Dylan Lawrence Moore

MGTOW will die out because it doesn't breed by definition. Becoming a high quality man allows one to attract a high quality woman. The appearance of MGTOW on the matriarchal landscape is understandable, but I think it's really a weak reprisal.

Start up a conversation again and ask her point blank to dinner. Most men have had their balls snipped via things like feminism telling them it's aggressive and bad to do just that, so she will probably be pleasantly surprised when you do. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dFlPL6iRE7k

Watch some stuff by Kezia Noble.

The best part is that SamuelJWick is long for SJW.

Well, looks like Stef has been completely disproved on this topic. The best course of action now is to give everything back into the hands of governments and to remove all our personal freedoms, because this is the only eay to solve the problem.

Sure, I'm just saying that it's so easy to do on FB that you can pretty nuch expect every "discussion" to end that way.

Facebook isn't just bad because of communicating via text, the way the platform is set up, you get a game of "whoever posts last wins". You see this on Youtube comments, too.

Ich würde sagen, dass du mit deinem ganzen Macht gegen die deutsche Situation widerstehen. Wirtschaftlich ist Deutschland der wichtigste Teil Europas, und das Land einfach zu fliehen, bevor du hast versucht es ru retten, wäre tragisch. Du hast gesehen, wie die konservativ Meierheit in den USA geschwiegen hat. Das Media hat geschrien, dass es kaum einen Wähler für Trump gab, und dann auf dem Wahltag hat diese geschwiege Meierheit gewählt, sowie ein Tsunami. Die Deutscher brauchen gute Informationen, um zu entscheiden, weil ich sicher bin, dass das Media in Deutschland ähnlich sagt, als in den USA: es gibt nur eine kleine Gruppe Extremisten, und sie kann nichts machen. Dann haben diese "Extremisten" gewann.

Study what happened to cause Brexit and the Trump win and repeat what was necessary for the victories. And they need to be quick about it; the German election is right around the corner.

Thank you for the resource! I'll add it to my pile of resources that I desperately want to read. Regarding newer ages for the civilizations on earth, I think the rules have changed from the way Quigley has described it, based on three main factors: 1. The development of nuclear weapons. 2. The lack of available real estate. 3. The internet. The growth of civilizations in the past involved conquering or expanding into new territories, whether they were uninhabited, inhabited by barbarians, or another civilization. There are no more uninhabited areas or barbarian areas outside of the jurisdiction of a modern nation-state, and the presence of nuclear weapons prohibits civilizations from outright invading each other. This means we're going to have to expand somewhere else. As I don't see space colonization anywhere in the near future, I'm curious to see what expansion is going to mean. Another key aspect to the civilization life cycle a la Quigley (I didn't mention this in the article), is velocity of material wealth vs. intellectual wealth. In the history of civilizations, the core of the civilization is generally the cultural center, where there are an elite with enough spare time to come up with new ideas for culture (religion, architecture, law, language and writing, science, math, etc.). The core is also the manufacturing center, where the best goods are produced. Goods, particularly weapons, make it to the periphery of the civilization faster than ideas, which may be one of the key components of the Universal Empire Age: a "hardier" society, who doesn't mind outright conquering its neighbors, on the periphery of civilization gets the advanced goods and weapons without the advanced ideas. The internet may be flipping this equation around, or at least making it more equal. Ideas can now move as fast as we can search for them on the internet. I think the "conservative pushback" that we're seeing around the West right now (Brexit, Swiss drawback from the EU, Trump victory, Italian referendum so far*) has been possible simply through social media; the velocity of ideas has increased so quickly, the standard rules and methods for sliding into Universal Empire have changed fundamentally. *Austria fucking blew it in their elections. I lived there for two and a half years; it's a wonderful country that just broke my heart to slide into the socialistic abyss. Regarding your comment on the West needing to return to its roots of seeing man made in the image of God, as well as remember our parent Civilization's heritage of science and art, I couldn't agree more. I think we're starting to see it in the conservative pushback I mentioned above. Welcome! Hah! My 8th grade history teacher had that chart on his wall.

I'm going to re-emphasize Carroll Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations. I have never seen a definition as concise and brilliant as the definition Quigley puts forth in his book for civilizations. I attempted to summarize in my article What I Learned in School and the Battle for Civilizations, but I wasn't able to cut it down without significantly cutting out vital points of his explanations. I'm going to re-post part of my article here in attempts to generate enough interest in whoever reads it to go seek out the text of the book itself. You can find a free PDF here and free text of the book here. If you're anything like me, once you get started you won't be able to put this book down. Quigley has a writing style as brilliant as his content. Quigley defines the crux of civilizations, which is the method by which it develops economically, and which he calls the "instrument of expansion". The life cycle he later defines has everything to do with how this "instrument of expansion" is functioning, and per this definition all growth, decay, and boundaries of that civilization can roughly be measured by it. The instrument of expansion contains 3 vital characteristics: The society has to have a method by which is creates excess wealth. There needs to be a way in which this excess wealth is saved. This saved wealth must be used for the general improvement of society. (The above should be familiar as the basic requirements of capitalism.) The growth of a civilization is generally characterized by the instrument of expansion being able to put its savings back into society. The decay of civilization is generally characterized by this instrument becoming an "institution" (Quigley's terms), in which the method of savings still exists, but it gets funneled off to non-useful services, typically for ridiculous luxuries for an oligarchical elite (think pyramids). Basically, the general populous still pays its bills for society, but they no longer see the services they used to get for it. The civilization dies when this goes on long enough that it's too weak to defend itself from invading foreigners. Fundamentally the West is special because it has not followed the standard life and death cycle of civilizations, and it has to do with its ability to reform its instrument of expansion (which for the West, of course, is various types of capitalism) and re-invigorate its growth cycle. This is the text from my article: WHAT I LEARNED BY MYSELF: THE LIFE CYCLE OF CIVILIZATIONS After learning some historical perspective (that wasn't the name-and-date memorization boredom marathon known as history class), I saw just what civilizations were, the patterns they went through, and the way humans have organized themselves throughout history. I learned with fascination the life cycles of civilizations, and immediately one thing stood out: Western Civilization was different from all the rest. It was way, way better than all the other ones. No contest. (NOTE: The definition of civilization I'm using here is the one presented in Carroll Quigley's amazing book The Evolution of Civilizations. Get it and read it.) Civilization, and societies for that matter, tend to consist of two groups of people: a handful of rulers and all the slaves that they own. Life is hard, short, and brutal. If you were able to survive past birth and early childhood, and didn't succumb to any number of deadly medical conditions in the world before modern medicine*, there was a very good chance you could be invaded and killed by a neighboring society or barbarians (Mongol hordes, anyone?). Well, maybe if you were lucky you would just be raped and taken off to be a slave. Regardless, the point is that formost humans on the planet, life was rough. *Imagine living in a world where a urinary tract infection, more likely than not, would kill you. Civilizations have a seven-stage life cycle: 1st Cycle: Mixing. Two different cultures meet in one geographical location and begin to mix. 2nd Cycle: Gestation. The two cultures mix thoroughly enough that they form a new culture. If this new culture has a method of saving and reinvesting economic surplus, if moves on to the third cycle. 3rd Cycle: Expansion. The method of economic expansion causes a rapid rise in wealth due to the savings from its economic growth and its reinvestment into society. 4th Cycle: Conflict: Eventually the savings of wealth gets diverted from its reinvestment into society to being spent on luxuries or other unproductive activities, generally split between a small oligarchical group and welfare to the poor. The instrument of acquiring that wealth still remains, creating a drain on the population, but the services it used to pay for vanish. The civilization then begins conquering neighboring nations to pay for the services that the economic expansion used to provide. 5th Cycle: Universal Empire: After the cycle of conflict grows, a single political unit, generally on the periphery of the civilization, will come and conquer the entire civilization in one fell swoop (think of the Romans conquering the Classical/Mediterranean World). This ends the fighting and creates a “golden age”. This term is tongue-in-cheek, as though the fighting has stopped, the original problem of the civilization's economic surplus no longer being reinvested into the general society has not been solved, and the problems the original led to the fourth stage exacerbate. 6th Cycle: Decay: The civilization, no longer able to sustain itself, grows weaker and weaker. This cycle goes on indefinitely until: 7th Cycle: Invasion: The civilization, unable to defend itself is invaded by another civilization or society and is destroyed (think about the barbarians finally sacking Rome in the 5th century). The peripheries of the destroyed civilization can now mix with societies on the fringes to begin the 1st Cycle for a new civilization. To give a quick idea what this looks like in various civilizations throughout history, check out this chart from Quigley's Tragedy and Hope: (From Tragedy and Hope, page 7.) Every civilization has gone through this same life and death cycle. After a new society develops by mixing two or more different societies together to create a new culture (Cycles 1 and 2) that develops a method of economic surplus, savings, and reinvestment, the society explodes into growth (Cycle 3). Eventually, the controlling members of the society become more and more corrupt and deal with economic slumps by going to war within the civilization (Cycle 4). The wars don't actually solve anything, other than making a few key members within the civilization rich and weakening individual societies within that civilization. Eventually after weakening the core of society via this means, a society on the periphery of the civilization, usually one that still has some vigor left in its bones, crashes in and conquers the whole thing (Cycle 5 – see the chart above). While this seems to result in a Golden Age, because the wars within the civilization have been quelled, in reality the core problem hasn't been tended to: economic surplus within the civilization is no longer being reinvested into the general community. General unrest continues and the civilization, now under one ruling political faction, turns to foreign wars to pay its obligations have keep the civilization alive. This further exonerates the problem, as it doesn't solve the core issue of economic reinvestment, it causes more problems within society (wars do that), and it really pisses off the neighbors. Eventually the cohesive strength of the civilization begins to decline (Cycle 6). This is generally accompanied by more foreign wars, massive handouts on welfare, immigration from foreign and often hostile cultures that do not have the values that created the civilization to begin with, debasement of the currency (i.e. inflation), massive unemployment, and reactionary government policies that further exacerbate problems. This continues until the civilization no longer has a heart to fight and is unable to resist when a neighboring society or civilization smashes into it and destroys it (Cycle 7). If you were paying attention, much of the above should sound very familiar to you. This is the first reason why Western Civilization is incredible: it is the only civilization that has not followed this standard life-and-death cycle. It has been three times that Western Civilization, as it mired through the Age of Conflict and was on the verge of Universal Empire, solved the problem of reinvesting economic surplus into the community and restarted the Age of Expansion (Cycle 3). Each growth period of Western Civilization was fueled by a form of capitalism. Profits were sought by increasing the interchange of goods. Each growth period ended by the institution of a form of controls, where profits were sought by restricting the production or interchange of goods instead of encouraging it. To put it more simply, each Age of Expansion was accompanied by the presence of relative freedom which allowed foreconomic surplus, and each Age of Conflict was accompanied by a removal of that freedom and the installment of controls over trade. Each time the controls of political units began to clamp down on economic productivity, a new form of productivity would be created to circumvent old controls. Carroll Quigley breaks down the dates of the cycles of Western Civilization down: 1. Mixture 350-700 AD (The remains of the Roman world mixed with European Germanic tribes) 2. Gestation 700-970 3a. First Expansion, 970-1270 (“Commerical Capitalism” phase one) 4a. First Conflict, 1270-1440 (“Municipal Mercantilism”) Core Empire: England, 1420 (William the Conquerer) 3b. Second Expansion, 1440-1690 (“Commercial Capitalism” phase two) 4b. Second Conflict, 1690-1815 (“State Mercantilism”) Core Empire: France, 1810 (Napolean) 3c. Third Expansion, 1770-1929 (“Industrial Capitalism” and “Financial Capitalism”) 4c. Third Conflict, 1893-1944 (“Monopoly Capitalism”) Core Empire: Germany, 1942 (Hitler) 3d. Fourth Expansion, 1944-? (From Tragedy and Hope, pages 10-11) (That was as far as Quigley got by the time he wrote his books. It's difficult to impossible to describe current events using historical analysis, and though I will try in the course of this article, my amateur efforts will pale in comparison to the cutting mind of Carroll Quigley.)

Nope, Dave Asprey did. He's the guy who has come up with the Bulletproof Diet, Bulletproof Coffee, and is a big-whig in the biohacking community. The guy rocks.

Sheriff Joe must be a Russian hacker.

I think so. One thing I want to clear up: do all transaction fees get sent back to miners? Or just in some cases?

I know about the transaction fees on bitcoin, but I don't know how it relates to the miners or how the mining works well enough to fully understand your point. I think I get it enough, that the transaction fees for Bitcoin potentially serve the same purpose as taxes do in a fiat system in order to give the currency value. At the risk of turning this thread into a discussion on Bitcoin, what does "entire miners to include it in the next block" mean? How do these fees get back to the miners?

Funny you mention that, because I've been actually thinking the same thing. My economics knowledge is spotty so I wanted to hear from what someone deep in the mess of this stuff thought. When you say tax fees on Bitcoin, are you talking about the fees that bitcoin companies charge or the fact that the government has expanded its jurisdiction to Bitcoin?

Any ideas from the MMT world of how to give a fiat system value without using the violence of taxation?

Going to contradict A4E here. Scrap the multivitamin and read this instead: https://blog.bulletproof.com/optimize-your-supplements/ I also recommend checking out TRE therapy. It will be like nothing you've seen before.

Read Carroll Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations. The guy defines it brilliantly.

Wouldn't that be foreign currency, though? And doesn't foreign currency have no value in another country, because taxes are not collected using it there?

I just quit engaging with him.

Look up the Bulletproof Diet and things related to Dave Asprey. Specifically: start drinking Bulletproof Coffee.

I think you just blew my mind. Let me see if I can get this straight. 1. Increased deficit causes increased savings, because that is the method for money creation in the system. 2. Banks do not create NET currency within the system, because for every asset created, there is an opposite but equal liability created. You answered my next question before I could ask it, which is: if the private sector defaults on its bank-created loans, wouldn't that mean that extra money was released into the system without the need to pay it back? You're saying that when banks are bailed out from their toxic liabilities by the government (i.e. the private sector is not giving back the money the banks created), because the government is creating money out of thin air by selling bonds, this just converts point #2 above into point #1. i.e. the relationship between the bank and the borrower is total net zero, but the relationship between government and tax payer is total net whatever the deficit is. First, because the reason the borrower defaults on the debt is because he's spent the money and is unable to pay it back, the money floats out into the private sector amongst the tax payers. Second, because the government issues bonds to generate the money used to buy the bad debt from the bank (a bailout), the original loan essentially gets converted into a bond (a swap), held by a bond holder. The end result is a relationship where the tax payer pays the bond holder, exactly the same way the government issues any other bond to create money. Am I getting this right, here? I'm having an intellectual spaz attack. This generates roughly 8 million followup questions that I'm having difficultly to disentangle and present on an individual basis. What is inflation caused by, then? Why did the Weimar Republic hyperinflate and the US hasn't in the last 8 years? Regarding export surplus, how does this inject extra savings into the private sector? For private sector banks, what about the interest charged on loans? Does that create money or take it out of the system (assuming it's paid back properly)? At what point is the government overspending? Does it have any way of differentiating between stupid projects ($4bil for Air Force One plane) and good projects (roads)?

My question also includes: in this example, why would the national deficit be anything over $100? If the first $100 is created by the government via the Federal Reserve (i.e. the government "borrows" it from the Fed), I can see how this $100 is deficit. However, if all that $100 makes it to a private bank and they loan out $1 to $799.99, because they have a hand in the creation of money (via government dictate), how is that extra $1 to $799 part of the national deficit? Obviously it creates a deficit from the borrower to the private bank, but not the system as a whole back to the government/Fed. At least, that's what I think. I'm waiting for Nima to tell me that the private banking sector's creation of money is still done through the Fed and creates a national deficit the same way as directly through the government.

Question for you Nima: With the repetitive Quantitative Easings we've experienced throughout the Obama years, why have we seen a decrease in savings even though the deficit has skyrocketed? Or has there actually been an increase in savings and I'm simply not looking at the data correctly? Assuming deficit has gone up and savings have gone down during the Obama years like I mentioned, what difference would there have to be in Trump's actions to have a positive correlation between government spending and private sector savings? For example, I saw the news recently that Trump canceled a $4bil plane from Boeing for Air Force One. Assuming the government simply doesn't spend that money on something else, that represents $4bil that doesn't go out into society to spend and save with. However, I cannot help but feel that this is a good thing (moral questions aside), because that $4bil was used to cause a massive amount of work and resources to go towards unproductive ends. Are there right and wrong things to spend government money on when it comes to increasing the savings of the private sector?