grithin

To preface, I don't read enough of the details to be very accurate with my speculation. The botched Obama's arab spring left us with a stronger Syria-Iran-Russia union, which counteracts the interests of our duplicitous allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps yesterday Trump asked Xi, "will you sell bonds in response to our replacing Assad" and the answer was no. Russia's interest is the naval base. That can be maintained without Assad, and perhaps the point of removing Assad is to diminish the Syria-Iran union for future Iran opposition strategies.

UBI means ridiculous taxation (no business growth) or high inflation (goodbye dollar reserve currency). Businesses would see the opportunity of extracting more wealth from new immigrants, and this business interest, like it has already, would be faster acting than the publics' opposition to immigration based on the recognition of negative outcomes.

I've found it much easier to update people's ideologies rather than to find people with matching ideologies. There are various characteristics you should look out for that will either help or hamper this effort. Two main factors are charitability without presentation of charitability and IQ. The practice of the golden rule (not the other one) as an automatic reaction does not appear to be teachable. And, I find people with lower IQ will reset into comfortable opinions despite formerly agreeing on evidence that contradicts those opinions.

"The only reason cartels don't really work in a capitalist system is because " It's been known since "The Wealth of Nations" made it clear, cartels form naturally in capitalism, and some understanding of history and economics would incline one to presume it was known way before then. There seems some conspiracy by libertarians to deny the various problems of the free market - this being the biggest one. "critical lack of tribalism among white westerners." This I consider wrong without specifics. Smarter westerners have only created smaller tribes, instead of trying to include idiots of the same skin color. You might see this in something like skull and bones, or bigger groups like mormons and jews. And, it is not in the interest of those groups the expend any effort towards propping up the average white person. In fact, there is a tendency towards the application of order out of chaos, which has multiple avenues of exploitation. For one, you can win a race by running fast, or by crippling your opponents (internal order while external chaos). Or, you can exploit order out of chaos as a problem reaction solution plan (the arab spring, for instance). "white tribalism is required to keep a truly individualistic society possible in the long run" The tendency towards preferring the government, or the rights of the conceptual group, above that of the individual, has been the case since the inception of the constitution. If whites were somehow ingrained with some individualistic society philosophy, then I'd think the society would have moved to solidify the rights of the individual, rather than to diminish them ("Hamilton's Curse" might describe what I'm referring to). And, there are many ways the constitution can be improved, and yet, nothing in that direction. Instead, it appears the rugged individualism was a fortunate coincidence of societal philosophy of the time, and a great amount of land to expand upon. "The taboo of speaking about Jewish influence will become discussed more and more as political correctness falls." This goes back to the notion of handicapping others to gain advantage for your group. It is the same mindset of global government and technocracy that encourages depowering nations and creating controllable populations. "is genuinely committed to marrying outside the ethnic group, whites should stay committed within their ethnic group? " "We must set "I don't have to constantly castigate myself for being white" as a bare minimum and see where that takes us." Whites will simply be outbred. Let's just compare - chinese people: strong in group preference. strong family. high IQs. - white people: strong anti in group preference. broken, small family. average IQs. Indoctrinated to be insane. If you had 100 of these broken white people, how many generations would you need to get smart, rational, in-group-preferenced, individual-minded white people? Frankly, if I put these white people on an island, I would expect them to eat each other, and do a poor job at it.

I used to watch their activities since they had a presence on youtube, from about 2007, and it was pretty much a repetition of marches, news shows, and failures in court to change anything. Since then, I've only seen them become more obscure, rather than a beacon to follow. Further, http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire .

I suppose the effort to inform idiots who would otherwise get arts degrees not to save the idiots, but to prevent the subsidization of colleges that have prolonged many terrible and inefficient teaching practices. I doubt the previous 12 years will be wrenched without legal actions or top down (Trump) edicts. Unfortunately, for now, Trump has gloves on and is doing things rather delicately.

Utah: the cult of mormonism, mormonism and the CIA, human trafficking and prostitution. Why not just join freemasonry instead of bothering to move from wherever you are? There was an implemented idea of having freedom minded individuals all move to one state. It was called the "free state" project, and was located in New Hampshire. It seems to have failed. Would I rather live in the good parts of a city that has high crime, or the bad parts of a city that has low crime? I'd tend to want to live in the good parts of a city with high crime. The poor victimize themselves. In the matter of selecting a state based on some demographics, the question should be, there are localized demographics in each town, why not just move to the area of town that matches what I want of demographics? Find me a state that requires > 120 IQ to vote, then I'll consider moving. Separately, **beckons

It's lose the welfare state or else be outcompeted and lose the dollar reserve status, and turn into venezuala. And, based on what Trump has said, he recognizes this. However, along with the power section that is trying to subvert the culture (turn the country islamic (obama)), theres a older power section (socialists) bent on world government who's step in that goal is the destruction of the US. Even if you lost the welfare state, the combination of qualities of our public schools of being inefficient and being indoctrination systems still renders our ability to compete marginal.

"It teaches a few vital of life lessons such as: life isnt fair, there is no mommy nor a government, humility, independence, the value of male friendship, alertness, the fragility of Human Life." These things are all teachable outside of fighting. A video game, for instance, can teach most of these things. Not only that, but not only are some of these things not taught in fighting ("life isn't fair", "humility", "there is no mommy ..."), but some of these things are specifically taught against ("humility" (for the winning party), "independence" (reliance on groups)). And, the "fragility of Human Life" is only observed upon injury, which, when young, is usually much confined due to the lack of strength. I think your perspective might be skewed by having had schoolyard squabbles. And, perhaps Stef's recent video on "play" might illuminate wherein lies part of the present deficiency of parenting practices. But, as far as I got into the video, it lacked a recognition of how the inter-negotiation of some sports, and of some video games, serve a similar, though not comprehensive, method of learning to socialize, negotiate, and experiment.

The west, now, has such varied collection of men with varying levels and qualities of masculinity that I'll confine my focus to US white males. The primary issue I gather is what Stef has mentioned before: schools are engineered to raise females. And, females are generally forced to aggress in indirect ways as a consequence of meekness. And, those maintain direct aggression are either stupid, and become criminals, or are intelligent, and become hyper dominant predators. And, the becoming predators is, I would guess, a consequence of having no cultural tribe.

"Nevertheless, those who hold Quigley up as an exemplar, however justified, have an ethical obligation to point out this ethical vacuity." That's an interesting notion. Not convincing though. " At the same time, he goes to great lengths in his discourse about "human nature" to emphasize that "culture" determines, for practical purposes, the outcome for statistically significant numbers of individuals" Perhaps he was wrong in attributing culture to the failure of efforts in Africa rather than IQ. And, I think you might be grouping what he identified specifically as the goldbrick nature of Africans as "culture", instead of just viewing it as, perhaps, an observable outcome of low IQ, which Quigley might not have known about, but, was, none the less, not wrong in associating as a factor instead of associating the underlying cause as the factor. And, as for the Russians, or the Japanese, or the Chinese, he was describing his theory on why the societal system, not just the culture, reacted as they did to technology. So, I am failing to see where you think he " to emphasize that "culture" determines, for practical purposes, the outcome for statistically significant numbers of individuals", or even, how this is necessarily wrong in all cases (or, even, from a reading of Quigley, how this should be taken as necessarily right for all cases). "Comparing theories by how well those theories -- losslessly -- compress the same datasets." I think this is a far step from any one's mind except yours. To my knowledge, much of the datasets involved in 'social science' are so infinitesimally small relative to the significant factors which would contribute to a model to explain the datasets that such a model would not be predictive. I suppose there are exceptions - for instance, with traffic, where a model might crudely correctly predict traffic (excepting, perhaps, events), despite factors influencing that traffic including aspects of the personal lives of the people driving. Consequently, the concept of just making models which fully adhere to the existing data is something scientists, especially climatologists, seem to fail at. Exploring the deficits of using compression size to compare models seems futile at this point.

Dylan: " let the non-violent drug users out " This actually is a very similar situation to illegal immigration. A drug user ends up being a net negative value to society - even if you remove illegalization. And, the problem again becomes how do you prevent these leeches from draining society. And, the common answer is, remove social programs. But, the issue with that is, lots of people have been trying to, but there are always too many bleeding hearts and special interests to cut any fat. "As for not sufficient penalty, raise it like crazy." Raise it to what? They have no money, and imprisoning them in normal prisons would cost tax payers tens of thousands per prisoner per year. So far, you have presented no argument against using for profit prisons.

Tyler: " fiat currencies since the currencies must be returned to the nation of origin to be of any value to the selling nation" This is apparently false. Not only can you exchange currencies wherever you are, dollars are usually accepted wherever you are. "Any remittances sent back to Mexico will eventually need to be returned and until then are actually retarding some of the inflation we should be experiencing by taking part of the money supply out of circulation in the American economy. " This is odd to think that because the dollar is outside the US it some how does not count in the size of money supply. There is another, more subtle notion, in which, by making dollars available in outside markets, you actually increase the demand for the dollar. For instance, if I were a vendor in Congo, and I noticed half the buyers had dollars, I might start accepting dollars, and by this, I would be increase the demand for dollars. "Using force never produces the desired outcome without causing a new problem. " This statement, and your reference the Austrian school makes me think you may be blinded by ideals. That is, this statement is also apparently false. Dylan: " else so they can be quickly identified if they get back in or try to get back in" Identified and then what? The issues remain of: - unknown home country - home country not accepting - no sufficient penalty for re-entry (they will just keep coming back) "I don't even care who stays." That's rather r-selective of you. Something brought up by Ann Coulter, probably in her book Adios America, is something like, without a single new immigrant, the current demographic trends will mean the US will turn socialist in less than a decade (this was before Donald Trump) (immigrants and latinos have more kids). There is a hopeful notion that perhaps Trump can set an example of Americanism, by which asian and latin american immigrants can follow. But, this assumes Trump gets to set that example, and that the example will be mimicked by people who might not either have the IQ or the culture to create an American like society.

One notion is to simply deport them. But, here arises both the potential for re-entry, and the rather meager current disincentive by penalty for re-entry. Another notion is restrict social services to citizens, but to what extent illegals can be de-integrated and prevented from using social services is, to me, unknown, and I doubt their usage can be made insignificant. Another notion is to clamp down on hiring illegals. This, however, requires an extended big brother reach into employee employer relations, and can be used as a tool by a later corrupted government to restrict hiring of citizens with 'incorrect political views'. There is another idea of having for profit prisons specifically for illegal immigration. To halt illegal immigration, you must both make it difficult, and make it penalised - so as to prevent both the initial immigration and repeat immigration. And, if you simply imprison offenders, you end up with a loss amounting to the cost of holding inmates. In addition, there are problems created by putting illegal immigrants in the same prisons as legal citizens (integration into criminal networks). The dynamic would be, either for illegal immigrants or repeat illegal immigrants, there would be some penalisation of years of work in a for profit prison. The aspect of restricting inmates to illegal immigrants would tend to curve the overreach tendency of for profit prisons. I bring this up both because I recently read somewhere that for profit prisons have been renewed as a policy, and because, back in early 2016, I brought this up on another forum and it was terribly amusing responding to emotional accusations of heartlessness with references to soylent green and explorations upon the boundaries of the US's obligation under the treaty wherein they agreed to treat people humanely.

Your notion of social contract is also oversimplified, but I only wanted to address one issue in your original post, and this was not in regards to war and sexual aggression, it was in regards to what you perceived as the singular effect of rent seeking optimization being a creation of a moribund state, whereas, in reality, excess has produced the environment for experimentation and progress. I've suggested you read that particular book because it might help you correct your over simplified idea of social contract, your idea of how civilizations evolve, and your idea of how rent seeking affects society. But, given the nature of your response, and the looseness of your language in your posts, I doubt it.

Your concept of how rent seeking affects society is over simplified. Go read the 1979 book "The Evolution of Civilizations".

There is a strategy wherein you send out a small force to draw out a large force - to probe. It would appear Trump has used this strategy with immigration, and is now using this strategy with excluding CNN. In this case, the small force is a non-briefing meeting exclusion. And, if CNN gets overly upset about this, like with the immigration scenario, two things happen: 1. the oppositions reaction is seen as an overreaction (since the reaction is actually intended as a response to a large force instead of a scout force) 2. the reaction is probed And, there is, perhaps, a 3rd element partially affected by #1, and, that is, if the full force is used the next time around, for instance, CNN is banned from a briefing, the fuel for a reaction is already partially spent.

Over the last few months I've been hearing of demonetization of various youtube videos containing non-mainstream political thought. More recently, I've heard Alex Jones complaining about adroll banning his operation. And, just recently, a video came up detailing how naturalnews was being blacklisted by google ( ). I don't anticipate this trajectory will cease its increase.

I would have posted the same had you not posted. But further, and based on the obvious principle of not getting overly upset and chasmed upon forgivable offenses, this is an opportunity for some to see the moles. And, I suppose, there is another type beyond the mole: the ones who are committed to failure. And, the reaction of both types is the same - abandon ship / forfeit movement assets. Here we also see a distinction between those on the left and the false opposition to those on the left. Those on the left will forgive nearly anything so long as it does not imply an inherent adversity towards the left or the leftist agenda. And, this inability to sufficiently group by those on the right means they will always be dominated by leftist groups in large populations. Fortunately, this time around, it appears the internet along with economic downturn provided sufficient means for a loose grouping of rightests to elect Donald Trump. None the less, the problem of being overly intolerant to rightests and overly tolerant to leftists exists.

No, but strangely enough, I did turn green from all the viruses that must have been accumulating in india from the dawn of civilization.

I recently heard of Milo's "privilege grant", a grant specifically for white males. It's an interesting idea, because it can plainly expose those who oppose it as racist/sexists. And, this sort of forcing the crux of the issue to the surface can be replicated easily, say, by starting a college club "white privileged male conservatives" . And, in the name of such club, there is no adversity towards any other race or gender, but simply, a preference towards white males. And, the question becomes whether one is allowed to have such a preference, and if one is not, (distinct from the others), it is clear which is the oppressed gender and race.

The expendables are sent to the front lines. If you get violent with the rioters, you are doing exactly what is desired - sacrificing a high value unit (yourself) for a low value unit (rioter). This includes the situation wherein you and your attacker are both incriminated for fighting (regardless of it being self defence). The notion "this is war" as a reaction to this rioting is misguided. It encapsulates both the false notion that the war just started, and, perhaps, the poor idea that one should get violent in reaction to this particular event. If you must provide a target by going to an event such as this at a college - especially in california - hire bouncers with criminal or violent histories. (There are better ways to antagonize leftists and spread ideas (like stickers)) The concept "The goal of the lefties is to discourage the average citizen to attend" is a false one. The average citizen doesn't care and doesn't even know about the event. Closest, you get people who are intrigued, and they would just be radicalised by the riots - so, if anything, the riots and the publicity generated are beneficial towards the ideas being spread. There is another false idea that the left is just waiting for material to prove Trumpists are nazis - but, this is also false. They have and will continue to say Trumpists are nazis, regardless of having anything to back the claim up. It may, indeed, be an effort to scare Trumpists and diminish the fervour of their activities. It could also be psychological conditioning of the zombies: - that there are riots indicates that there must be something terrible about Trumpists - that people are rioting indicates you should also be upset - that the rioters are getting away with it indicates that they are justified - that the rioters are getting away with it indicates that you would also get away with it

I think you've misunderstood. I was not saying the "concept alone is all that is needed" because I had a scarcity of evidence of where a backing supports the value of an eventual fiat currency, which I don't (read the article). I was saying the concept is all that was needed to understand how/why this occurs (perhaps in a sloppy way, since the statement was not there to address "What's your historical evidence", but rather as a transition into explaining the concept). Either way, that's the end of my contribution to this topic.

"What's your historical evidence that gold backing played a role in the emergence of fiat money?" Well, there have been a few failures of currencies that did not have gold backing, and a few failures of currencies that removed a backing: https://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/ I'd say the concept alone is all that is needed, and it is exemplified in what rome attempted to do, wherein there was initially a backing, and it was slowly removed. In a similar way, a currency is inflated, and those who initially get the expanse are benefited more since it takes the economy a while to adjust to the inflation - similar in that, in slowly removing a backing from a currency, the hope is that the inertia of perception of value remains, and this is what I meant when I said the backing helped the dollar get off the runway. "It's fun to make assumptions here and there. But from time to time, also look at the empirical data:" I've read those articles and no where does in either provide a basis for eliminating the need for assuming nor does it counter my assumption. The 'stlouisfed.org' graph is pretty obvious - when the government is not involved, the borrowing and lending within the private sector will tend to net towards zero (they are borrowing and lending to each other, not the government). And this doesn't appear to have any bearing on my assumption. My assumption is very basic. Let's look at it. "I assume there is a tendency for spending excess savings for utility (often in the form of employment)." In the assumption there is the very notion of exchange - exchanging something for something else you value more. And I am essentially saying, beyond obligated expenditures, people will spend savings where they find additional value beyond that of holding the notes. And, this is very subjective - since some people, for instance, find value in holding notes to meet obligations for a number of years, whereas, others, (most americans), seem content to hold notes just to meet obligations for a few months.

"But that doesn't answer the question why the first dollar loaned into existence had value. .... The state theory of money says because taxation gives the token value" Apart from negotiable general goods contracts, if we look at gold alone, gold has had intrinsic value for a long time as a distinguisher. In a way, a collection of gold represented the man hours used to collect it through mining or other methods. And, it was convenient for exchange between sovereigns, (who used it as a distinguisher (ornamentation)), and could be readily coined. So, if you want to go into why fiat money has value, certainly taxation if a factor, but gold backing helped get fiat off the runway. To conceptualize, the value of fiat is in what you can exchange it for, and at its start, it wasn't just tax settlement that you could exchange it for, so to ascribe its value purely to taxation is an over simplification. Also, I suppose I was considering a different scenario of explanation than yours. The explanation I give to people about loaning does not prompt the question of "where does the value come from", because in my scenario, these are just normal people needing some awakening to the fraud of conventional thought about the dollar, but in your scenario, you are attempting to explain to self-ascribed economists. "Yes, you can run balanced budgets in the following years continually, but without an export surplus you might be depriving the private sector of needed net private saving, resulting in unemployment." I don't follow. Even if we assume someone must have a savings increase to maintain employment, unless we are assuming the money is stagnant, the money will move around, for instance from A to B, and one year A will have an increase in savings and the next year B will have an increase, and this rotation maintains an average level of employment. But, I wouldn't assume there is a need for an increase in savings, but, instead, I assume there is a tendency for spending excess savings for utility (often in the form of employment). For instance, Ash, who has $50 in savings, and who only needs $5 for taxes, has an excess of $45 for the year and may spend some of that regardless of net savings adjustments. And, with this situation, we can have an ouroboros, where A employs B who employs C who employs A, all of whom have an excess of savings and an anticipation of no net change. Of course, if the country is a net importer, the domestic money supply decreases, and then there could be a problem with savings - "could" because exported money can be imported in the form of non-exported goods, like houses. As for profit in terms of price above labor cost, this is still possible in a balanced budget, under the notion that the money rotates around. Sure, there is no aggregate profit, but someone playing tug-of-war does not expect to get more rope than there is rope, and it seems to me the continual profit psychology stems from the environment of inflation (as you appear to mention). "The importance of this and its impacts on pricing inside the structure of production cannot be ignored." Well, I suppose it's a matter of adaptation capacity. There are currencies that deflate, and the people of those countries use strategies based on the assumption of deflation. The biggest issue for me has always been money velocity. If you have a currency that gains value, this disincentivizes people from moving it, so you have to implement fines of holding. If you have a currency that maintains value, you have a similar situation. But, if you have a currency that loses value, the fines of holding are inherent, and this avoids the cost of the administration that would be necessary to implement fines of holding. To approach this at a higher conceptual level: 1. The purpose of currency is to facilitate exchange, and it does this by serving as an intermediary, wherein the seller of a product accepts the intermediary, currency, which can be used later when the seller buys something he wants with that intermediary. 2. The ideal intermediary is some balance between having no stickiness (ie having no intrinsic value that would dissuade someone from parting with it) and maintaining value during the intermediation period. We can contrast #2 with the misconception of savers that money is defined alone by its use as a "store of value", which they tend to use to argue against inflation. There are a lot of dynamics here for analysis: - competing inflations - how to maintain a stable level of inflation in a global environment (where others are inflating their currencies to drive up exports) - how to inflate - government expenditure - bank bad-loaning with government bailouts - do these loans go towards domestic expenditure or foreign (ex. a chinese company getting a US loan to buy iron to import into China)? - who controls inflation (non-government banks who seek to diminish sovereign control in an aim for world-serfdom (world-government)) And, these dynamics are generally categorized in one of two categories: 1 how to construct an ideal economy 2 how to deal with subversion (the subverting institutions away from their stated goals (government corruption)) And, without addressing #2, you are unlikely to be in a position to address and implement #1 (unless you are China, which has the nearly unique position of not trying to undermine itself in favor of global governance ).