not to be bothered by wannabe thugs and avoid the real ones. I know that very well. And those kinds of people are the kinds that build nations! Interesting. I'd argue if a man has to act badly to survive, he can be morally excused to a certain extent. If I was a German under Nazi rule, I could be excused for not engaging with Jews and not hiding any. Actively hunting for them is a different story. Generally speaking, to have principles, one must live by them as best as he is able. That means not starting fights that cannot be won nor trying to be included in the "unprincipled people's" table. And, at some point, reach out for the like minded and form communities based on shared values. While saving the world is obviously bigger than lobbying for a particular political faction, it is much less likely to be a problem for people in the real world. In the real world, bad guys usually think they're good guys and it is up for the IRL protagonist to discern who the real bad guys and good guys are and act accordingly. I'd argue the thing with the "courier backstory" is weak based on how it's not something ever likely to happen in real life, and largely (if not entirely from what I remember) faultless on the part of the player. That being said ED-E (who I pronounce E-dee) is a cute eyebot and the DLCs added great and enjoyable variety even if their stories were less interesting (except in the Zion Valley thing, which was very biblically themed and something I didn't appreciate at first). As is the case in real life, the individual characters matter far more than the groups they represent. A good King cannot make the system moral, but he can make it fair. It is a centuries' long project to unite and assimilate disparate and rowdy groups of people. America was highly divided politically, even by modern anti-Trump hysteria standards, until Lincoln smashed the South and public schools started brainwashing little Americans into believing in the nation-state--which I'd argue as an effect was a good thing, although I think peaceful parenting and honest arguments would have been better, people such as Stef were not in political power and therefore the result of a bad thing (public education) was as good as it could ever have been (pan-Americanism as compared to fractured provincialism). I think the way the Slavs are going to be united is most likely through a changing in the public school and religious curriculum. Should they promote pan-Slavic nationalism, then 40 years from now a pan-Slavic state could emerge. I think a better approach is peaceful parenting and good arguments, however I think the former is more likely to happen as I think only a minority of people will become good parents, leaving the journey to AnCap a multi-generational one. On the other hand, I think, based on what I know, the Eastern Europeans have far stronger faith with greater cultural backbones and that will shield them from the horrors of what the Western and Central Europeans are enduring. Perhaps petty provincialism can save Western civilization in the East. After all, nationalism failed the West after WWI and while I'm pretty sure we'll become nationalists again it probably will be when things are beyond the pale and therefore a matter of time instead of when crisis can all be averted. Which is why I'm seriously considering emigrating to Russia in 5 or 10 years should the situation in America not improve. Russians have their problems, but their continued existence is not one of them.
  5. What Is Virtue?

    Now this I think it close to what is truly virtue. After all, pretty much everyone who claims X is virtuous is saying X is true (maybe. I'll make some examples and try to find a case where that isn't true or needs to be stretched). Actually as I typed I remembered you made some...what's the word, "tortologies?", basically conclusions based on premises boiled into a single sentence. This one's contradicting reality. People are objectively different. Therefore based on a preferred metric of value (like values), people's lives vary in value. Hypothetically though "only I am valuable" is impossible because chances are I've very much skewed my ruler in favor of myself based on some underlying problems within myself. If I base people's worth based on adherence to and pursuit of truth, then guys like Stefan would be at the high end while sophists and traitors would be on the low end. Theoretically it's possible for someone "at the highest end" to say only his life is valuable, but...technically he'd be wrong because literally everyone has a value on the metric of "adherence and pursuit of truth" scale even if that value is relatively less than oneself. Being lesser isn't necessarily bad. I have an IQ of 144, therefore relative to me most people are lesser in terms of horse power. However a guy with 130 could easily school me on something I'm ignorant of or through having a greater genetic focus on, say spatial reasoning, over my strength in verbal acuity, which wouldn't be very useful in situations where skill is required over speech. Very much agreed, and sounds like something the great Stefpai would say. You know your stuff. Therefore: Virtue=Truth-seeking. Someone who isn't virtuous (but not necessarily evil, which requires direct violations of the rules rather than a dulling of the ability to follow them) is basically anyone from a deadbeat to a con artist. Virtue requires adherence to moral values and therefore evil people cannot be virtuous, for truly moral values can be objectively proven as "good"--or preferable. I think. I'm still not totally sure since I haven't read UPB much and what I know is based on his debates with others' on UPB and the arguments he's made/quoted from the book since writing it.
  6. Wise men often say similar things, and I think Putin here is absolutely right. If we could maintain a coherent international law in the first and second world, we may be able to defuse the hostilities of the North Koreans who are naturally fearful for their lives.
  7. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    Which doesn't cease to interest me. I think anti-monarchic propaganda has given monarchism (at least Christian monarchism) an exaggeratedly bad rep. Of course I'm still preferential to AnCap, however if that isn't "an option" (meaning it can't be done or can't be done yet) then I am strongly leaning towards a very morally and lawfully upright monarchy. Since Kings and other territorial rulers are actual people, they can be held accountable in contracts whereas "governments" (like corporations) are not individuals and therefore unaccountable to law or morality. Respect and faith in the law is necessary to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. Combine Classical Liberalism, Austrian Economics, some AnCap, Christian values (which arguably a part of Classical Liberalism) and a monarchy is the necessary transition from a faceless state to a free society. Neither am I; I speak of morality more than law here. I think a child should not be liable for their parents' contracts, and therefore at around 20 should have the option of opting out of whatever their parents agreed to (or continuing it). Like citizenship and tax: morally we should all have the option of consenting to tax for that would make governments far more efficient (and indistinguishable from charity, mercenary army company, and mercenary police force, in many ways) and far more responsive to the individual. Monarchies can satisfy this standard. Theoretically a King can be (as they were in many countries) bound by the laws of both the nation and of the Christ, as well as the common law values that are foundational to modern libertarian/ancap thought, (theoretically a King can be--I repeat) a morally consistent landlord and/or charity owner but with extra respect given to the history of the seat. I can't speak for all monarchies everywhere. Does Saudi Arabia or Kuwait abide by the Christian and libertarian values that is historical to the West? I don't know, but I'd assume not. Japan is technically a monarchy though real power is vested in the Imperial Diet (fundamentally the same as a parliamentarian republic therefore) and therefore it could be said the Diet's lack of accountability and desire to appease has been the Achilles Heel of modern Japanese society. However I think as a transition out of Statism a Christian and Western monarchy is far greater than any republic or democracy.
  8. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    I cannot comment in detail about the laws of Luxembourg nor Monaco, but I can say if the Grand Duke is the legal owner of all Luxembourg then he is in the right to collect rent from his citizens. Even if his hereditary ownership came about through force, all fortunes are made virtuous through time. Most governments however do not have moral ownership as the people born onto those lands are unable to consent towards paying taxes and following the laws for force would be enacted against them if they refused. There cannot be consent when force is involved. While Luxembourg may be an example of a gigantic privately own land (I'll take your word for the sake of argument that it is), most countries are not and most countries do not allow negotiation on the part of "tenants" to barter for individual rights unless it involves having less of them. To clarify, in a landlord scenario, the tenants should be able to barter with their landlord for a re-negotiating of terms, and children should not be born into debt nor duties imposed by those that came before them. I cannot choose to not pay taxes without be arrested or deported and/or having all my property (what little I have) confiscated as "punishment". If Luxembourg is basically a gigantic privately owned land operating based on the libertarian values of the NAP and, in relation to children, not binding those too young to consent to contracts made in their name, then it is not equivocal to 99% of the worlds' governments who collect tax (not rent) based on violating individual property rights as well as demanding children be obligated towards making due on contracts supposedly agreed to by a voting public (which itself violates the property rights of the "minority") decades in advance.
  9. How many Jihad attacks or what will it take for the West to wake up?

    I think it's less a matter of people being woke but rather of courage. Most western governments protect the migrants (and their American equivalent) from legal/lawful punishment and punish the natives for so much as suggesting there should be punishments for bad behavior or measures to crack down on what's causing it. Once western governments are either populated with a Rightist/Christian majority the Europeans/Americans will do what they must or are told in regards to the crisis. It isn't a matter of wokeness by the populace but a sense of "permission" by the government. Therefore either the government has to redpill (which would be interesting as I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) or the people have to stop fearing the government and take the law into their own hands. Either way the West is doomed for war unless we can convince the government they'll be re-elected if they kick out the Muslims and/or elect anti-Muslim/anti-crime politicians. I seriously recommend migrating to somewhere like Russia if you or anyone you know would rather ditch this mess we've inherited.
  10. Confused

    The crazy thing is we could be totally overestimating him. I mean, I used to think the President was this awesome 666D Chess expert. While it's probably true in some cases (like baiting the media to make them look foolish or distract etc. etc.) I doubt it's true all the time (like the God-awful bombing of Syria's air strip thing which luckily didn't kill anyone) . Maybe getting fired/resiging makes it easier for the likes of Bannon and Gorka to be effective. Maybe it's all a part of a future grass-roots campaign to seize all (or at least like 60%) of the congressional seats so that Build the Wall, Ban Islamic Immigration, and Deport Illegal Aliens and Repealing (and hopefully not Replacing) Obamacare can actually happen. Or maybe the President's a tired old man who's running out of energy from all this inertia. However I'm inclined to bet the former given his life history of combating inertia and getting things done. The law needs enforcing, racial tensions need easing, and civil rights need protecting. We're still in the first eighth of his first term. Who know's for sure what'll happen.
  11. Confused

    Well now, I've never thought about it like that. The balance of power could shift radically enough for the President to fulfill his campaign promises.
  12. What Is Virtue?

    If a value is subjective, it cannot be moral right? After all, morality is preference's objective cousin. On the other hand, ideals can be moral. Maybe my ideal is to rid violations of the NAP in the world. How to do that is largely subjective but the moral goal is moral because it is objective--anyone can not abuse or otherwise violate the NAP and it is impossible for two people in a room to willingly violate and be violated by each other because it then becomes consent and no longer a violation. I think we're getting closer to making a case for what a virtuous action might be. We have a virtuous goal, but a virtuous action is going to be harder since hypothetically I could spare the world of future NAP violations by destroying it or mind-controlling it or whatever sci fi world ending totolitarian project I could think of.
  13. Words

    Before starting an argument, it's usually a good idea to first define the abstract terms being used. For example, "What is 'Far Right'?" If I define "Far Left" as totalitarian dictatorship, then "Far Right" becomes Anarcho-Capitalism. If I define "Far Left" based on the French Revolutionary definition of Socialists and Republicans on the left, then the Far Right is Monarchists and later Fascists. If I say "Far Left" is an abandonment of traditionalism in favor of new world values, then Far Right becomes staunch traditionalism to the point of being against any sort of change. That's why I break it up into "Social" (i.e. social mores and principles) versus "Economic" left-right. A Social Far Leftist would be your typical pansexual Multikult degenerate while a Social Far Rightist would be anything ranging from old school Christian to Islam (which is very different but similar in that they're both traditionalist. If I base "Far Right" as "ultimate christendom", then Islam could be somewhere closer to the middle). Economic Left and Right being obvious: Leftists are totalitarian central planners while Rightists are individualist free market guys. Since arguing Left/Right can be a pain without understanding the definitions being used, I always define them first and ask what my partner in the debate thinks they mean, and try to establish a workable definition based on Left/Right being oppositional and based on what people identifying as Left/Right are. I'd recommend that for any abstract term like "conservative", "liberal", and even "fascist" as to some "fascists" a "fascist" is merely someone who wants a structurally stable and peaceful ethnostate rather than a big socialistic central planner with a slightly different rhetoric.
  14. What Is Virtue?

    Before I say anything: I apologize for making you all wait 8 days given I was the one who made this post. I was very busy, and will likely still be busy for a while, but I have a good time now to make some replies and start a new thread about the drama of the August 7th Protest. Contradiction: Morality is objective, therefore moral actions are objective, and therefore virtue is objective. Which makes it in the realm of objectivity again, and therefore "what is virtue remains". This is possible, but that begs the question as to whether "A is virtuous" is a subjective statement or not. Arguably it can be objective insofar A is upholding his values, however it is subjective in the sense that those values A is upholding don't have to be moral. A workable definition. I think it dodges the central question of "what is virtue" and what acts are virtuous (objectively speaking)? Is it even possible to determine whether an action if virtuous, or is it an after-the-fact sort of thing? For example, is saving a life virtuous? Is that objectively moral? Is it context dependent? I know this is an autistic question, but one that bothers me because I want to speak from a position of absolution and conviction rather than doubt and compromise. It's easy to say what don't-dos' are, it's much harder to say what the dos' are objectively. Like we know keeping healthy, being smart in choosing a vocation, having self-discipline, etc. etc. are productive to our own livelihoods but they don't necessarily hold a moral context to them because bad guys can also follow these things for their own bad ends. To repeat myself: What is Virtuous? How do we know it's virtuous? And since virtue is that which is objectively moral, then a re-defining dodges the question because the intent is to suss out the "dos" as compared to the "don't dos" (or at least the "would strongly prefer you do", since the only "dos" I can think of are ones opposite the violation of the NAP, like peaceful parenting as compared to neglect and violence).
  15. Well, hypothetically, a King who technically wields ultimate martial power can decide to not use it, not collect taxes but instead form a donation system, and be consistent with the people subscribing voluntarily to his stated reason as to why he's maintaining an army. He'd no longer be a King in the traditional sense, but he'd still wield great power since his ability to tell his men what to do and expect it done means he can "change his mind" and go back to robbing people to maintain his mafia. He could also choose to keep it a voluntary system. The problem is if the soldiers are willing to obey him like a dictator...then for how long can this be sustained? His monopoly on force would have to be broken alongside the faith in his power in order to make this model sustainable without regression. However, without the faith and loyalty of his soldiers and the monopoly of force, he no longer wields ultimate power. Therefore while a good man can wield ultimate power, he cannot sustain it because to remain good he must inevitably take actions that would reduce it.

Important Information

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