Dylan Lawrence Moore

I honestly don't know the point you're making by the end of your post. I have an obligation to point out: Quigley emphasizes that he doesn't offer his theory on civilizations as rigorous fact, but as a starting point to develop from.

First answer: Imagine that you live in a very bad financial condition. You can't pay the rent, your car is getting repossessed, you have a ton of credit card debt, and you earn minimum wage. Your cashflow is negative, that is, you owe more every month than you're earning. You find that the only way to get out of this situation is to start your own business so you can earn more, however you need to save up some capital in order to do that. Obviously you would need to find a source of more money to start that business, right? Now imagine that the only raise you're eligible for, or the only loans that your eligible for, are tied directly to the amount of money you're making right now (Greece). That is to say, your boss uses your minimum wage earnings as a reason not to pay you more money, because of this arbitrary connection between what you earn (GDP) and what you need to get out of the hole you're in (federal spending). You get stuck in a vicious cycle. Compare this to your neighbor, who is already at a job making $100/hr (Germany). He doesn't have the same level of debt, and the capital for him to start a business is available if he needs it. Tying his production (GDP) to what he has access to (federal spending) doesn't hurt so bad, because the ratio is already in his favor. Basically, it's an artificial limit that serves no purpose, and as it plays out, it seems to be locking countries into whatever economic state they started at when they joined the EU. Second answer: Inflation doesn't skyrocket because the money introduced causes more goods and services to be produced. Think of it like this (I may have mentioned an example like this on this thread or another): let's take 1000 hardworking people from around the US and stick them in some uninhabited place in the middle of, say, Montana. Let's also say this place has lots of raw resources--lumber, oil, copper, whatever. Let's also give these people enough infrastructure, tools, and machinery to get started working. However, we don't introduce ANY money into the system. The community, though hard working, would not be able to create a economically functioning system because they would have to rely on barter. Now if we introduce some money, which is what is done through federal government spending, everyone can now get to work because there is money to work for. The instant people get to work, there is now goods and services available to be purchased with that money. If the money supply increases (albeit not TOO fast), and it is accompanied by an increase in production, then the inflation more or less doesn't occur, because both supply and demand increased at the same time. As we spoke about in another video, Why We Need a National Deficit and Why Austerity is Killing Greece, the reason why countries like Weimar, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela got hit so hard by inflation has more to do with their production being plundered (demand for money drops) than printing the money (supply of money increases). I'm going to let Nima weigh in on this one. I don't have a good answer.

I didn't mean to emphasize job screening. I meant to emphasize whether or not the general culture recognizes signs of pathology, specifically the susceptibility for corruption from power. That's why I gave the Dune example; the woman who goes on the power trip is instantly recognized as someone who should not hold a position of authority. I doubt there is a culture on earth, including the West, that would recognize such behavior and come to the same conclusion. Psychological screening would be a definite necessity, particularly for work that involved security or managing others' assets.

This is the part that frustrates the shit out of me in this whole Cold War story. I think G. Edward Griffin got his info from Antony C. Sutton, who wrote the book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. It makes sense, though. Communism doesn't produce anything, so obviously they would need to have an outside source of resources.

Apparently false. I like that one.

Was I supposed to?

I explain to other people what I've learned. Not only does that solidify the information better, it deepens your understanding.

I don't know how to solve the issues of unknown home country and countries not re-accepting, but I think this is part of what Trump is trying to solve with better vetting procedures. As for not sufficient penalty, raise it like crazy. We can always let the non-violent drug users out of the all the prisons and fill them with criminal illegal immigrants that won't say where they came from. As for the "I don't even care who stays", you took it out of context, but I do actually care who stays. I wrote that pretty quickly, specifically for emphasis that if the criminal element is largely solved, illegals are taken off of the welfare doles, and they aren't able to send money home, a large amount of the illegal immigration would be taken care of. After posting it, I did think "Yea, I do care who stays, but my main point is still emphasized." As for Ann Coulter's point: that is a scary number indeed. We need all the momentum from Trump and everyone else working toward reinvigorating the American identity.

One thing that always seems to be missing in this discussion is the cultural awareness of childhood abuse, narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, and other common NAP-violating aspects of humans. Right now a psychopath can get a job as a police officer or politician because there's no cultural recognition for it or test to check for it. In one of Frank Herbert's novels, it was either Heretics of Dune or Chapterhouse: Dune, Herbert wrote a scene from the protagonist's view, where she was training to fly with another young Bene Gesserit woman by a non-Bene Gesserit pilot. The young woman suddenly got on a power trip and took control of the flight, causing it to go briefly out of control while she shouted at the pilot, "You must obey me! I'm Bene Gesserit!" The woman was never allowed an authoritative position in the future, because her susceptibility to power addition was recognized early on.

It's working fucking excellent. We got Trump elected.

Historically speaking, you didn't have time to wait until 25. Getting married off at 14 to start popping out kids was important if you wanted to get enough out before dying of cholera or black plague.

I think restricting social services, blocking the transfer of money back to home country (thinking of Mexico here), and really cracking down on illegal crime I think is both a humane way to deal with it, and an effective way. From what I've been hearing for years, illegals have been able to run amok with crime due to orders from higher ups, and them simply not being in the system to do anything with. Deport the balls out of illegal criminals. Get their fingerprints and retina scans and bio-images and whatever else so they can be quickly identified if they get back in or try to get back in. If we can get the criminals out, and stop handing out free stuff to the non-violent ones, I don't even care who stays.

80% of a business is knowing how to run a business. 20% is the actual product you're selling. I had a mobile car detailing business for about a year. I was one among a million of them, and I was more expensive than most. I repeatedly was told by customers that they chose me because: my ad was clear, I called back, I sounded professional over the phone, and I showed up on time. You don't always have to be innovative. Sometimes solid is enough.

Just to back up grithin, The Evolution of Civilizations is the shit. I'm also curious: the hell does Bill Gates have to do with any of this?

Would you say it's not clear cut in Europe, too?

Ah, I see. So if there is a hostile army marching towards me and I can see it in the distance, I should refrain from making assertions and predictions about say, running away or forming an army to defend myself, because I can't know what will happen in the future.

Correlation!!!

Dumping oil into the ocean is totally capitalistic, because nothing says profits like wasted raw resources, expensive cleanup, and lawsuits.

Just curious, how long have you been listening to the show?

Also the less scientific they are. Anytime anyone ever says that there is a consensus in science, by default can't be a scientist. CONSENSUS!!!!! Hundreds of Scientists Urge Trump to Pull Out of A 25-Year-Old UN Environmental Treaty

Of course that's what it does. What we're saying is it swings the baton differently from what we thought it did, and if we're going to defend ourselves against it, we better learn how they actually are swinging it.

I honestly can't remember what the hell my point was in engaging with you in the first place.

Why? The US is still the most free place on earth, and therefore the closest thing to anarchy. 28% of the Latino vote for Trump shows that there are many Latinos who understand the danger of importing a 3rd world culture. In the life cycle of civilizations, civilizations finally die when they're invaded by a foreign and hostile culture. Since the nuclear age, we don't really have outright invasions of armies anymore. It takes more of the form of refugees and illegal immigrants. Indeed. Despite this, the West is still the most free civilization on earth. What you do or don't accept isn't an argument. When you say "seems", I'm going to assume that you're referring to yourself until you tell me otherwise. I am unable to comment on how anything seems to you. It's pretty damn close.

I literally quoted your post.

Who is "convinced that politics and voting, even as a self-defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world"?