st434u

I've always gotten the feeling that Mike Maloney sounds like a snake oil salesman tbh, even though I agree with most of what he says. If you're in a survival situation, BPA and cancer won't be your first concern. Also, if you're serious about this, I suggest going mainly for bulk, something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tY7GT-kMpY Just make sure to know how to properly store them for the long term. About precious metals, I suggest you try to pay as low a premium above spot as you can. That will of course depend on how and where you're buying it. I've heard many people say that they don't mind paying $22 an ounce for silver when it's $16 because that's only $6 extra per ounce, and when it goes up to $500 they won't care that they paid $6 more for them. That's not the right way to think about this. Because if you have $2000 to invest, and you buy at $16 an ounce, that's 125oz, but at $22 it's only 91oz. Meaning if and when it gets to $500, you'll be left with $62,500 in the first case, but only $45,500 in the second case. Silver will have much bigger ups and bigger downs than gold, and in the long term it will go up a lot more. But it's also much more difficult and expensive to store, and depending on where you are and your chosen method for buying them, it may also be a lot more difficult (and expensive) to buy.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is, why it's helpful, and how it arises in a free market. I don't blame you, we live in a crazy world where people have been led to believe that money are colored pieces of paper with numbers written on them, or worse, numbers on a computer screen somewhere. First, there is barter. Here there is no money per se, and all valuable items are exchanged for other valuable items, with no preference of one over another, in your example it might be trading chickens for milking cows directly. Some sellers of milking cows might ask for 50 chickens for one milking cows, while others might ask for 200, just like prices vary in the marketplace today. And yet others might not want chickens at all, and demand to be paid in flour instead. But you might not have flour, so now you have to find someone who has flour and wants chickens. It soon becomes obvious that some of those valuable items being exchanged are better at performing the roles of a medium exchange than the others. For instance, rice might be superior to eggs, because rice lasts for a long time without spoiling, it's easy to recognize it's quality without breaking it, it's less likely that it will become ruined by something as simple as a bump, it's easier to store and transport than eggs, it's easier to divide and make small change for paying for inexpensive things with rice than with other valuable items such as live milking cows and even eggs, and maybe also because more people in your area eat rice (and in a greater amount) than those that eat eggs or consume dairy. Then, sellers might all start demanding rice, even if they themselves don't eat rice, because they know that other people in the market will demand rice, either to consume it themselves, or to exchange for what they want. Here rice has become money, but notice how, even though in all other points it was superior to milking cows or eggs, if nobody wanted to consume any rice, then it would make little sense to use it as a form of money, since you would have no guarantee that others would accept it the next day in exchange for their goods, even if they accept it today. And even if they did, you would have no idea at what rate they would accept it tomorrow, since the rational expectation would be that at some point, sooner or later, everybody would realize that they're using an item that will soon become worthless as money, and begin to demand something else as payment, and to get rid of their rice as fast as they can. When you say that money is simply a conversion tool, this misses the point. Money can only be a conversion tool if it has value in the first place. If a form of money becomes worthless (or was worthless all along), then it can't be a conversion tool for anything.

That's a great point. I personally do believe that culture plays a large part here, but so does what you're saying.

Without land property, 99.99% of humanity would die. I'm pretty sure that's a slam dunk for land property rights.

Personal experience doesn't count? Surely someone would be interested in others' experience even if they aren't able to provide evidence. Just because they're unable to provide such evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that such interactions never took place. Should a woman avoid warning her friends that a man she went out on a date with is a rapist, just because she can't prove that the rape took place? It seems to me that your problem is more with people believing every negative thing they hear about someone else even when there's no evidence. You think people are stupid and will believe anything, so you lash out against those who would give negative commentary without solid proof. The problem would not be the woman who's warning that someone is a rapist (unless he isn't), but those who would 100% believe her without a good reason to do so. If you personally know dsayers and you know these things said about him are false, and are demanding proof, that's a different thing. That'd be similar to if he himself was demanding evidence. But that's not what you're doing, is it? I'm not making any statements as to what dsayers is like, I'm just arguing the point you made.

Of course they do not. Property rights are essentially a moral consensus/agreement to respect other's properties as they respect your own. They help us function better in society and live better lives. However, most people today are very confused about what types of property rights should exist or would be ideal. It's important to show them how things could be a lot better by just improving and simplifying this system.

Well if you don't remove them by force then the neighbor will. So yes, it's legit. Kids don't have a right to stay in someone else's property against their wishes, just like adults don't have that right. That's different. Bedtime is arbitrary. For you as a working adult it makes sense to maintain the same exact and strict bedtime every day, for a child who has no responsibilities it makes little sense. And then schools are just State controlled brainwashing camps. You don't wanna be dragging your child kicking and screaming to a place where they clearly don't wanna be in, and where their minds and souls will be crushed for the benefit of the State.

Right. I've never worked with derivatives but I get an idea of how they function. Do you know which types of assets or sectors the banks are heavily invested in through derivatives? And when you say the derivatives bubble will pop, do you mean most types of derivatives, or all? It seems to me that if the underlying assets go down in price heavily, and the derivative was a bet that they would go up, then the people who made that bet will lose, whereas the one who took the bet (or made the opposite bet, if possible) would gain. I also suspect derivatives may be used for hedging. For example, an airline company may want to protect themselves from higher oil prices in the future, so they buy oil futures now. Likewise, a cotton farmer may want to ensure a certain payout from the harvest next year, so he would go to the futures market and sell cotton short. If cotton goes down, he will lose on his production but gain in the futures market, and if cotton goes up, he will lose on the futures market but gain when harvest time comes. Either way he ensures the same level of profitability from his investment. However, when you say banks have 2T in assets and 50T in derivatives, that's a pretty high leverage level for a bank. Although if many of those bets are hedging of other bets, it may not be so terrible. For instance, if you buy gold mine stocks and sell gold short, you can potentially create a situation where no matter if the price of gold goes up or down, you gain a profit. Yet your portfolio would look like you have much more money invested than you actually own, but that's because you are pretty much sure you can't lose on both sides. It's almost impossible for the price of gold to go up a lot and the gold stocks price to go down a lot at the same time. Another example would be betting on some stocks in one sector and betting against others. For instance, if you think Twitter is undervalued when compared to Facebook, you can buy Twitter stocks and sell Facebook stocks short, because you expect that if the sector goes up, Twitter will go up more, and if the sector goes down, Facebook will go down more.

1. No, at least not in a legal or moral sense. Just like the guy showing off money in a dangerous part of the city without protection, she doesn't have responsibility for being raped. She did, however (in your example), increase her chances of being raped dramatically. Just like the guy with the money increased his chances of being robbed dramatically. We can say her choice (like his) was unwise and risky. 2. Absolutely not. 3. No, it does not. If she wants to dress like a slut, she is free to do that. I personally would have no interest in dating a woman who wants to dress like a slut in public, even if she only does it when I'm with her and she's safe. It's not just about the safety, it's about the fact that if she wants to be in a romantic relationship with me, then why would she want other guys to look at her body like that?

Interesting, can you give us more details?

Yeah but at some point they either have to stop the ever increasing manipulation and let the price soar, which will eventually reveal their scam, or the paper price will become detached from the actual price of physical, which may have to be traded under the table for a much higher price. Eventually this will lead to the complete collapse of the paper financial system and fiat money will no longer have any confidence behind it. They take a loss either way, so it's hard to predict which route they will go. The second route is the best for them for the short term, but eventually destroys their incredibly lucrative scheme. I think what's likely is that they will choose the second route, but only insofar as it's absolutely necessary, so there will be some mix of the first route as well thrown in there. It's a bit like juggling, they gotta mix it up just right to prolong this for as long as they can. That said, I could see gold drop to $800/oz in a year or two, just not below that. And if it maintains this level for a few years further, then $1200 will be the new floor, with the sky as the limit. Just my personal predictions.

That's not even so much money, it's only a little over 40 billion USD. However, if the gold price wasn't manipulated, it would likely be a lot more. It's interesting what they do because they can print up paper money which should make gold go up, but then they use some of that paper money to sell paper gold short (betting that it will go down), which drives down the price, or prevents it from rising as much as it otherwise would, so nobody realizes their scam. It's a pretty good system for them, as long as people maintain confidence in the paper world...

Yes, but it's not so much fear, as it is envy. For example, Hitler hated jews because they were over-represented as business owners and capitalists, and Hitler was a socialist who wanted to expropriate the rich, so hating jews was the perfect excuse. On the other hand, there was already a communist party that he had to differentiate himself from (even though his economic ideas differred very little from it), and since many of the leading intellectuals for communist ideals were jews, that was also a perfect excuse for him. Jews are a race (or rather a number of races) but they also hold a religion, and since they don't engage in proselytism, they are bound to be different from everybody else in that regard. So some societies that depended heavily on religion, such as absolute monarchies, have also been hostile to jews partly because they didn't hold the same religion as the masses, and thus were not lending legitimacy to the divine right of kings. In democratic societies, which are always socialist, jews are the perfect target because they tend to be more productive. At least the ashkenazim, which were the predominant jews in Germany and Russia during WWII.

The Ashkenazim and Sephardim are subspecies of two different subspecies of humans known as caucasians, i.e. whites. Mizrahim and Yemenite jews are subspecies of arabs. Please educate yourself. Should you be liable for every crime that other individuals of your race commit, and have committed in the past? No? Oh, so that logic only applies to jews. I see. Yeah, like Hitler. Oh wait, he wasn't a jew, so that doesn't condemn those of his race. And yet it's mostly other whites who do this. If you were consistent you would say that whites deserve what they get. But you're not. And in this case, it's good that you're not. Ashkenazim are the race with the highest average IQs, and also tend to produce some of the highest IQ individuals. Because of this, they occupy much more of the important positions in society than their percentage of the population would dictate. Because the democratic State and everything that it touches becomes corrupted and harmful, the azkenazim are bound to be in charge of much more of the positions that create harm than their percentage of the population would dictate. You won't get rid of this problem by getting rid of the smart people. In fact, it'll only get worse. Simply take a look at other democratic countries where positions of power are held by people of low IQs.

It's not so simple. The liberals of Europe wanted freedom from the monarchs, while the conservatives wanted to maintain the monarchical system because they knew that it had worked well for thousands of years. Absolute monarchy and feudalism are the least intrusive and damaging forms of statism, and are naturally favorable to capitalism and economic freedom. Liberals in Europe were not content with that, and they wanted freedom from even the small abuses of monarchs and feudal lords. Democracy is the most intrusive and destructive form of statism, and is naturally favorable to ever increasing socialism and economic slavery. In the US, liberals also wanted freedom from monarchs, they wanted to stop being a colony and paying taxes to a foreign king, and they wanted instead to elect their own king through democracy, and pay taxes to him instead. While this initially reduced the power of the state, that only lasted for a very short time, as it always does under democratic government, and now the US has gone from one of the most free countries in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, to one of the least free today. The same is true for most of the new world, although some other countries in the new world did retain the original meaning for liberal meaning libertarian. It usually only takes one to three generations before a democracy becomes much more oppressive than a monarchy ever could be.

I really don't see much difference between Donald Trump and Sam Harris. They're both socialists. They just pretend to be different from each other so that they can capture a different spectrum of the hordes of mindless, well-trained seals who just want a socialist hero to clap for while he tells them how he wants to control everyone's lives to the smallest detail.

Well it doesn't apply equally to her as it does to you. Men evolutionarily prefer a mate who is a virgin because someone's who's not a virgin could potentially be pregnant with someone else's child when you start the relationship, and then as the pregnancy progresses he'd naturally assume he's the father. What's more, the more sexual partners she's had, the more likely she is to be a slut, and thus be low value, at least from that perspective. Women rarely care much if their potential mate is a virgin or not, because while it's true that in a modern society, a man who's not a virgin could've gotten someone else pregnant without his knowledge, and thus potentially be on the hook for child support (and this can come up several years after the impregnation took place, which is not the case for women), you also have to consider that in most of our evolutionary history, tribes were polygynous, meaning only one or a few men would father children with a lot of women, and resources were provided to his children by every other male in the tribe due to his status. What's more, the more sexual partners he's had, the more likely he is to be a stud, and thus be high value, at least from that perspective. All that said, you knew full well going into the relationship that she wasn't a virgin, so you've got no right making a big deal out of it at this point. If you guys now break up because you can't deal with the fact that she's had another boyfriend before, how do you think her future potential mates will feel about the fact that she's had not one, but two previous failed relationships? If you weren't sure you could deal with this, then why did you have sex with her under the pretenses of a lifelong relationship? My advice may be crude, but I think you just gotta bite the bullet and do what's right. Man up, and deal with it. Life isn't all rainbows and roses, and you gotta own the decisions you've already made. She's not perfect, and obviously neither are you.

I agree with everything you said, except I think the proper biological term is sex. Sexes for plural. As in, the male sex and the female sex. It gets confusing because nowadays in everyday speak, most people use the term "sex" as an abbreviation of sexual intercourse, i.e. copulation or mating. I think the term "gender" was originally created to differentiate between biological sex and the socio-psychological beliefs and behaviors relating to the identification to one of the sexes. I personally think gender is an even more confusing term, so I avoid using it.

Great idea, let's get young adults to make more kids while they are broke and tens of thousands of dollars in debt!

I would also add something that has become highly politically incorrect to mention, and that's that generally speaking, you have better chances of having healthy children if you marry someone who's the same race as yours, or somewhat similar. So for example, it's unlikely that marrying a nigerian who's not of ebira descent would make much difference versus marrying an ebira woman, similarly you could marry an african woman who's not nigerian and expect similar results; if on the other hand you're looking to marry, say, an european, or an asian woman, then while the regression to the mean as far as IQ goes may have less effect, you also have to consider that your genes and theirs haven't been mixed frequently for thousands of generations, and so they're not used to working together as well, in order to produce a healthy organism. Genes co-evolved with other genes in the relevant gene pool. That's why, while you can get two sub-species to successfully mate together and produce fertile offspring, the more the two sub-species have drifted apart genetically, the more likely you are to run into problems. So to give an example, from African, to Arab, to European, to Indian, to Asian, to American Indian, you are likely to have increasing problems of genetic compatibility, as far as producing healthy offspring is concerned, because the genes of your ancestors have been mostly apart from those of theirs in increasing order of generations.

If your wife is of ebira descent, and has a similar high IQ as you, then your children will likely regress to the ebira mean. That doesn't imply that they will have the same IQ as the average for ebira people, only that their IQ will tend to move closer to the average for ebira people, which is lower than yours and your wives's. But they will still tend to be higher than the average for ebira people, just not as high as yours or your wives. Then again, some of your children will be as high as you and your wife, and some might be even higher. I don't know about the ebira people in particular, but yes as far as Nigeria goes. If you want to maximize the chances that your children will have an IQ as high as you, you need to look not only at the IQ of your wife, but at the IQs of her family members as well. Then again, IQ in and of itself is not that important. It only measures a tiny part of what consitutes intelligence as a whole. So really what you want to be looking for is a smart wife with a smart family lineage. All of that said, intelligence isn't everything. I would much rather be with someone who is good and caring but not amazingly bright than someone who is bad and cold and super smart.

No, that's not what regression to the mean is.

Like I explained, all regression to the mean does is make it harder for big changes that pile on top of each other to occur. It doesn't make it impossible. Like in the race horse example, you do get some offspring who are faster than both of the parents, and the parents themselves were the fastest of their generation. In this way and over several generations, you get increasingly faster horses. Just like you get increasingly sweeter fruit, increasingly fatter cows, etc. In the wild, it takes more time than through breeding, because the selection pressure is not as strong, not as directed towards maximizing a certain characteristic. Another important factor is genetic isolation. which is usually but not always accompanied and created by physical isolation. Without genetic isolation, the selective pressure needs to be stronger and fairly ubiquitous. Without genetic isolation, local selection pressures get diluted when the genes mix with the general population that is not faced with such selection pressure. When Darwin travelled to the Galapagos Islands, he found that giant turtles on each of the islands had evolved a different type of neck and shell according to the local vegetation in the island. The locals could immediately identify which island a turtle came from, based simply on looking at it's shell. However, birds, who could fly around and therefore mate with the birds in other islands, did not evolve any differences from each other, they were all the same, because there was no significant genetic isolation, which the giant turtles did have. Not all differences define a new species. To give a more extreme example, polar bears are quite different to brown bears, because they've been in vastly different environments and with significant genetic isolation over a large number of generations. However, they are still technically the same species (even though most biologists categorize them as a different one). You could mate them together and they would produce fertile offspring. The same is true of dogs and wolves. However, it's not always an easy task to breed them together and produce fertile offspring. Once the two sub-species have drifted apart enough, you won't be able to produce fertile offspring by mating them together, and that's when speciation will effectively have taken place. The Ashkenazi jews are a sub-species of the sub-species of humans of european origin. They became a sub-species not by being in physical isolation from other europeans, but because their religious culture led them to be genetically isolated to a fair extent. That is, jews typically only married other jews, for thousands of years, and they did not engage in proselytism, as christians and most other religious cultures do. The question about why there was a selective pressure in them in particular for higher IQ is an open one. There are several hypothesis.

I wonder what it says about western societies, that they have consistently worshipped drug addicts when it comes to their music and stage performance for over 5 decades.

It bothers me when people use excuses like that. "Oh they have oil, so they are rich". Oil is just one natural resource, it doesn't mean that you automatically become wealthy. Look at Venezuela, higher average IQ than Qatar, they have lots of oil PLUS plenty of other natural resources which qataris don't have access to, and people are starving and constantly having to fight each other for food every time the next government food delivery truck arrives at the local public food distribution center. They have a democracy. The median household income includes a very large number of foreign workers who are just living there temporarily because there's plenty of jobs available which are much better than the ones they could find in their countries of birth. Most of them haven't had time to accumulate wealth or skills. That's why that statistic is worse.