TheAuger

Blood Meridian is very well written and features a most terrifying villain. There's Satan...and then there's Judge Holden, who is a fitting figuration for the crimes of The State (and apparently based on a real person also named Judge Holden). I remember I had to read the ending four or five times. What are some of your favorites, bulgakov, and others?

I don't read much fiction anymore, but here are some of my favorites, in no particular order: In the Name of the Rose by Eco The Call of the Wild by London Watership Down by Adams Lord of the Flies by Golding Dune by Herbert Blood Meridian by McCarthy Robinson Crusoe by Defoe Slaughterhouse-Five by Vonnegut Bullfinch's Mythology Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Adams *Anything* written by George Orwell *Anything* by William Faulkner *Anything* by Ayn Rand *Anything* by Joseph Conrad *Anything* by Ernest Hemingway

No, I don't feel that I will die in the collapse. What I feel is immaterial, though -- I could be dead tomorrow; the collapse could occur the day after. How to deal with dread? Learn new skills. Meet new people. Develop a plan. Acquire new resources.

@YoungEarthSciGuy, I think others have refuted your evidences pretty well. I'm curious about your views on the Bible and the existence of deities. What can you mention about those two topics?

Interesting read. Thanks, WA. Has obvious tie-ins with r/K selection theory. Might be a good basis for a future Gene Wars episode.

I think a better description can be found in von Hayek's true dystopian classic, The Road to Serfdom. http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Serfdom-Intellectuals-Socialism/dp/0255365764 It answers the question, why Hitler was welcomed by the Austrians.

Good find, Shirgall. It almost looks like he draws his 9 mil and then tries to put it back into his pocket as he spins back around towards the vehicle. All speculative, of course. I admire the Bundys' courage, the victory at their ranch, but Malheur is a giant fucking mistake; all gains from the Bundy Ranch showdown have now been eclipsed. When you have occupiers complaining on camera about dildos and giant vats of lube that had been sent to Malheur, or when you have 400 pound men in sumo diapers challenging Chris Christie to a wrestling match, you know your movement has been infiltrated to make the gun culture look bad and further justify executive action on guns. I was in radio host Pete Sarelli's youtube livestream this morning. If you're not already familiar, he was one of the arrested 8, though I don't believe he was in the vehicle at the time of the incident. He had been broadcasting his show from Malheur for a few weeks. There is some evidence that he's some sort of FBI informant. If you've never heard his show before, his schtick is literally just bashing his rivals in the movement and accusing everyone else of "being Feds". Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter accusations. That's it. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The followers in his chatroom are all literally 75 IQ -- they think this occupation couldn't have gone any better and they're just days away from a violent revolution that will overthrow the Federal government of the US...LaVoy is an innocent martyr in their eyes, even though LaVoy had made some statements about going out in a blaze of glory and had written an entire book on the theme. Can we really call it a tragedy if LaVoy got what he wanted?

There are a few things that seem quite strange to me about the video. 1. The vehicle swerved to miss the road block/spike strips; just before the vehicle comes to a stop, one of the law enforcement officers jumps out in front of the vehicle...(?!) 2. Finnicum is out of the vehicle literally a second and a half after the vehicle comes to a stop. He was reportedly the driver. 3. Finnicum does advance towards the LEOs, with arms nearly level with his shoulders -- he doesn't charge, but neither were his hands "up". 4. He does reach towards his pockets; allegedly he had a pistol on his person. 5. Take a look at his right hand at 9:30-31 -- he spins back towards the vehicle -- has he drawn this pistol?

Neocons are also called "Straussians", after Leo Strauss. Strauss was an influential professor at the University of Chicago who founded the movement. http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=871 Co-founders include Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyite, and "Scoop" Jackson, a former Democratic Congressman from the state of Washington. Their primary doctrines are "preemptive war", "supply-side" economics, and a (seeming) Israel first foreign policy. Major neocon acolytes infested the Bush Administration -- John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Richard "Prince of Darkness" Pearle. John McCain and "Miss" Lindsay Graham probably the most influential neocons today.

Hi everyone! Recently, Stef mentioned Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes in <i>The Truth About Ted Cruz</i> saying that she'd portrayed "Organ Grinder" Cruz's young daughters as little monkey stage props in his campaign. <i>“There is an unspoken rule in editorial cartooning that a politician’s children are off-limits,” Telnaes admits. “People don’t get to choose their family members so obviously it’s unfair to ridicule kids for their parent’s behavior while in office or on the campaign trail- besides, they’re children. There are plenty of adults in the political world who act childish, so there is no need for an editorial cartoonist to target actual children.”</i> http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/22/ted-cruz-strikes-back-at-washington-post-cartoonist-for-mocking-his-daughters-theyre-out-of-your-league/ I'm an amateur political cartoonist, I'm wanting to create a Twitter feed for my work, and I'm wondering about any ethical limits lambasting the criminal political class and other public figures in the Internet Age. Is there such a thing as slander/libel under UPB? So, for example, there is a little known story about Marco Rubio’s 1990 arrest for underage drinking Miami Park (after hours) well-known to be a place for older gay men to cruise for gay prostitutes (Rubio would have been 18 at the time). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rubios-summer-of-90-an-arrest-then-newfound-purpose/2016/01/21/3582a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html It turns out, one of the two friends Rubio was arrested with was allegedly sued by the City of Miami in 2007 for running a gay porn studio out of a rental property he owned. Rubio and this friend (Angel Barrios) were cash-strapped roommates in 1990. This doesn’t prove anything, of course, and the police report doesn’t mention any illegal activity. http://www.miamigov.com/cityattorney/docs/litigation/Litigation-Report-Dec-2011.pdf (page 16, bottom) Now then, political cartoons of the past appearing in newspapers had to conform to the editor/publishers standards. But in the Internet Age, information can be exchanged without editorial filters (setting aside for a moment Twitter’s [and other social media’s] community standards for a moment). Would it violate UPB to post a cartoon caricaturing Rubio as a gay prostitute based on these rumors? I’m just wondering about the ethics. What if the portrayal in a state of nudity or state of undress, possibly performing sex-acts? How about portrayal of pornography, drug use, sexuality/sex acts, racism, etc. where there is little or no factual basis…(None of these things violate UPB insofar as I’m aware, but if used to trash a public figure’s reputation — would there be an ethical conflict?). I’m not really concerned with aesthetics here, either, just the ethical dimension. Is there such a thing as slander/libel under UPB?

I believe that voting for government office is an act of acquiescence and supplication to the state and makes voters semi-culpable accomplices in the crimes of the power-structure. I haven't voted in the past few election cycles. However, I see no conflict in participating in the Iowa Caucuses because it's not a government election for an actual government office. I caucused in 2012 and 2008 for Dr. Ron Paul. So, if you were able to participate in the Iowa Caucuses, and you did decide to participate, who would you vote for? Why would you participate (or not)? For what reasons would you vote for a particular candidate? I haven't even swallowed my pride and registered with either major party yet, but here are a few things I've been thinking about. Bernie Sanders has an outside chance of beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I believe she will be the eventual nominee, but every time she struggles in successive primaries, like New Hampshire where Sanders leads, it will burn more and more of her campaign resources. I wouldn't consider this vote an endorsement of Sanders, but an anti-Hillary vote. We are in real trouble if either candidate is elected to office. What do you think? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html If I decided to participate in the other criminal gang's meet-up, then things would be over much sooner. The Republicans have only one round of voting, whereas the Democrats have two. The candidate that most closely aligns with my views is Rand. Cruz talks a good limited government game, but I'm aware of some of his connections with some unsavory establishment groups. Trump is Trump. I wouldn't vote for any of the other Republican candidates. Please share your thoughts with me. If you want to criticize my decision to caucus, great! But please supply reasoned evidence for your views.

Because Trump is taking-on the goddamn mainstream media and blowing their controlled national political narrative out of the water.

Wow! I'm still fidgeting with excitement over Stef’s appearance on The Alex Jones show today (no thrill up my leg, though -- sorry)! Will the most powerful voice and the most powerful mind in the "alternative media" now team-up and have a consistent monthly interview, at Alex's invitation? http://www.youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel The possibilities for growth are just astonishing to think about! No matter what you think about AJ, he's committed to the freedom movement like nobody else and he has a giant, expanding audience. I've been in a dark funk these last few weeks ruminating on all of the global evil (maybe it's all the online political ads -- I live in Iowa)...but at the conclusion of today's interview, I have a vibrant new hope about the future trajectory of this species on this blue gem orbiting a standard star half way out on a spiral arm of the galaxy! Today, for the first time in a month -- I know we can expose the lies that will bring down this leviathan of deception and watch it split open under it's own weight on the rocks of reason and virtue! That doesn't mean it will happen, though, obviously, or that we'll "win". Not unless the listeners take action with courage and eloquence and reason... What (more) can you do, in small but consistent ways, to help push the conversation forward? Have you shared any links to FDR videos today with those you love and care about? Have you called into local or national talk radio with a pithy, well reasoned argument exposing the lies of the state via their mainstream media stalking horse? Have you shared your art, your beauty, your love, your words, your passion, your precious time on this planet? Have you donated to FDR this year? Have you ever donated? http://www.fdrurl.com/donate You are being tested right now by statist social engineers that want to use force and lies to keep you in their cattle chute. They want to know what you'll put up with. I'm a total hypocrite -- I'm not doing enough -- I should have donated over $1000 to FDR by now -- I should be out there getting in these scum candidates' faces when they come to my area -- I should be posting my political cartoons to Twitter -- I should be knocking on doors breaking-down the principles of philosophy and voluntarism with our literature. The world goes where people of commitment and courage take it, people! When others see you take action, and see your courage, and hear your words; when they see your youtube videos, or come to your meet-up group or club that you start -- at least they can't say they weren't warned and at most will become a new foot-soldier in a global movement towards a free society. We can win, but it starts with you making the decision to get into the arena and declaring the truth over and over and over again.

Thanks, shirgall -- we all know the climate fluctuates, but pro AGW warmist alarmists reply that weather fluctuates, but climate doesn't -- which is absurd. Which is also why I try to stay away from terms like "should" in this debate, as in what the climate/temperature/greenhouse gas levels *should* be. I don't think we have, or ever could have, enough information to determine what the climate *should* be. AGW advocate is one who supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and possibly any/all of its implications. The correlation/not necessarilly causation is also a decent argument. The evidence, to me, suggests that solar cycles create varying climate patterns, which seasonally warm oceans, which contain 50 times the ammount of CO2 than the atmosphere. And we all know what happens to gas in a warming liquid. AGW advocate is one who supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and possibly any/all of its implications. The correlation/not necessarilly causation is also a decent argument. The evidence, to me, suggests that solar cycles create varying climate patterns, which seasonally warm oceans, which contain 50 times the ammount of CO2 than the atmosphere. And we all know what happens to gas in a warming liquid.

1. Global CO2 levels fluctuate between .036 -.038% of total planetary atmospheric gasses. 2. Advocates of AGW hypothesis support lowering plantery levels of CO2. 3. CO2 is essential for plant metabolism. 4. If planetary CO2 levels fall nearer to 0%, then the metabolism of naturally occurring flora will be challenged. 5. Therefore, advocates of AGW hypothesis support challenging plant metabolism on a planetary scale. (Obviously, there are other natural sources of CO2, and it would be unlikely for planetary CO2 levels to ever fall to 0% -- but it's a way of pointing out to the "anti-carbon zealots" that as CO2 lessens from it's already trace amounts, plant life on a planetary scale will suffer.)

I was over in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden for about 5 weeks back in 2003, and I can remember catching just small snippets of their TV commercials and they had recurring ads from different counseling services and UV light therapy centers that ran the same exact trope over and over again, which was basically, "Why aren't I happy?" or "How could I be happier?". This was in the dead of their long, dark winter, and it really struck me because in American commercials they never just come right out and ask, "why aren't you happy?", it's always just implied in the slick Bernaysian fashion. There was also an unrelated anxious encounter that I had with security at the Oslo airport I'll never forget. I had packed my pocket knife in the wrong bag, security pulled me aside, opened up my carry-on and produced the knife. I got that feeling like, "okay, brace yourself" -- probably because of witnessing the behavior of the TSA nasties stateside. The security-dude saw the look on my face and just chuckled, put the knife back in the bag, checked my bag into the cargo-hold and just took care of the problem in a helpful way. No power-trip, no haranguing -- just did his job. I didn't get a very good first hand understanding of how Scandinavians view the welfare state. The feeling I got over there was sort of like I was among a bunch of fellow mid-westerners in that they all seemed exceedingly polite and civil. Albeit, the Scandinavians were all very fit and less prone to bar-culture. "Contented" (not necessarily in a virtuous sense) might be a better word than "happy", and that fits with the Swedish concept of "lagom", if you're familiar, which is basically a kind of Aristotelian mean -- "not too much, not too little" (as best explained by Will Ferrell [in slick Madison Avenue packaging]). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ4Wol80NZw

This is what I would do. 1. Make sure that you are crystal clear about your future goals. Do your future goals even require a degree? If you want to go back for an art degree (or some other "soft" degree) to "become" and artist, then I wouldn't bother -- there's less antiquated Photoshop "tuts" and mixed media instruction on youtube than what you'll find in an overpriced, unmarketable MFA. Even if you planned to get a degree to become an art instructor, those jobs are few and far between, private schools pay shit for salary (I'm a former private school classroom teacher), and the government training centers are an abomination. 2. If you decide that you do need a degree, then I would sit down with a financial counselor and figure out a way to get your degree completed without taking-on any debt. Taking on a second job and paying as you go may be preferable than loading up on credits and completing your degree as soon as possible with more debt and shaky job prospects. Sure, job prospects will still be shaky if it takes you an additional year to 18 months to complete your degree, but the difference is that you won't have any additional debt. 3. Try to pay down as much current credit card debt (if any) as you can before going back to school. You're able to make more money now with fewer additional time commitments. Is it possible for you to save 15% of your income as an "emergency fund" ($1000 at first, then pay off debt, then save 3-6 months living expenses)? How much are you paying in rent? Can you relocated into a situation where rent is 25% (or less) of your income? 4. Keep the butcher job. Marketable skills that are not easily replaced by a robot (yet) are just as valuable as gold or stockpiled goods in the "new economy". I worked three jobs when I enrolled in a graduate program -- one was in a butcher shop. I was hired right off the street without an interview because I demonstrated how to properly disassemble a whole chicken using skills from a previous butcher job I'd had in high school. 5. I would add basic business and accounting classes to your degree so that you can always competently start your own business as a future employment option. 6. Keep alcohol consumption to a minimum. Stop using cannabis and/or cigarettes altogether. Buy a crock pot ($20), score expired meat from the shop, and stop eating in restaurants. Use this savings to pad your emergency fund.

I'd like Stef to consider doing an interview with commentator, Jan Helfeld. If you haven't seen Jan's youtube videos, you're missing out on some of the best "gotcha" moments through Jan's "Socratic interviewing" with regular joes, political "celebrities", and big-wig pundits in the political media scene today. His style is seemingly nonthreatening and bumbling and imprecise, until he finally articulates the interviewees own obvious cognitive dissonance trap that they themselves have woven themselves into, often times reducing them to embarrassed little shreds of humiliated (and angry) little sophists. Here's a classic with a very angry Nancy threatening to call security on Jan's ass. Here is Jan's website: http://janhelfeld.com/ EDIT: After posting and before moderation, I remembered watching the minarchist/anarchist debate years ago. I still think he has some interesting posts, even if he's not so eloquent and he's worth having on to introduce his work to new listeners, in my view.

I'm really liking this conversation, gents -- keep it up, if you please -- it's very informative! I wonder what your take is on the New York Times reporting on Coinbase's most recent round of funding, mostly from the "legitimate" finance capital establishment. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/coinbase-a-bitcoin-start-up-raises-75-million-in-vote-of-confidence/?_r=0 BTC (via Coinbase) seems to be receiving coverage and votes of confidence from the MSM (it's not true until the NYT says it is) and Wall Street, respectively, even while it's trading at the $200 range. Then again, maybe this news is just an effect of way too much hot money chasing any new investment opportunity...?

@papatree84, Also consider your reasons for buying BTC. What is your time horizon -- will you be a long term or short term holder of BTC? What's you purpose for buying -- as a hedge against inflation, as an investment, alternative commerce? What's your risk tolerance? https://www.tradingview.com/v/axBQoCTa/ About a year ago BTC was trading in the $730s, so it may be a great value purchase at $200. But notice, at least according to this source, it has missed even conservatively projected valuations. Questions about BTCs long term value and its reception by the greater marketplace are completely open, in my view, and so it's important to become crystal clear about your reasons for purchase at the outset.

The popularity arises because many young lefties were tooled by Occupy and Obama, and they finally realize not every-single social problem requires a state-solution -- but culturally they're not Tea Party or Ron Paul material, so perhaps they've turned to Konkin and others. I've studied and taught political history, political philosophy, and political thought for a very long time, and I can tell you that the left-right paradigm is not more than about 150 years old, and it emerges simultaneously with Marxism and the First International. The truth is that both left wing politics and right wing politics swim in the sacred waters of statism..."With what shall the state concern itself, and which policies shall be supported and enforced?"...Meanwhile, the real power dichotomy -- the state versus everyone else, is not addressed nor acknowledged. "Left and right" are two wings of the same carrion bird -- a false construct. Left-libertarianism finally got around to Agorism and counter-economics, but there is nothing intrinsic that makes these concepts "left" (in the way that anarcho-syndicalism is clearly "left").

Jimbo, please don't feel "insultated" when someone criticizes your beliefs -- especially when you seem to have so little regard for your beliefs (and your audience) that you fail to provide any evidence to support your extraordinary claim. There is a big difference between "insultating" an individual and/or their character by calling them an s.o.b., and insultatatin' someone else's extraordinary and unsubstantiated beliefs. At least people care enough about your beliefs to critique them and hold them to the same high standard of reason and evidence as they would for any other extraordinary claim!

ChristopherScience owns a firm that does something with bio-remediation, as I recall.

@ Jimbo, if you want to push your mystical hokus pokus claptrap while providing no evidence, that's one thing (just don't ask people to respect you intellectually for it) -- but to do it in a mean-spirited and insulting way (calling someone an s.o.b.) is not okay on these boards (that kind of messaging is to be actively disrespected and repudiated, in my opinion). It's for those reasons that I reported your most recent post (on 12/13/14).

You're concerns are valid, in my opinion. Is she aware that you're an atheist? If so, what was her response when you told her. If you haven't told her, you might need to ask yourself, 'why haven't I told her?'. According to a Haaretz poll, only 38% of Jews are religious, 2% atheists, and the rest secular. Where does she fall (might be a conversation starter)? Im not sure if this was Israeli Jews or Jews internationally. Apparently she is a theist -- I'd suggest working into a conversation where you ask her about her reasons for believing in a deity, and then maybe gently press her a little further for evidence for her beliefs without making it sound like a trap or an ambush. Her response and tone will tell you a great deal. The whole god is energy thing is pretty hollow, imo -- is all energy god, or if god is energy, then why not just call it energy (which we have evidence for and is demonstrably true)? Why tack on a god? I've had this very conversation with a lot of women -- I eventually learned to find out early on -- before asking them out or on the first date. I don't believe in *not* talking about religion on the first date. It's a stupid "rule"! But I might have this conversation ASAP.