Dylan Lawrence Moore

As I read that last sentence and noticed the quotation marks, but before I read what you actual wrote within them, I thought I was going to see "Anti-Reason". But yes, I think "These Fuckers" is just as accurate.

(Text from my post on Facebook) I had a massive response to the video I made last week about my experience during the "protests" at the UW Milo Yiannopoulos event. Much of the response I received advocated reciprocating violence towards the violent protesters at the event. A line is being divided across the country (honestly, across the whole Western world). It has been generalized as Pro-Trump Camp vs. Anti-Trump Camp, but this broad stroke is largely inaccurate. Much of the feedback I received from my family and friends, who are NOT pro-Trump, was that even if they didn't like Trump, they were utterly against the barbaric, caveman idiocy calling itself "protest" that is ravaging through the country right now. These people are literally howling through the streets smashing things with rocks. This isn't Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump. This is Reason vs. Anti-Reason. The reason Trump got elected and why he has so much support isn't because his solutions are the best, but he was the only candidate who provided solutions that weren't SPECIFICALLY anti-reason. The Mainstream Media, who is all-in on the side of Anti-Reason, in the past has viciously attacked anyone who has so much as *meeped* in the vague direction of Reason. Traditionally, this would destroy anyone. It was impossible to recover from the mainstream narrative. With the rise of the internet, we have been able to communicate directly with each other, which is exactly what Trump was able to do via Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. The election of Donald Trump has smashed the Anti-Reason Camp in the face with reality--there are enough reasonable people left to push back. Because their narrative isn't working anymore (they can't just shout "RACIST!!" and shut someone up), they are resorting to violence. Thus the discussion needs to start: how do the most sophisticated and civilized members of society (Reason Camp) deal with the violent idiocy of the drooling barbaric strains that drape themselves in a chameleon cloak of tolerance (Anti-Reason Camp)?

Jesus. I thought the girl was acting at first.

Mnuchin Backs Fed Independence and Signals Reform Isn’t Priority Can anyone help me parse this bizarre statement? A check against the influence of the White House Appointees? Like what? The president being a check against the legislative powers of Congress? How can that possibly be considered a legitimate "check" in the realm of government? I know the LaRouche guys have been jumping up and down about Glass-Steagall for years. As far as I'm able to tell, getting GS back into place is a good idea. Normally more regulations isn't good, however it needs to be kept in mind that GS is regulations on a government entity, not a private one (despite these private guys being appointed by... who?). Any regulation on the Fed is like the US Constitution--something that says what it CAN'T do with its power. Nima and I were discussing this yesterday, because I wanted his view on GS from a Modern Money Theory standpoint. He had something interesting to say and then sent me a link about it later. (Link is here.) In it Randall talks about Minsky's views on Glass Steagall and what a health banking system in a fiat money economy should look like. I really appreciated the movie The Big Short for going into this process of demised underwriting. I'm not savvy enough to know exactly how accurate the movie was, economically speaking, but understanding the concept how companies can create crap securities, sell them, then bet against them helped my understanding a lot. Basically, GS is a brake-system that helps prevent the downward-spiral of underwriting toxic assets, because banks can't just make bets with someone else's money. Further, and this is what the LaRouche guys are so upset about, and something I really wanted an MMT approach on, is that all the toxic assets that were created in the 2008 crash became government liabilities through the banking bailout. The estimates of these liabilities are in the $700 trillion area, which, from a traditional mindset, the taxpayer has to cover. From an MMT approach, this is simply money that can be made out of nothing. However, $700 tril is... a lot. As of now, Glass-Steagall seems like a good thing to me.

We weren't early enough and couldn't get in.

I don't know about Romania there.

Best dating site: Start your own business and go through the trials and tribulations of self-responsibility. Your entire network of friends will change and you will likely meet someone FAAAAAAAR more interesting than you could ever possibly meet now on any dating site.

My wife wrote something up about her experience at the event. I figured you guys would appreciate it. She is a Japanese immigrant, so she found it absolutely perplexing to have people scream RACIST!!! at me. Original Article on FB: https://www.facebook.com/notes/rie-hasuda-moore/milo-yiannopoulos-at-uw/10154559422583884?pnref=story

Thanks. I figured that we're far enough into this game that us on "Trump team" need to stop being so naive about the intentions of these people showing up. If they're coming specifically to not talk, disrupt an event, and cause aggression, then they need to be considered an invading army. I spoke to a friend I grew up with yesterday about this. I called him to help out cleaning up a property I had purchased, and he had spent to morning watching my video, so we had all day to talk about it. He did what the rest of us keep trying to do--trying to figure out the reason why what these black bloc guys are doing what they're doing. It was pretty funny to listen to him hit the nail on the head over and over. "So these guys won't talk and they just came to shut down the event?" "Yep." "And they called you and everyone else fascist?" "Yep." "So what's their point? What do they want?" "To shut down the event." "No, that doesn't make any sense. WHY do they want to shut down the event? If they don't have a reason, then they're just fucking stupid!" "Yep." "What? I don't get it! That makes them the fascists." "Yep." "Why don't the police just bust all their masked faces in and round them up?" "Because the media is on the side of the protesters. The whole country will be screaming 'police brutality' if they even fart the wrong way." "That's fucking stupid. So what do you about these guys?" "I don't know. How do you stop an invading army?" "...huh? What do you mean?" "By a defending army." This is actually the crux of the issue. If the Trump supporters really WERE fascists, these dweebs would be annihilated in an afternoon. If you want to prove the cool-headedness of a group of people, I don't think you need much more proof than a bunch of anti-gun hoodlums banging up against a bunch of pro-gun conservatives, and having the pro-gun conservatives just take it over and over and over. Had this happened in any other part of history in almost any other area of the globe, these whiny bitches would simply get run over. The media is what is giving them the high road and demonizing anyone that goes after them.

The face gives it away, doesn't it? Bricks were thrown as well. Someone just linked to this footage of the protests. I get interviewed near the end, wide-eyed and dripping blue.

RoseCodex and I were actually standing next to each other in line for a good 10-15 minutes before we realized who the other was.

I was in the midst of the protests at UW on inauguration day. I made the dumb mistake of getting too close to the rioters, and was rewarded with a ball of paint for it. I made a YT video on my reflections.

When I hear people talk like this, all I can think of is paintings from Leonard DaVinci and it blows my mind.

I don't know if I've listened to the same shows you have, but I've listened to some that fit the bill you've described. I've heard Stefan say this on numerous occasions, usually directly to the caller questioning his moral reasoning, that if the caller is going to call and discuss these topics, he should really prepare before doing so. In several of the calls I've listened to, the caller can't answer basic points about what Stef has said about the topic in the past. When Stef has the patience to repeat these basics to the caller, like something from UPB or a previous podcast, it's very common that the caller either refuses or is unable to accept the basics and goes on like a broken record. I'm usually surprised that Stef has enough patience to go for 30 minutes. In fact, in the past I have often avoided call-in show podcasts simply because of the patience Stef gives callers who seem to refuse to get whatever he's talking about. Have you thought of calling in and asking your own questions?

Frank Herbert explored this idea in his book The Eyes of Heisenberg.

Thus my use of the word "cliche". I was looking at what's biologically preferable, not economically preferable. Also, an 18 year old boy graduating high school, if he really resisted his indoctrination, can still make an absolute killing if he applies himself correctly. Obviously I'm not saying that this is possible on a grand scale with current conditions--it's pointed more towards people reading this board. Consigning yourself to minimum wage jobs because the economic conditions are bad right now is fatalistic. Start a small business washing windows and watch your jaw drop when you start pulling in $250-400 a day. An 18 year old who could pull that off could easily be capable of supporting a full-time wife by his late 20's.

Thanks for your input! I just wanted to emphasize, I meant that Keynesianism leads to conclude that war is good for the economy, not MMT. I've heard idiots like Paul Krugman say stuff like this. "War is good for the economy" is the Broken Window Fallacy on steroids. From what I know of Keynesian economics, all they care about is spending. The idea that a nation's economy improves because a nation is spending more (i.e. manipulating finance) during a war, even though it's destroying real goods and services, to the extreme that war kills human capital (i.e. destroying economics). For example: taking metal that could have been used to make a car, turning it into a massive bullet, then sending it to the other side of no man's land where it kills 20 people that could have been building cars instead. This "improves" the economy because some fat cat weapons contractor back home swelled his bank account. It takes approximately 12 years of government schooling to swallow that one. Would you say the reason for this is the increase of currency coupled not only with the decrease of goods and services (weapons destroying things instead of factories making things), but also the decrease in people to actually use the money?

Yea, maybe. I'm married so I'm not that interested. Like I mentioned, I didn't delve very deep into MGTOW. I think the most I saw was from Sandman on Youtube. His videos are very interesting and informative, but I always ended the video feeling, "Ehh... I think I can do better than that. I think this doesn't have to apply if men can learn to behave differently." I adjusted my behavior accordingly and have since gotten married. If Sandman isn't one of the reasonable MGTOW, well, then shit. Also, I'm curious as to how I should stop committing logical fallacies. The quote of me that you responded to literally starts with "I think the thing that irks me the most about what I've seen from MGTOW", which seems fairly obvious to me to be in the realms of personal preference and subjective experience. But by all means, refer to what I write as unthinking male posturing.

I would like Nima to comment on this, because I've been thinking about it more since we've had time to chat. Something that has been bugging me about Modern Money Theory is that, by first appearances at least, it seems to be creating something out of nothing: Goods and services are finite. They can't be created out of nothing. Fiat currency is fantasy land pixie dust. Government snaps its fingers, and it appears. Currency is a necessary commodity in a modern economy; its existence and proper usage spur the production of goods and services. Therefore, government snapping its fingers to create fantasy land pixie dust out of nothing creates finite resources and services. ...what? For awhile now I've been attempting to organize in my mind what I call the difference between economics and finance. I think I can make sense of the above conundrum with it. By economics I mean the actual goods and services. Iron taken out of the ground, railroad track being laid, oil being refined, windows washed, trucks hauling stuff, etc. If human beings disappeared overnight, all this stuff would still exist. By finance I mean ideas and mental constructions that human beings make to help us organize goods and services. Money, credit, loans, bonds, taxes, banks, insurance, etc. If human beings disappeared overnight, all this stuff would disappear with them. I think that finance, as I've described it above, is a brilliant human creation on a similar level to science and philosophy, and should be approached with the same objective rigor. I think that the gut feeling that Austrian economics tend to argue from is that, because you can't create something out of nothing in the economics realm, there is nothing you can do in the financial realm to change that ("Audit the Fed!"). The place that Keynesians seem to come from is that, because you can create stuff out of nothing in the financial realm, the economics realm must follow ("War improves the economy because we're spending money!"). The right spot seems somewhere in the middle. Because money is a necessity in a modern economy, when government spends it on something and injects that money into the system, it's "providing a service" by giving the economy (i.e. the private sector) the lifeblood it needs to thrive. Because government has a monopoly on this service, it follows that government spending must be good on some level, because without it we can't have a modern economy. The government encourages growth in a certain area by providing services (roads, bridges, dams, pyramids, etc.), and the money generated from that can flow into the public sector. This irks me, and I think it irks everyone else on this board, for two main reasons: 1. It implies that the state is actually vital for something. 2. It seems to be creating something out of nothing. Regarding #2, it infuriates my anarchist capacity that something like welfare or social security spending can improve the economy. I can kinda sorta see how building infrastructure by government provides services (though the usefulness of those services are in question, as government is detached from market forces that would guide it in building these things in the right places for the right reasons), but how could it possibly be considered an improvement to "pay" someone to not work? There has to be some sort of scam here beyond the outright initiation of the use of force of taxation. What I've come to, is that the government control of the money supply is a weight that holds the population down. There is a certain demand for a money supply and net savings within the private sector, and money can be introduced into the system relatively inflation-free until this demand is met. By not meeting this demand, the government, due to its monopoly on currency creation, is squandering the potential productive value of its citizenry by keeping them currency-starved. I would venture, that in a system of competing currencies, each currency would be working its best providing itself in the best way to make its clients as productive as possible. This currency-starved state keeps the citizenry dependent and reactive, so that future money creation will continue to "buy/create" whatever and however much real resources the government might want, where if it had been left in the private sectors hands, they could just supply it to themselves. I appreciate any feedback. I'm still trying really hard to work this stuff out.

Silver and gold have been used as money not because they were mediums of exchange, but because governments and religious authorities demanded them for taxes. I believe this is also a major point of MMT. Additionally, the "value" civilization has given gold and silver had always been defined by the government. The traditional 16:1 gold to silver value ratio was by government decree, not by market forces (this ratio moved around a bit over the course of European history, but 16:1 is roughly it). In more modern times (think pre WWI-ish), even the gold reserve ratio was defined by governments. For example, the government would simply say that the amount of currency allowed was 10 to 1, meaning that $10 of currency was allowed for every $1 of gold in reserve (the value of gold, again, being government-defined). I've seen Nima mention a few times that the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany was largely due to its currency being tied to gold, so as the currency increased, the currency to gold ratio was destroyed. In modern countries ("free floating"), there is nothing the currency is tied to, which makes the effects of increasing the supply different. I've heard this point mentioned, and I think it's a good one, is that before the modern era, gold and silver didn't have any "intrinsic" value. You can't eat it or make tools out of it. It was basically only useful for jewelry (i.e. it looks pretty), and there was a MASSIVE cost to mine and smelt it. If this were the case, why go through all the effort of mining it and smelting it, unless someone was demanding it via force?

Can you do the evil villains he battles, too?

When grappling with this question, the answer that came to me was simply to become a very high-quality male, then simply demand rationality from females who want my attention. Let them compete and get better. I think the thing that irks me the most about what I've seen from MGTOW (not that I've delved and significant time into research), is the helpless look at the landscape it provides. Women are like this and there's nothing to be done about it. Really? Get a heavier ballsack and see how women begin to behave differently around you.

Boom! Sharing that on Facebook!

I recently shared the "What Pisses me Off About the Fuck White People Chicago Kidnapping" on Facebook and added my own commentary to it. A day or two later, a friend of mine asked me if I had deleted my post. I told him I hadn't, and when I went to check I found that the post, indeed, no longer existed. I checked Stef's page and the FDR page and found the video to not be there as well. So I extend the question: Hey Mike! Did you guys delete that video from Facebook? (P.S. I found the video on youtube and reposted it on Facebook. I'll see how long it survives.)

This is where the cliche of women in their young 20s being good for men in their upper 20s. Good fertility meets with enough work experience to support a family.