DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

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

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

 

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

Siegfried von Walheim

  • Content count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Siegfried von Walheim last won the day on May 20

Siegfried von Walheim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15 Neutral

About Siegfried von Walheim

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pennsylvania
  • Interests
    History, philosophy, authoring, gaming, anime, and great rulers and pioneers.
  • Occupation
    Novelist

Recent Profile Visitors

291 profile views
  1. Makes perfect sense to me. Especially when you consider Muslim children will eventually become Muslims adults who'll violate our moral values and breed more NAP violators, to put it vaguely. I want to revise what I said about groups and collective blame somewhat because I do think groups ought to be held collectively responsible if everyone participated in the action, however I now think that members of a group who may not have actively participated in a crime also should suffer condemnation (and whatever punishment is appropriate) because they're at least enabling it with silence or worse still creating it through private actions. In the case of Muslims, I feel all right (again 'feel') saying "I want no Muslims nor people with an Islamic heritage" in my country or living space because even if there's a chance I "get lucky" with a fake Muslim, it is far more likely I'll either be neighbors with actual Muslims and those who'd foster it. Therefore, on the broader subject of collective judgements, while they not be philosophically 100% valid (they're about as valid as the percentage of danger presented by the group's dangerous members, so to figure) they are practically valid because exceptions do not make the rule, and if there is a group with a very high rate of criminality it's perfectly reasonable to want them gone and far away, even if there is a risk of abandoning the "good ones" because they are exceptions liable to create more of the rule themselves. Plus, it's just a lot safer and a lot more efficient to make decisions about collectives based on them collectively.
  2. 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). 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. 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. 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.
  3. 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. 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.
  4. Simple, because that's welfare. By caring for the offspring of loose sex and their mothers, they effectively funded and promoted single motherhood and the degeneracy born of such. While it could be post-war propaganda on this part, I remember reading it being said that German men were encouraged to impregnate a woman before leaving the war. A very r-selected way of increasing the national population which when combined with the relieving of consequences of single motherhood (Lebensborn), it fights against the natural shrinkage and gene death of the r-selected animal in K-selected society. Therefore, it is essentially identical to the modern welfare state which makes single motherhood a viable option and promotes bad women to breed freely, and fence-sitters to be bad.
  5. Now that's interesting. I was also basing off of Stef's videos as well as the studies he occasionally tweets. Perhaps I got my information from from either his tweeted studies or his videos on the subject specifically. Perhaps you missed the point or I am falsely remembering it, but I'm sure it is at least partially hereditary as that would explain why people are so hard to change and fundementally remain the same within given boundaries. Politically it's easy to characterize the Democrats and Republicans as general Left/Right, however there is also "conformation level" I've heard used to compare the different K-selected behaviors of Whites and East Asians. Basically some people are high conformist (which is why China has had relatively few civil wars compared to Europe, but the civil wars they have had were very bloody and resulted in systems not that different from before) and others low conformist (which is why countries like England had a civil war practically every 100 years, with each war being not that bloody by comparison and resulting in significantly different systems). I'd have to look into the Adaptive Strategies thing a bit more to give a fair analysis, however I think they could both be true as it's easy to divide people in two groups with only a few consistent differences (mainly the K-selected tend to be very familial and long-term planning, while the r-selected live in the moment only and can't plan beyond the next five minutes) and also not all K-selected people behave the same (easy contrast being the no-beating no-abusing Stef with the rather abusive Ted Cruz. Both are K-selected and interested in doing the best their families in the long run, but one is willing to make a 180* turn from what he grew up with while the other is most likely only somewhat different from his background, reflecting the idea that some Ks are very conformist while others are willing to take radical risks. Still, on the main subject, I think I must emphasize that we cannot change the r-selected by giving them more power and license to continue being r-selected. Disarming them is a sure-fire way to force a change over generations. This can be seen both positively (in White people being more diplomatic than they used to be) and negatively (in White people have less and less sense of self and group than they used to) over the last 100 years.
  6. Yeah, an r-selected and degenerate regime pretending to be K-selected. I left the Hitler club definitively after learning about the Lebensborn Program, look it up if you haven't heard of it. It's basically a welfare state for whores, promoting all the r-selection that'd inevitably pollute and destroy the German race the same way r-selected shysters do now. EDIT: It's likely to happen either way. Hopefully this time we can make it K-selected by fact rather than just r-selected and a travesty. If only Stef were an American politician, I'd love it if he declared himself The Leader of the AnCap Party and went about building Kekistan.
  7. r and K selection is hereditary, largely anyway. Not totally but stats say it's definitely largely genetic. Low rent women and men who sell out and die off are doing us a favor. High quality people are all that matter. If you don't know r/K, you don't know that it's pretty binary. Either you are tempted by promiscuity and degeneracy, or you find it immensely repulsive. You can try to switch over ( I come from an r-Selected background myself) but it's rare and usually the long-term transformation process goes several generations. Gene death is preferable to low quality Whites. I'd rather see my race die than live on as apes. However that's unlikely. Even if 90% of Whites are r-Selected, the remaining 10% will redeem them by taking over and promoting policies favorable to them (and AnCap is the surest and most effective way of doing that. Under our current system, it's best we simply hold our nose at the r-Selected, find a K-selected partner, make a slew of babies and raise them well, and build communities around shared values and long-term creation). K-selected women by definition won't sell out to r-selected men. Letting the r-selected women who'd hide themselves by pretending to be K-selected (which is historically how Europe evolved, with r-selected genes pretending to be K-selected with only some of them really becoming that way over time) be themselves is the best thing for our race. It shines a big spotlight and will inevitably divide the race into at least two parts: The Few Good Whites who'll build and control the future; the Many Bad Whites who'll be the future serfs and die off lest they don't change their ways and upgrade. I don't care for women who can't commit to r-selection. I only care for women who are truly K-selected. Abolishing (or abstaining from) porn will not improve the behavior of r-selected men or women, it'll just make it easier for them to snatch horny fence-sitters (who might make up the biggest third) who'd otherwise rub one off and look for quality.
  8. Every politician is a lobbyist for someone, and ultimately for themselves. Jewish politicians are mainly special because they have a sense of ethnic and religious loyalty that most politicians do not. Similar to the idea not everyone in a group can be blamed for X unless you only count the ones who did X, I can't say Jews are the problem because only some Jews (whether a majority or loud minority I do not know) are, and functionally they're just as bad as our fellow countrymen as Statists and parasites because, well, regardless of who's under the suit a politician is a politician. A gangster is a gangster. Some gangsters are just better at it than others, but not all Jews are gangsters. On the case that our American government is Zionist, well that's obvious. Jews are a wealthy group of people, therefore they have influence over the gangsters who take money in exchange for doing favors. The Jews (which we call Zionists because every Zionist is a Zionist whereas not every Jew is a Zionist) who manipulate Americans are naturally against us but not evil because they're doing it for their race and religion. And a big problem is that our government is the ultimate prostitute and will whore itself to any radical group with money and materials to help the individual termites of State attain political power. The long-term solution to this is the abolition of state, or at least the abolition of Republicanism. Monarchism is harder to buy out because it's members are hereditary rather than elected. He was as indoctrinated about race, IQ, etc. as everyone else was/is. Murray Rothbard invented (or at least in it's current form invented) a great idea, Stefan took it miles further with his great books Practical Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behavior. I'm not objecting to that, in fact I think building a White ethnostate is the best thing we can do to preserve our way of life, K-selection, and overall build the great AnCap that many of us dream of. As to how to get there, I figure it'll be a combination of political strongmen, civil crisis, and a group of leaders who followed the ideals of peaceful parenting, K-selection, and RTR. I'd argue further that enthostates based on specific ethnicities (German, English, Russian, etc.) are the ideal for establishing AnCap, and for us Americans redefining "American" by creating a White Ethnostate here would be ideal for us in particular given many of our ancestries are mixed of various European ethnic groups. I doubt the government will ever establish our ethnostate, at least not unless we co-opt it with Nationalists, Capitalists, and AnCaps. It'll be a slow process but it'll be worth it for our (K-selected) White children, (K-selected) White descendants, and K-selected ideals become the new world order for the West. And I emphasize "K-selected" because r-selected Whites are just as bad as any other r-selected group--better off weeded out of the gene pool and most easily and painlessly done in AnCap.
  9. And those who do are r-selected and signalling that to high quality men looking for a real woman. How is it a bad thing for low-quality people to signal themselves as low quality? I prefer that to the guy who pretends to be a millionaire but is in actuality in debt millions of dollars and in signing that contract I am doomed to pay it back for him. Yes, people who go for prostitutes (said to be the oldest profession in history) are r-selected and obtain the STDs that'll sterilize them. If consequences meant anything (i.e. there were no welfare state) then these people would die off, or change their behavior. Men who seek prostitutes are signalling to high quality women that they're degenerate. Women who whore themselves out are signalling sex is all they're good for, and porn makes the judgement easy to make because K-selected men are no longer desperate for sex like every other hormonal male (or female for the reverse). Therefore Porn=r-Selection Detector and Disarmament. r-Selection Detector & Disarmament = K-Selected easier to fulfil. Without masturbation in general, low quality hotties dominate the relationship market. By calling porn anti-K, you are serving the interest of whores for whom sex is their only value. Do you understand the point I'm making? Porn disarms hot messes, prostitution (both the "formal" kind and the "buy me shit and I'll put out" kind) signals a red flag for all to see, and it's easiest to tell if a man or woman is a prostitute when you've just rubbed one off a few hours ago. It's much harder (both literally and metaphorically) when big blue eyes and nice curves are masking the underlying crazy. Taking sex out of the equation via porn is a great way to empower men and women to choose their wives/husbands based on character rather than sex appeal.
  10. Yeah, that's pretty much where I am with it. I suppose I forgot to mention groups that may not have a majority of violent adherents but tend to often hide or purposely ignore its violent members. Antifa would be a good example, while ISIS would be the perfect example of a group that can be collectively condemned as anti-NAP because their whole mission statement is "bring back the Caliphate, Boss Man is the new Sultan, and let's Make Arabia Dark Aged Again!" .
  11. In these cases that's true, however it relies on the premise that the State is Jewish rather than simply a collection of monsters that happens to have an overrepresentation of Jews relative to their population. However in terms of the merchant selling, anything Statist is better analogized to a mafia 'offering'. That's something I've wondered as well. I have never known a dumb Jew but I also haven't known many Jews, as there aren't that many of them. I'm sure they're at least as high as the average White because...well, stupid people don't over-represent in their countries. However it is known there is a strong in-group preference among Jews, therefore I'm sure even slow Jews get ahead because they know somebody. And of course not all Jews are shysters, the main man behind modern AnCap is a Jew and Stefan Molyneux may be part Jewish himself, thereby "redeeming" them collectively as good Jews are making themselves more visible as if to "cancel out" the bad Jews. In general Jews have some of the best survival instincts and I imagine the reason why they're so over-represented in government and governmental-touched areas is because they're the safest areas to make the most bang and buck both individually and collectively, as most Jews have well-established families and kin-groups that help advance each other. Plus some Jewish sects tend to be pretty Islamic about their dogma and those sects in particular are very much the pro-self and anti-non-self racists.
  12. That's quite the article, and a very strong argument. You know I was never taught anything about this in my government-sponsored public school education...I wonder why.
  13. Theoretically AnCap would work best to undue control from undesirable groups because AnCap by it's own nature gives the most resources to the most K-selected, therefore r-selected adherents to degeneracy and its promoters (be they Jews or otherwise) would shrink over time. The most peaceful way to upgrade the White race is to let the bad Whites be bad (and suffer the consequences) and let the good Whites be good, 'cause Mother Nature is very fair insofar as she blesses with the most resources to the most K-selected among us. As far as porn is concerned, I think it's really a great benefit to humanity because it takes away a very powerful weapon from both women and men who use sex as a substitute for good character. Just think about it; if you can get the thrill of orgasm without risking an STD, rape case, etc. from having sex with a random crazy person, why not? By satisfying those urges manually we protect ourselves from being manipulated by evil and crazy people. It makes it easier for men and women to abstain from sex until they meet the great K selected people for whom sex ought to be given to as the best fit for furthering familial survival. Stefanism (peaceful parenting and RTR) is most easily followed when sex is taken out of the equation. Crazy women (from a man's side) stand out glaringly when men aren't being suffocated in hormones to overlook their crazy, and therefore sane women get the positive male attention. Vice versa also applies. In short; porn is wonderful; it promotes K-selection by disarming sexually attractive but dangerous demons!
  14. As a guy who found this topic interesting, I'll take a stab at it. Assuming the soldier was forcibly conscripted, then moral standards no longer apply to him because he's in an amoral situation and robbed of agency by an external force. It's akin to be told to shoot someone while someone else holds a gun to your head; are you really evil for shooting someone when ordered to do so at gunpoint? If the soldier is a volunteer (i.e. he willingly joined the army) then he has some responsibility to at least know his army's history as an aggressor or non-aggressor. If the army has a history of warmongering then by joining he is indirectly endorsing warmongering and therefore violates the NAP. However if he thought the army was always heroic and a defender, then being told to do evil was a violation against him on the part of the army's command as he didn't sign up to become an instrument for war crimes.
  15. This part's confusing, and the question in general I find interesting. First; do you mean to say those who adhere to a religion generally do whatever that religion claims to be about? Therefore if religion A is supposed to be a religion of peace, then they generally ignore parts that say "except in this circumstance where violence is justified"? Or are you saying a religion that endorses the use of force to spread itself and sustain itself, it's adherents claiming to be members are not necessarily initiating force? Before answering these two interpretations of what you said, I think I have an answer as to whether groups can violate the NAP in the same sense of individuals; If a person is a thief, then he's a thief. If a group is a group of thieves then they have mutual responsibility for thievery because they're all thieves. Therefore applied to Islam, those who practice their religion for real(also known as "extremists") rather than just pretend to can be collectively condemned. However Muslims who do not violate the NAP but merely wear the badge and pretend to be real Muslims are not violating the NAP so long as they aren't, you know, circumcising their children, raping people, etc. etc. However to be clear, for a group to have violated the NAP, every individual counted must have. Therefore outliers in any group must be counted out, hence why we call real Muslims "Islamic extremists", the idea being everyone in that group violated the NAP whereas not every self-identifying Muslim has violated the NAP or even really practices actual, orthodox Islam. This can be extrapolated to pretty much any other scenario, such as black criminals, a group comprised entirely of criminals in order to separated from blacks in general, as not every black commits crimes but black criminals are by definition criminals. I hope what I'm saying makes sense as a formula. In regards to voluntary association, I can't say someone proclaiming to be a Muslim by choice (i.e. a 30-something year old convert) is necessarily violating the NAP by association (which mustn't be considered the same as actually doing it) because what they define to be "true Islam" may not be the Koran but some weird New-New-Testament and they decided to just call it "Islam". Similar to how not every AltRighter is a Rightist, because some are Leftists who mistake themselves for Rightists (e.g. Fascists and moderate Socialist populists). The bigger the umbrella the more corrupted and less meaningful it winds up being. Not saying umbrellas don't mean anything, I just can't logically blame everyone under it for something only a part of them are unless it's like 99% and the remaining 1& is just some confused crazy person.