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

Member
  • Content count

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Siegfried von Walheim last won the day on June 15

Siegfried von Walheim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

2 Followers

About Siegfried von Walheim

  • Rank
    Graf von Walheim

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pennsylvania
  • 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

3116 profile views
  1. Siegfried von Walheim

    What rich people think

    Considering the political beliefs of the journalist, I'm skeptical of how truthful this report was. However, having said that, it is hardly surprising if a handful of billionaires really are afraid of the migrant crisis robbing them of everything they worked hard to gain. After all, all they have is money; not an army to protect themselves or enforce some sort of idealized social change. In super-extreme times, it's not the guys with money that thrive but the guys with swords and the commanders of them. But a small handful of rich folks, hedge fund managers at that, is hardly representative of "the rich" given how diverse the rich are compared to any other social or racial class. I can't imagine 2 billionaires having the same opinion on much of anything, even if they're willing to set it aside to work together. I can't blame the handful talked about for their worries though; if I were them, I'd be worried too. After all, if the Right doesn't sheriff up the West then they really are in danger of foreign and native looters and riotous militaries and militias. But, because there is such a strong pushback against the Left and a general trend towards their recession and (numeric) demise, I am not all that worried for the future as the chances of the world-ending or whatever are extremely low--provided my generation of the Right succeeds in pushing back the Left from their madness.
  2. Siegfried von Walheim

    Help Me Figure This Out

    Work on it before your boys see themselves as broken girls. If I knew you personally, I'd just say "fuck you" (but definitely not literally) and stop knowing you. However, I don't know you personally and there are two boys on the line, so I have a bit more patience than I'd normally. I could easily make an emotionally fulled spite-fest about female hypergamy and characterize women as nothing more than eternal parasites and prostitutes before the hard working and laboring men, yet are too arrogant and vain to ever admit it and thus spite men for their own baseness. MGTOW and feminism are two sides of the same problem. How is male sexuality gross? Reading this, it makes me wonder how you see your husband considering how "gross" he is for being a man and how "gross" your kids are for being men-to-be. I can only guess your past, but I can easily predict your future if you don't change your mindset and impressions of men. Considering men make everything in society, from the roads to the clothes to the houses and computers, to the very scrubs and soaps that are used to keep it all clean, I highly suggest you rethink your incredibly sexist view of men and male sexuality. It's better you're honest, but I can't fathom how you could have a remotely healthy family dynamic present or future given this "dormant sexism". Maybe you have a past that makes you see men as mere beasts, but that's no excuse. You, and everyone really, relies on men to keep society together and on women to build the men. If you can't learn to appreciate men--deep down--and male sexuality then frankly you have no future as a mother or a wife. I can't imagine what traumas, intentional or subconscious, you are (or could be) inflicting on your sons. My solution at this point is very simple but ultimately up to you to figure the details out of: learn to appreciate men and male sexuality, or prepare to be a miserable old spinster. I suspect your distaste for men comes from being exposed to beta males and perhaps being a low quality woman with only a body to offer. I hope I'm wrong, but this highly offensive and sexist sentiment could only come from a dark place. I read your inner Eliot Roger below about female sexuality and you can basically reread everything I wrote above but switch the pronouns. The way I see it (and maybe it could alter your view): male sexuality is the seeds, female sexuality is the soil, and the next generation is the fruit, trees, and vegetation that makes the Earth beautiful. A man's sexuality is inherently loving because of his innate desire to invest himself into a woman and children; a woman's sexuality is inherently loving because of her innate desire to welcome and embrace a man into herself and then hold the children born of them. Water tends to seek its own level; aggressive men like to domesticate aggressive women; docile men like to be domesticated by docile women; assertive men like to seek companionship with assertive women. I am not saying all aggressive is good or bad, all docility is good or bad, or all assertiveness is good or bad, because all of it is necessary to build and sustain a society. Warriors protect the workers and farmers, workers build the world, and farmers feed the world, and them both feed and house the warriors in exchange for that protection. This is the relationship between the aggressive, the passive, and the assertive. At its best, a working team. At its worst, a feud. Don't make it a feud. Learn to respect the beauty of how we evolved and the flurry of emotions and sensations that come with sexuality. ...Perhaps all this will change your course, as I am frankly far more concerned for your sons than I am for you after reading this.
  3. Siegfried von Walheim

    The Pinnacle of Ugandan Intelligence

    lol reading this comment stream and then watching the videos... LOL. It's almost like (might as well take off the kid gloves) a snobby British instructor purposely "not getting" why "the kids" find something funny.
  4. Siegfried von Walheim

    Help Me Figure This Out

    My guess is that you're afraid of your boys, or future girls, becoming sluts as adults. Well, the best way to prevent that is with education and example. I am not a slut because I know what happens to sluts and how shitty their lives are. I have so many examples of what happens if I follow my dick that I just don't do that. You need to get the sexist idea out of your head that "male sexuality=inability to love" though. I'm sure there are male sluts like female sluts that don't love or don't need love to screw, but I know as a man that I emotionalize sex and can't help but feel love for someone I am sexually attracted to. And the best way to combat that is education and a desensitization to sexual stimuli. Easiest way is through regular fapping as males naturally have higher standards when they're exposed to the best glamour models on the internet and since most women don't have the bodies of glamour models, most women cannot make me feel like as vulnerable as I used to feel back when I was younger and more sensitive. I doubt it's all that different with girls. I think the Internet has helped a lot in terms of taming sexuality as instead of having actual sex we can now simulate sex and thus reduce the weakness that comes from having a strong sex drive.
  5. Siegfried von Walheim

    Arguments against NAP.

    Simple: what if the value sets between A and B are so great that they cannot avoid fighting each other? Like if Group A believes itself utterly perfect in values and just in seeking to conquer the world, but hasn't quite gotten around to doing it yet, while Group B is the NAP group that is highly pacifist. Either Group A will attack Group B when it's most convenient OR, violating the NAP (potentially), Group B could preemptively attack Group A and do whatever they must to destroy Group A to prevent Group A from trying to subjugate their neighbors and impose their "perfect" ideology. It could be argued Group B was acting in self-defense, but Group A wasn't actively threatening anybody. They just have as a blanket statement a fanaticism in their correctness and a desire to impose it on the world. However they didn't, at the time, have a workable army or plan and so were mostly keeping to themselves. It could be said a time to violate the NAP is when someone else is doing it and the people under that someone else cannot rise up on their own to reform. Our, more simply, "my neighbor's house is on fire! Do I break in to hose it down, or respect their privacy?". That may sound unreasonable but what if trying to blow out the fire would extend it to the NAP-guy's house, endangering his own family? See how this all connects to the real world? I'm not saying I disagree with the NAP, but I do think we ought to very wary and, as a society, hostile towards those that openly seek global domination and consider themselves so perfect as to be non-negotiable, as well as skeptical to those that think it's a good idea to intervene in the immorality of those who are geographically distant and culturally alien.
  6. Siegfried von Walheim

    The Multiverse

    How old are you?
  7. I've changed my stance somewhat since to be in favor of the Japanese style of monarchy that was going on under the Tokugawa Shogunate. See that for details. I have not done any research of modern monarchies (especially third-world ones) however I know enough of European and Asian monarchies to know that what you say is only true for some countries in some times and totally untrue for other countries and other times. And, before I go any further, can you name me a single monarchy with as much blood on its hands as the secular/republican/non-monarchist states of the 20th century? Especially compared to (former monarchical) Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, America, Cuba, etc.? Now, I'm not saying all these countries were totally terrible for the last one hundred years. But I am saying we have a hell of a lot more blood on our hands since WWI... Name me a single genocidal monarchy. I'd be tempted to name "Japanese Empire" for you, but in its defense it was no longer an effective monarchy as the Shogunate (arguably the real monarch for the last 1,000 years) was overthrown and a dictatorship of politicians and ex-nobles and warlords had seized control. Even more I dare you to name a single monarchy that required genocide to sustain itself. I think you've watched too much Game of Thrones because even the very worst of rulers were mild and limited compared to Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Castro, Mao, etc. and in general they were much more of the Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Trump, Obama, and Buchanan level of good vs. evil. Generally quite mild and consistent. (Almost) Literally every Holy Roman Emperor (exaggerating but this is a notable trend) was a depressed drunk who spent his days arguing and defending his country rather than sanctioning genocide or radically reforming (for better or worse) his nation. Great guys like Charlemagne, Ivan the Great (not his grandson the Terrible), Ieyasu Tokugawa, and Charles Martel were rare but so too were the Borgias, Ivan the Terrible, or Hideyoshi Toyotomi. In fact, I'd wager ye average monarch was a mild-mannered debater who kept the status quo more than anything. Occasionally there were economy-wreckers or warmongers but in general the aristocracy kept them in check. In general no one died as a direct result of government policies (because, in part, the government officials--aristocrats--directly profited from a happy and healthy populace whereas in Republics they just take their lobby money and leave before the crap hits the fan. These guys had an incentive to plan for the long term). If you want peace, establish a decentralized aristocracy. if you want war, establish a federal republic. Best example I have of a good monarchy: the Tokugawa Shogunate. Literally the worst Shoguns were dog lovers, preachers who loved Confucius, a wastrel who liked wine and poetry, and a guy who liked swords and broke the then-historically-strong economy patronizing swordsmiths. I don't know about you but I kinda prefer having my worst leaders be dog lovers and fiscally irresponsible over cynical rapists, anti-patriotic foreigners, warmongers, and/or city-nukers. Especially I prefer it when foreign policy is consistent and foreign leaders trust our word and loyalty rather than starkly changing every 8 years. The fact America (and most other democratic-republics) is practically a different country every 4-8 years ought to say enough about the inherent danger of the bipolar republican system.
  8. Siegfried von Walheim

    Is MGTOW an unsustainable lifestyle?

    MGTOW is just the male equivalent to feminism. Pretty much everything a feminist says about a man, a MGTOW says about a woman. While there is stuff to learn from MGTOW (like the dangers of bad women) sort of how there used to be stuff to learn from feminism (like about dangerous men), both are just suicidal ideologies that will cease to exist once their proprietors die of old age and the children of those that decided to actually procreate become the dominant force. Like feminism, MGTOW is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only difference is that feminism is backed by the state and dominant while MGTOW is new and dormant.
  9. Siegfried von Walheim

    Need help assessing my girlfriend and myself

    No, I'm seeking sanity and humanity from a woman. If she's as bitchy and worthless as the kind your advice is needed for, she isn't worth it. I'd rather dig around for a unicorn or be a single dad (or even a fake-gay dad or some crazy thing like that) than marry an adult child. Heck, even a 40 year-old used up train wreck who somehow managed to "fix herself too late" is preferable to a 20-something who is basically a child that never grew up. I'm not saying I'll go for 40 year olds or purposely become a single dad, but I am definitely not working and creating for a woman who is just a black hole with nothing to offer that either money or a professional can't replace. Let alone impregnating her and letting her genes continue.
  10. Siegfried von Walheim

    Need help assessing my girlfriend and myself

    While I trust this as good advice, there is a problem: why would you consider marrying a woman that is really no different from an English (or in this case Spanish)-speaking dog? How can you love a woman that is basically a child with tits and ass? I'd just do what Stefan said: assume she won't change and move on. Attention-seeking whores, mentally/emotionally unstable, and bitchy are definitely red flags for "gtfo asap".
  11. Siegfried von Walheim

    (Lack of) Rites of Passage

    If it's that simple, holding a job and renting for the first time is a rite because nothing says "I am in control of my life" quite like having to be responsible for one's finances.
  12. Siegfried von Walheim

    Trinary Logic

    How is it just to "reduce mankind's burden of survival"? What does that even mean? Theoretically if justice meant reduction of pain, you could do that very easily through universal genocide. No man, no pain. Obviously, for sane people at least, this is not desirable because anyone who is currently alive and not attempting suicide prefers life over death because they get more than they lose. Your goals sound very Socialist as their ends are about "reducing pain" and they have a love of manipulating and twisting language as well. What is good behavior? Good for who? Why are these things "good" and what is this "ethical code of conduct"? In the Middle East, it is considered ethical to stone folks who tarnish the name of the Koran. The abundance of "symbolic terms" only obfuscates your own ideological and moral intents. Without any context besides the chart and what is said, there is little difference between "Social Justice" and "Creative Justice". Why not simply "Justice"? Why is there a desire to "resolve inequality"? I don't think inequality is even a problem. All creatures are naturally unequal. And thanks to the intellectual, moral, and physical titans of yore it is us who get to live and bask in the Sun of Utopia rather than live in a swamp or desert eating only what we can catch or graft, and disposing of our wastes into ditches. I, as a novelist, am extremely skeptical of artists. Given the solipsistic nature of our similar professions, a whole lot is required to justify the formation of ideology formulated by folks like us because most of us are talkers and thinkers rather than doers. Meaning we don't do much and have little experience yet we like to talk about and write about the folks that do and occasionally some of us arrogantly think our revolutionary ideals are the next great leap forward and every now and then one writer/artist out of a hundred thousand actually succeed in putting theory into practice. Some like John Locke or Milton Friedmon actually save and improve lives, others like Marx or Lenin take millions and inspire the rising of even greater evils. And what the bad ones have in common is obscure language, lack of concrete definitions, and the belief that their ideas make perfect sense so why doesn't everyone just do it already? I am not saying you have evil intents, but I am saying the gravitas of your proposal is quite huge and you have to be able to answer at least my basic questions or else you're just another sophist preaching for yet another fool's idol.
  13. Siegfried von Walheim

    Trinary Logic

    How is "creative justice"--which is neither defined nor explained-- any different from "social justice"? And why would anyone want equality of outcome? I am extremely skeptical about your moral intents.
  14. Siegfried von Walheim

    First Time At Church (Roman Catholic)

    Well, that's all news to me. What's so different about Baptists compared to other churches? May be necessary for you since if you seriously want to try being the atheist husband to a Christian woman, you'd probably want to figure out what's distinctive about Baptist churches compared to others. The problem (and I don't mean my problem but one I think you'll have in the long run if you try for a Christian woman) is that you're lying and deceiving. You're acting like a Christian even though you're an atheist. Even if you're a good liar and a sociopath your woman will eventually figure it out I doubt you could have a good marriage with a woman you regularly lied about yourself to. The main reason why I decided to stop going to church was because I didn't really believe in God. I don't want to call myself an atheist because I do have moral values even if I don't have a rational methodology for them... but I am definitely not a real believer and I don't want to build relationships from deceit.
×

Important Information

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