Matthew Ed Moran

The state is the true original sin we are born with. We are born as levers of the state to tax and manipulate - to use as collateral to exploit the next generation. Life in a statist society is like being born into a giant internment camp, where the product of your labor is the ensure the next generation is spoiled with the same curse. There is no escape from this unbegotten guilt except to fight back when capable - strategically and intelligently. Every casualty is the responsibility of everyone who makes this process inefficient - who present themselves as roadblocks to freedom - who feed from the hands of the state while shutting their eyes to the growing devil before them. A libertarian has as much blood on his hands as anyone else, if he or she does not take practical measures to reverse the footprint he or she has accumulated in the boots of the state. Everything you value is only here because people want to exploit the future generations. That is the paradox of being an anarchist in a statist society. You can call yourself one, but unless you tear down the walls more than you reinforce them, then you're not really an anarchist. You're a slave with sympathy for his freedom - a slave like any other. The point of being an anarchist is not to have sympathy for your own freedom, because that is an impossible achievement - it is to have sympathy for the potential freedoms of the following generations. You can only have sympathy for freedom of the future, if you have as little sympathy for your own present freedom as possible. It is the King who has the most sympathy for his own freedom - it is the heretic who speaks truth to power and bears the cost who is the true anarchist.

Racism exists among all groups. It might be more accurate to call it in group preference. However, there are some factors between how whites and non whites express their in group preference that makes whites more vulnerable to claims of racism than most groups. As a black man, have you ever been accused of being racist against whites from another black? As a white man, simply for stating facts and making arguments for freedom of association, I have been characterized as being sympathetic to anti black racism from other whites. This is sort of peculiar to the white community as I have seen. The dynamic is turned on its head in most other communities, where labeling in group preference as some form of prejudice would mean you're going to get attacked from your in group, viciously so. So whites viciously self attack for having in group preferences, and other groups viciously attack for not holding an in group preference. So the criticism whites face is far more universal. It's also important to take note of where the guns are pointed. Who has the force of the state behind them? Generally the worst sort of violence against any group is state violence. Right now blacks are disproportionately benefiting from taxes that whites pay. 90% of crime between the races is blacks on whites due to state forced association. Blacks are over-represented in many institutions because of affirmative action. Obviously I would never judge the average black American based on BLM, and I would not expect to be judged based on the statements of prejudiced whites. What I find frustrating is any distortion of reality - and as a person who values freedom, I find it frustrating when the groups in society which are more anti-freedom on average are not being shown light on. Whites are by far the least praising of socialism among all the races. When you say blacks are under attack because of the prison industrial complex, that sounds like a distortion of reality to excuse the choices of blacks, because as far as I understand it there is no proven, consistent bias in the laws of the country that favor whites over blacks. The only specifically racial laws are anti white. When you say whites are worthy of disdain because the growth of government has effected blacks negatively, you are excusing blacks of responsibility. Blacks favor big government over whites consistently and they tend to directly benefit at the moment more than whites, in general. You simply can't have an honest conversation about race if whites are deserving of disdain for growing government, but blacks are excused from their role as being more consistent supporters of big government. I don't blame anyone for following incentives they are given. I get why blacks go on welfare if their incomes tend to be lower and their job opportunities crappier (because of lower IQ). I get why dumb women who lack impulse control don't cross their legs if the government is willing to subsidize their choices. I don't necessarily blame people for this, or at least I try not to be shocked. Likewise, I don't blame white politicians for appealing to the socialist tendencies of non whites. What I want is for society to be honest about these things. I think that would do a great deal more for every group involved if we were just able to talk honestly about the facts. But as long as whites, blacks, latinos, muslims and politicians don't want to talk about the facts, then all groups will be negatively effected to a degree that could destroy and hollow out the foundation of what has been built over centuries.

Maybe someone has said this already, but it could be that your girlfriend is simply more intelligent than other girls you have dated. She would be able to have the foresight and impulse control to act a certain way before you were married, after which she would become more of what you are seeing that is negative about her. It's not completely unheard of. I frankly think it is no less than testicular suicide to become romantically involved with a woman who cries and becomes a bully when you disagree with her, no matter how good she otherwise appears to be - because a woman with serious integrity would not do those things. You said she is pretty so I imagine you are very effected by that as all men are (myself included). I think it's important how open you have been with your friends and family about these tactics of hers and what they think. I would really appreciate it if you called in. I say that out of pure greed, but I'm sure you'd get some benefit too.

awesome!

Someone mentioned how this topic was banned on reddit. I just want to point out that it was moved here: https://voat.co/v/PizzaGate

Either the person he's going to be communicating to have empathy, in which case they will be receptive to good arguments - or they won't have empathy, in which case he'll need to be capable of dismantling their emotional manipulation with good arguments. I think you're correct that empathy/self knowledge/courage is important to become a good debater and communicator in general, but I would guess (could be completely wrong) he has a capacity for these things already, and what he lacks most is preparation and experience. I think your focus on the usefulness of empathy is valuable and essential, but I think in terms of being able to reason fluidly against opposing arguments, you need to be familiar as possible beforehand what you are going up against and what angle you think is best to attack it. I think this is also essential because people who oppose reason tend to use the same arguments: moral relativity, class, economic determinism. I tend to experience that without a game plan and a few principles to rely on that have been mastered, it can become easily frustrating to try and argue against these ideas with data.

Expecting to be able to critically analyze Stefan's arguments or create original arguments of your own that are just as good without thousands of hours of study and practice is just as unrealistic as expecting to critically analyze a piece of great classical music without the necessary study and practice. Also, you can practice on your own, and you can study the greats, but until you have an audience it will be difficult to judge how you want to communicate your points. If you have difficulty changing the mind of one person, it may not be your fault, but theirs. If you get a large enough sample and you have put the work in behind the scenes, I don't think anything can realistically hold you back from becoming a great communicator. I find myself thinking that your focus on empathy is an act of despair. There isn't a scientific way to create empathy in people who don't have it, and most people who claims to be able to do so are manipulative mystics who believe in the magic of the soul. If you focus on crafting your arguments and practicing them in front of an audience, it won't anyway matter because the empathetic people will naturally be drawn to the truth. Trying to create empathetic people and then change their minds is infinitely less productive than focusing on people who already have empathy.

It doesn't necessarily guarantee any kind of future safety, even for the person paying the taxes (they can still come after you; the IRS targeting groups is just one example). Second, paying taxes does facilitate the state's access to resources. Giving the state resources is definitely not a positive thing except for the people on the receiving end. The resources will be used to kill innocents, jail others for victimless crimes, waste capital that could be used to feed the poor, etc. So paying for relief is not guaranteed, and it is only relief in a particular aspect. Paying taxes (and on occasion political advocacy) is a cost/benefit calculation between doing what is necessary to survive in the system, so that you can fight it over a longer period of time. The only way I can see the case that voting (or advocating for voting) is unethical, is if you're severely uninformed or you're supporting the worse candidate for freedom. If there is no difference between the candidates, then it's hard to say a person is responsible for anything other than wasting time that could be better spent.

No matter how good your rhetoric is, you're not going to be able to convince people against their biological self interest (in general). Reason doesn't work on some people because they have something to lose evolutionarily from accepting reasonable positions, and their detection of reasonable positions and their volatile emotional response has been programmed into them by years of historical experience. See "Why People Aren't Rational"; recent video (it will explain way better than I can). If they accepted reason, then they would already be flocking to this show and others that are based on reason and evidence. They're not doing it voluntarily, which suggests they will only conform when the consequences of not believing in reason and evidence exceed the costs of their emotional hysteria.

I didn't say to abandon anything. I said the moral argument is limited in its effect right now. You can either make the moral argument to a decreasing number of people with lessening agency, who by the way already are closer to accepting anarchist principles than anyone on the planet, or you can join them in the fight against their enemies (and presumably gain their trust and sense of credibility), so they can reproduce and continue to fight for freedom of speech. If other cultures were intent on replicating the freedoms we have, they would have attempted to do so already. They don't want to replicate Western society - they want to destroy it. Dumb genes are in competition with smart genes, so obviously dumb genes are not going to be in favor of the free market and debate which naturally favors smarter people. So I'm not against arguing for anarchy. In fact I think I recognize the people most willing to allow you to argue for anarchy are Western Europeans, and they are in danger right now from other cultures. If you ally with them, then the conversation can continue. If you don't, then you might as well be their enemy. The current world doesn't give a damn about truly rational principles apart from a very small few. Stefan has millions of listeners. If the growth of philosophy were exponential, then all we would need to do is wait for Stef's message to spread across the internet. The evidence is that most people aren't consistent rationally, and they chose their conclusions more on tribalism and in-group preferences. Simply appealing to logic isn't working fast enough - I understand that's why the man behind the show has adapted his plans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By the way dsayers, since apparently you don't put faith or credibility in a guy who invests his life for reason and evidence like Stef when it comes to this topic, then isn't it extremely irresponsible that you aren't running your own philosophy show? If you have reason and evidence better than is being offered here, then you really need to start a public show because your skills are desperately needed in the world. Limiting them to a forum really is actually incredibly cruel to the world. -------------------------------------------------------- I support allying with conservatives and supporting them in their political endeavors. For now, they are highly invested in free speech, because they have the most to lose if it goes away! People with conformist opinions lose nothing if free speech goes away. If free speech continues, then the conversation for anarchy can continue.

The moral case for anarchism might do a lot of good right now, but it might not. I tend to trust the guy with a direct line to the people and decades of experience making the moral case, when he says the moral case is limited in its ability to change others right now. Since government schools are currently monopolized, and since governments are being dysgenic, especially with regards to IQ, and small government, relatively peacefully parenting cultures; the playing field isn't exactly fair to make the moral case. It's not exactly easy to convince someone who grew up in Mexican culture where small government beliefs are shunned, who received 15+ years of government propaganda, to believe in anarchism. If schools can be privatized and if cultures hostile to anarchist ideals can be curtailed, then that offers a more fertile breeding ground for anarchist ideas to spread. If there is any threat to the only culture that has a tradition of limited government and individual rights, then it is more wise to do whatever can be done to preserve that culture in the moment, so that it can continue to make progress in the areas we all want - peaceful parenting, privatization of production, common law - in the future. Other cultures are outbreeding our culture and taking control of the government, and are spreading propaganda that is favorable to their interests more effectively than Western European society right now. Islam is also on the rise and is pushing into Western Society. I am all for anarchist ideals being adopted, but it's not going to come from societies and cultures that have no tradition of enlightenment ideals. Those cultures and societies need to be stopped from taking over the monopolies of government right now, because we know what they will do to small government, individual right believers in the future. Just look at what they have done already.

If a bowling ball is crashing through the middle of a city, everyone who isn't trying to stop the bowling ball is either enabling or supporting mass murder. Clinton was a lunatic who had momentum, and Donald Trump was a blockade at least; a successful private businessman with a track record of at least being relatively anti-war, especially with regards to Russia. Preferring one leader over another based on the evidence that one is considerably less likely to facilitate major world altering conflict with Russia (and this is just one issue: of course there is immigration, regulation, taxes, integrity, honesty, empathy etc.) has nothing to do with the non aggression principle, besides the very important fact that less aggression in the present tends to lessen aggression in the future. To pretend this choice didn't exist when clearly we have a vote and can influence others, and when the evidence available showed obvious differences between the two candidates in their track record, and how they were treated by the media (the representation of everything that stands in complete opposition to philosophy, rationality, empiricism, and freedom) is not right. To acknowledge the choice, but defer the responsibility of choosing to those with less knowledge is not right. Thankfully enough people realized that, but your arguments can't possibly prove that there wasn't a choice between two candidates, or that the two candidates were exactly equal for the prospects of future aggression in the world. I don't expect you to change your opinions, but I responded for others who might still be unclear about what was being questioned.

Brilliantly written post that has not been responded to.

I think mental fatigue and burnout are symptoms of depression. Depression serves a biological role. It was useful for betas to censor themselves in situations which may have been existential threats, such as entering conflict with the alpha males, or anything which might lessen their own access to fertile females. In a psychological sense, depression is unprocessed anger. Anger which is unprocessed requires adaptation. Adaptation requires more resources than changing your environment. It is always more efficient to be in control of your environment than to have to adapt to it. Instead of planning an approach into the future like higher IQ people, who would be more capable of doing so because they are better at managing risk, betas tend to have to dedicate more resources to managing conflict at any given moment, because any given moment is perceived as potentially life threatening. Anyone who has engaged in an aggressive conflict (whether outright or passive) knows that being assertive is a more efficient solution. Assertion comes from processing anger and then choosing how to respond to it in the moment. Unprocessed anger leads to depression or rage, either of which consume a lot of energy. Depression is a lack of risk taking. Rage is taking on risk that is foolhardy out of desperation. They often are extremes that are present within the same personality. They are adaptations of boys in society who grow up without masculine role models, in a situation where healthy, justified, vitalizing anger is vilified and hammered down upon by the state.

Tautologies are tricky and can be misleading, because they present you with claims that are seemingly undeniable, but they don't provide any knowledge. At worst, they provide the perception of knowledge when no actual knowledge has been gained. If someone perceives to have knowledge they don't, then they will stagnate in their personal development, because they will perceive themselves closer to a truth than they actually are. When the lady in the video makes her claims, she is not providing any evidence. Many of the statements are tautologies that are true by definition. Maybe this is helpful for some people if it helps inspire them not to be nihilists, who would otherwise be nihilists; in the same the way religion can provide inspiration and sound moral conclusions while being non-rational. However, I'm skeptical non-rational secular beliefs can be as useful as religion, because there are many benefits to religion in providing a community and socially conservative norms (especially around sex and gender roles) that I don't necessarily see replicated outside of religions. It would also seem to me that a person who does not have rational means who is trying to find inspiration would have a more stable and comfortable place in a thousand year tradition than some new belief that lacks the infrastructure and historical significance that Christian religions have, but that's just sort of my perspective if I were in that position.

misread something

I love that Stefan's positions constantly evolve with new reasoning and new ways of interpreting the evidence. It also is a truly magnificent way of getting the people who can't think to "self deport"

I think it is pretty clear, but perhaps the comma right before mentioning Stefan is uneccessary.

Assets were severely overpriced as a result of the '08 crash, because monetary inflation that had previously entered the economy gave a perception of increased savings that was indicated by increasing assets prices in years from '01-'06. By '08 these assets prices were have dropping precipitously; and other assets were being turned into liabilities, because of the resources they needed to be maintained. For instance if you have a house that is vacant, you still need to pay taxes on it and keep it from falling apart. In that case, what was formerly being accounted as an asset because of the future anticipated savings it would have provided, became a liability because there was no demand at any price above zero and there was a cost to maintain it. The government acted to stop the fall of asset prices that was occurring by purchasing assets at inflated values. This continued the perception that savings in the economy was higher than it actually was, and therefore this was inflationary. However, I would argue that the accounting of liabilities as assets changings the consumption patterns of everyone in the market. If I have a house that is providing me value, and it is a very expensive house, and then a number of major companies that pay good wages in the area either relocate or go out of business, the house potentially becomes a liability to me, not an asset. I can pay for the liability by selling it for a price much lower than I paid, but this would reduce my savings and lower my consumption in the future. If these companies which were going out of business are subsidized by the government, or the government buys my house for the price I paid for it, then I don't have to reduce my consumption in the future. So even if the prices in the economy are not rising, if they are higher than they otherwise would be because of government intervention, this is still inflationary. I do not think the Austrian predictions have been refuted just yet. If there is some time in the future when we have deflation and a major reduction in consumption to rebuild savings which have been lost, but not accounted for yet, then I think it will be clear that this period of time was inflationary because it was keeping assets prices higher than they would have been otherwise. To me, and Nima I'd be interested if you think this is a fair characterization, the National Debt represents savings that have been accumulated in the past which either have been depleted, or have turned into liabilities (i.e. in the resources in their current form are a net drain on the economy). I anticipate the National Debt to grow until the domestic population becomes so starved of savings that it must drastically reduce its consumption, and that this will also cause them to want the government to reduce its consumption as well. The only way to "solve" for the national debt crisis is to prevent the government from consuming savings in the present, so the savings it has been eating up can be replenished.

So is your position that there is no evidence to expect that a Donald Trump presidency will be positive compared to a Hillary Clinton presidency? Because the media, democrats, and republicans, who all have been demonstrably benefitting from a regime of forced multiculturalism, of aiding and abetting terrorists hostile to Western culture, and of domestic social totalitarianism against freedom of speech, disagree with you. They all oppose Donald Trump vociferously because they perceive him to be a credible roadblock to their interests. The empiricism of the behavior of participants in the system who have a lot more lose, if someone who could make their goals really difficult to achieve, seems at least slightly more relevant than your opinions on what Donald Trump can accomplish. If he had no chance of being a significant roadblock to their interests, then why are both parties aligned trying so hard to stop him? Additionally, those participants' interests in the system who have been systematically minimized (white males) are flocking to support not only Donald Trump, but to make eminent an entire bucket of truth that exposes the crimes of the government over the past 55+ years; some of the most heinous crimes of any government in history. If this trend continues into his presidency, were he to win, then this would be positive for the prospects of western civilization and for exposing government corruption. This is not a syllogism, but how I am interpreting the evidence so far.

Sorry, but that is not an argument either. Those are two premises. 1) Arguments are not the only method of human interaction. 2) You can make an observation without making an argument They are both true statements, but for it to be considered an argument you need to show how you can get a conclusion that was not contain in the premises. Rose's post, while not a perfect syllogism, is much closer to an actual argument. The premises are that 1) the system (media, democrats, republicans) are doing everything to keep D. Trump from winning 2) this is a historically unprecedented situation (that D. Trump still is favorable to win) The conclusion is that this is not the system as it usually functions. From this, you can also conclude that arguments which are about participating in the system as it usually functions are not applicable to circumstances which are unusual. edited for clarity

Just pointing out for others - this is not an argument.

Admittedly that was not a very thorough opinion, but what I mean is that men who aren't looking for mothers are exposed to more risk in dating. I assume if you're not looking for a mother, then sexual attraction is the primary motivator. This will select for a type of woman that, in the current environment since the state is replacing the man and so many women are growing up without fathers, will tend not to respect men for the value they bring to relationships. There is also the risk of STDs, false rape accusations, and of course all the incentives awaiting women if they chose to divorce. If you're looking for a mother who finds a father necessary in her children's life, then you don't have a guarantee, but I think with enough focus you could get pretty close. It may be that the woman's relationship with her father or her desire to have a father around for her children is more important than someone looking to be a mother, per se. Sorry, I was talking about good women. I get that in the current environment, many amoral women can prioritize looks or 'game,' but that is because of state subsidies. That makes sense. If a woman is amoral, she will still be attracted to the resources, but she will look at them more like a pirate looks at loot. I'm not sure what purpose there would be to anxiety if it didn't convey information. Obviously it is not enjoyable, but that does not mean it is not valuable. I apologize for not explaining myself in more detail and also add the caveat that I'm not sure how much anxiety is healthy in any circumstance. However, what seems clear to me is that a woman who expects you not to have anxiety is doing so because she finds your anxiety troublesome. Anyone who finds your genuine emotional experience troublesome is trying to exploit you, or plans to. It may be the case that anxiety will be less around a good woman than a bad women, but when you're approaching a woman, you don't know if she is good beforehand. If you have anxiety approaching woman on a consistent basis, that may be something to explore, but I don't see it as a bad thing, per se. It may be a valuable thing that can test the willingness of a woman to have empathy. Lastly, about game: If you are anticipating a conversation before it begins by planning an approach to get a particular type of response, then in my completely amateur opinion you are already dissociating and making yourself vulnerable by not listening to what she says in the first place. There are genuine ways to express humor, curiosity, excitement; none of which can be planned beforehand and be genuine at the same time (at least not with any ability to discern the two). As soon as you plan your encounters, the most essential information - how you feel in the first moments you speak to someone - will be completely meaningless. In my completely amateur opinion, becoming good at being very attentive in the first moments of conversation can be what illuminates a good woman from many average women.

This is just my amateur opinion as well. This set of events is indicative to her character. What she did was actually to enable evil. If there isn't some sort of open dialogue and careful processing of this, then you will have no choice but to believe she has a capacity for cowardice that she will be prone to in the future. If she was groped and then reported this to the police and never saw him again, then that would be a different story and she would be completely a victim. That she continued to see someone who would grope her, and that she put herself in a position to be groped (by sleeping with him) after having full awareness of what he was capable and willing to do, in my completely amateur opinion, suggests some sort of reenacting of sexual mistreatment in her personal history. I do not think you will feel satisfied until you have a conversation with her about why this happened and how it makes you feel. I am not saying she did anything immoral of course, but I think it is completely legitimate to question her courage, so that you know she will not put herself, yourself, or your future children in a dangerous situation in the future. You can of course be compassionate, but I think what would be most satisfying for you (and her) going forward is an honest dialogue about this and some resolution involving her processing these events from every angle, I would say with a therapist even (if she hasn't already). I am not sure if this directly has to do with your anxiety, but I am going to go out on a limb and expect it does.

Stefan fundamentally isn't choosing what is covered - the market is. If there is a trend where something isn't being covered as often as it was in the past, I think it's fair to assume the demand for it isn't as great.