Donnadogsoth

Was there another Great Depression in the period 1933-1999? If not, it worked.

Glass-Steagall was a partial solution. FDR couldn't do everything, and was blocked by his inconvenient death. Trump called for the auditing of the Fed, as I recall. He's the biggest, most successful anti-establishment candidate in American history, we can cut him some slack if he doesn't walk on water.

Anarchists don't pay taxes, either. Do you? Two candidates are running for office, which has access to force in the form of the police and legal system. One has stated he will confiscate all your property and throw you in jail if you resist. The other has stated he will lower your taxes by 20%. Do you abstain from voting?

Anything can be corrupted, in theory. We must rake the leaves knowing the leaves will fall again one day. All I know is that this law worked from 1933-1999, and after it was repealed things got hairy.

Glass-Steagall: How It Works infographic Glass-Steagall

‘Dilbert’ Creator: ‘ISIS Prefers Clinton’ and in related political news, from the same article: Taking issue with Hillary’s continuous insults to Trump supporters, Adams happily places himself firmly in the midst of the “basketful of deplorables.” “Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime,” Adams wrote. “Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words.” Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion, he added. “But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics.” “What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person,” he noted. “The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence,” he said. “She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.”

reality strategy: I exist identity/others: Theory of Mind, The World exists social worlds: Politicians are usually bought, The Mainstream Media is controlled, The New Dark Age conspiracy exists rationality: 1+1=2, Night follows Day, Boiling points lower with altitude, Dinosaurs existed and left fossil evidence behind morality: God exists, Jesus Christ existed

Don't leave things as are. Most people seem content to consider "the now" and do not think of end results, progressions of diseases, or the next logical step. What is stopping "POC" fanatics from stuffing whites into the back of busses? (Or perhaps, given that blacks, ironically, like riding in the back, the farthest from the driver, whites will be forced out of the back.) Left-Wing Berkeley Protesters Demand ‘Spaces of Color’, Harass White Students Trying to Pass ABOLISH ALL SCIENCE 'COS ITS RACIST! -SJW University Student

Feminists aren't in bubbles? Feminism isn't a "bubble" where females are always the victim? Or is the patriarchal society described by feminists the actual society we live in? Feminism is a logic grid, not a feel-good fantasy. It's intended to be a total description of reality and does a reasonable job of it. But not all logic-grids are created equal: consider a game of Chess, where the goal is to smash the opponent's grid. I think a feminine bubble is more of a total feeling-state accompanied by a collection of random beliefs about the world that are rationalised in. Bubbles are tea parties, grids are wars. Resent you calling me underhanded. Then prove me wrong. I don't do drama. Try and understand. As I implied, "domesticity and the value of the life of infants" are not women's delusions, these are valuable things women incorporate into their "world". If they're in a bubble you can easily interpret that by not being real, that"domesticity and the value of the life of infants" only have value inside those bubbles. If they actually have value outside of those bubbles why would a women need a "world/bubble" to see those values? Are they unable to? How can you see those values if you're not inside a woman's bubbles? Furthermore is there even a reality of some kind to perceive if everyone lives in some kind of logical grid or bubble? You see, claiming everyone is living in bubbles or grids only makes your argument weaker as it implies you too live in such grid or bubble meaning that you too can just barely touch reality. It is simply not clear what you're saying and your text is wide open to different interpretations. It's an hypothesis and hasn't been perfectly formulated yet. I appreciate your help. Yes, the grid/bubble idea implies what Cardinal Cusanus said in the 15th Century about understanding the Universe: that Truth is akin to a perfect circle, whereas human understanding is akin to a polygon inscribed into said circle. As knowledge increases, more angles are added to the polygon, but no amount of knowledge will allow it to become equal to the circle. So with our logic grids and our bubbles. I think the difference between a grid and a bubble is that a grid is trying to understand reality whereas a bubble is trying to remain sane. Without bubbles we have half the population basically going insane, which will drive the other half there too. This doesn't mean that some grids aren't more accurate than others. Science is an example of how competition and markets (i.e. for technologies) can filter out inaccuracies. Electrical systems is a pretty well-defined logic grid at this point. The value of domesticity and the life of infants is not inconceivable outside of a bubble, but it is enhanced within one. Babies need bubbles too, more than anyone. I'm arguing women naturally gravitate more towards bubbles than grids, and that just as there are more or less advantageous grids, there are more or less felicitous bubbles. Women are capable of stepping outside their world--I'm all for women's liberation, and education can be a good thing for everyone, but there is an intrinsic psychological difference between women and men and I think my hypothesis is a good shot.

Never mind the yuge potential for war with Russia if a Hillary regime engages a Syrian no-fly zone, we're talking about the destruction and dismemberment of a(nother) neutral, sovereign, anti-terrorist country as part of the endless war against West Asia. 'No-Fly Zone' over Syria Means War

I've heard about 14% of illegals now eligible to vote (=1,680,000 voters), 1.8 million post-metabolic voters (how do they vote?), and 24 million "double state" voters. I doubt all these totally translate into votes for Hillary, but how many feasibly could be used to stack the deck? Statistic Brain Total number of Americans who voted in the 2012 Presidential election 126,144,000 If we saw an election where Hillary won by 500,000 votes, would that make us suspicious of voter fraud?

I agree. How much do you think the contagion is spread by mass media, social media, art in general? Do you think these things are as powerful as they seem or is the important concern vis-a-vis communications, activism, and voting? As a product of my time as much as anyone is, I would be subject to the "enhanced expectations" you describe. The dovetail is in living according to principles, whether artistic, political, physical, and so on. To understand these things we draw upon the deepest depths of our humanity, which men and women share in common. But as you say men and women are different. I am trying to articulate how they are different in order to suggest their different paths to the common goal of reason and agape. 1880s-style fainting violets do not appeal to me, but modern versions of what used to be a common type do. I want a girl who can hack horror films without being cynical about what they show. I want a girl who is at best martial, but not muscular. Quad definition? Yeesh. I like Conan but I don't want to sleep next to Conan's thighs. And I want a girl whose feminine view on life enhances my own view and asks for conservation, rather than being a guy with tits. " It created this scapegoat called the patriarchy which can be clearly defined as "that which makes women unhappy except feminism"." Brilliant concision.

(1) It's a metaphor. I'm describing two Types of women, one inside sanity-shoring "bubbles" and one inside a logic grid called feminism. The former are "delusional" in a sense, and may be more "followers" than "leaders" overall, but they are probably happier and more appealing to men as mates. The latter are borgified into being agents against men in general, seeking to transfer power from men to women ad infinitum. Nice to marry? (2) Resent you calling me underhanded. Try and understand. As I implied, "domesticity and the value of the life of infants" are not women's delusions, these are valuable things women incorporate into their "world".

(1) Who is more attractive, typically, to men, women who are soft, or women who are hard? I know there's a videogame/tv/movie nerd trope these days about kung-fu chicks laying waste, but we need to realise these are largely fictions. Real good fighters who are women generally look the part. They're hard looking, with hard bodies and hard minds. Is that what men are looking for, really? Or do they prefer soft-bodied women, with gentle minds and vulnerability, caring, aesthetic even, fertile-looking, well put together? Do men (I mean men in the mating game, not child-men who are just looking to get laid) really look for women who play against their own sexual type, or do they prefer women who play to their type? (2) Women's fantasies aren't cut from whole cloth, they make use of what's around them, just as men's logic grids touch the things around them.

Length 2:51 http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/22/flashback-obama-believed-in-rigged-elections-in-2008-video/

Woman qua women, usually have bubbles in their minds, mental bubbles. They have a kind of expensive and rarefied fantasy existence that lends itself to exploitation by the fashion industry, the romance novel industry, and the keep and minding of children. This fantasy existence is a good and valuable part of the female psyche. It helps women stay sane amidst the wash of emotional calculus they have to deal with, and it adds to them a glamour, a vulnerability and a beauty that appeals to men. Men qua men are unlike women, having instead a kind of violence-defined identity. This violence doesn't need to be literal; for most men their violence is psychological or vicarious in some way, as seen in Chess and other violent games, games of winner-loser, including physical games like Hockey or Football. Women are sickened by the dreariness of their wise emotional logic, and long to escape into the fabulous, the delicate and dainty and flowery. Men dwell within the esoteric realm of intuition. They don't need bubbles, they live in a permanent bubble that becomes oppressive in its illogicality, drawing them towards honour, rules, principled creativity. When women's bubbles burst they are ANGRY. They will often turn their anger inwards and become even more feminine than before. They will faint, hide behind their men, watch their men to see if they too are being overcome, and abide by the strength they see their men incarnate. Feminism bursts their bubble. It tells them their dreams of domesticity are garbage, that infants are disposable, that the world is against them. But, the difference with feminism is, it sells solidarity with other women (feminists, really), by leading women to consider the traumatic transfer of anger towards men. Men are the enemy, men have burst the bubble—don't shoot the messenger!--the messenger has a plan of revenge. Women thus act more like men, they enter the workplace in at par numbers, they dominate post-secondary institutions, they kill their children, they forsake children entirely. Men find the appeal of women begins to evaporate down to the bare bones of sexual attraction, but it is a withered attraction, a masturbatory attraction. Two organic entities bumping and grinding in search of a relief and a higher level of emotionality that has been ruined. And when that fails there are always drugs. Women, bereft of their bubbles, and men, bereft of their treasure, have nothing to defend, and nothing to fight except each other. Some men segue from the fight into glorified sexual apathy—MGTOW, Herbivore, heritageless, hopeless. Some women embody their politics and simply work until their biological alarms die. Childless and aromantic, they wait to die too. Women, do yourself a favour and stay away from feminism. It will make you bitter and angry, a sad trait combination for a woman to have. Men, do yourself a favour and caution women from feminism as much as you feasibly can. There is more than enough to be angry about in the world, let her take your lead in the proper things to be angry about. Preserving her bubble of wonder will preserve the treasure that makes fighting the good fight worthwhile.

Pat Buchanan remarked recently that America was immersed in a “new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.“ This got me asking, what are our true gods, the gods that an alien species might, after analysing our society, place in the pantheon associated with our devotions. I am not asking after “religions“. I am fully aware of the diversity of officially and popularly recognised religions in America. I am asking after non-trivial devotions. Trivial devotions might be to scrapbooking or NASCAR. Non-trivial devotions might be to: The Market Growth Big Oil The Spectacle What are your thoughts on this?

You've got it, NiemandKnows, the entity American are electing isn't just the President, it's the Presidency. The President leads them, but they have great influence on affairs. If he surrounds himself with good people, he becomes more than he could be without them.

This is why we have the Catholic church and the Apostolic tradition, to figure out these things. The Church has never supported treating all 613 Mosaic laws as universal. I'd imagine they decided that with good reason. I've never seen any New Testament line telling us to universalise the Old Testament laws, just Christ telling us he came to fulfill the law. But if he did universalise them, it would be high heresy to expurgate those passages that we don't like from the Bible.

Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

How does seeing their true colours help us? Aren't their true colours patent already? Once they're marching in the streets how can they be defeated?

Full text: Oct. 14, 2016 (EIRNS)—Lyndon LaRouche today emphasized that the carefully orchestrated campaign against Trump over his perversions will not succeed in damping the popular rage against Obama and Hillary. Commenting both on the war hysteria and on the thorough breakdown of Obamacare, with millions of people being forced to pay 50-70% higher premiums for less care, he noted tha[t] these are adding to the rage in the population against the killer Obama and his asset Hillary Clinton. "There are so many angry people. The hatred of Obama and Hillary will explode, whatever happens in the election. The ploy of hiding Hillary’s crimes behind Trump’s degeneracy won’t work. The rage will come out and will overcome this effort eventually. "Our job is to round up the necessary forces to search for a peaceful solution to Obama’s drive for war on Russia. If he starts a general war, it is doom. Get the people with guts, in the government and out, to shut down Obama, to get him out, now. Do they want peace? Shut him down." LaRouche: The Orchestration of Rage Against Trump Will Not End the Rage against Obama and Hillary http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2016/161014_lar_orchestration_trump.html

Those passages refer to the Israelites, a nation among nations trying to survive, and as a whole are not intended as universals. The decalogue and the overall spirit of worshipping God is universal, but the particular dietary, purity, worship, legal, and military commandments pertain to the Israelites alone.

How long until Swedish national symbols are materia non grata? Sweden Legalises Flying the Islamic State Battle Flag http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/16/sweden-legalises-flying-islamic-state-battle-flag/