utopian

So feminism has hit a metaphorical wall lately. With the mass raping of women in Cologne and other parts of Europe; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-attacks-what-happened-after-1000-women-were-sexually-assaulted-a6867071.html It has become apparent that feminism, and their accomplice in the liberal media, has decided to be quite silent on the issue, despite the event being quite possibly the best example for it's cause. It's glaringly obvious something is not quite right here. From my own researched experience, the event is not being given attention because it runs counter to the elite's goals of allowing migrants into other countries, a topic I would expand upon if it would not impede the real issue I am trying to get at here. For the real issue I want to get to, is the fact that feminism is not actually a cause for the well being of women. Feminism is a cause or manipulating the masses into subservience for the elite's agenda. Consider the principles of Willie Lynch, the infamous slave owner from whom lynching is named after; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbi4V8BST2M&index=17&list=PLrSirRTR-ESvVoK9lmVrL9Nl4y-NuOro2 And you will see that the principles of slave breaking just so happen to be the principles of feminism; -Foster distrust. Feminism tells women all men are rapists. -Have the woman rely on master, not men. Feminism makes women subservient to the state, especially single mothers. -Emasculate men, and put the women in charge. That's basically all feminism is. -Leave women alone with the male image destroyed. -Fearing for her son's life, the mind controlled female will raise her son to become weakened, or "not real man" a common complaint among women these days. "This is a perfect situation of sound sleep and economics." -Willie Lynch As seen in my signature thread and many other resources from Stephan and others, the truth is that we in America, and many other nations, are actually slaves to this modern establishment. We men who pursue philosophy seek such answers, and find them lying in the fault of women, and their failure to love. How fundamental is the love of a woman? How vital, how crucial, how inexcusably necessary is it that a woman give her love to the world? The love of women is so critically fundamental, that; http://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213 Even a newborn child knows a world without a woman's love is a world not worth living for. Even newborn children know that, if the very woman I was born to is not going to love me, it's better to just go ahead and die. Women. You have chosen not to love us. It's easy to say that it was the establishment's fault. After all, they were certainly trying to brainwash you with their feminist agenda, which is really a slave breaking agenda, in which you are actually just as much a slave as we are. Because this truth is painful, you will likely never accept you had moral agency in actively considering what was true and what was false in the agenda that was fed to you, and rising above it to love men. Like most women, you will likely reject the truth presented here, and continue on blissfully in this seemingly wonderful modern society where everything is perfect for you. But this post, among other things, is a fair warning. We truth seekers are quite aware of an impending event in which this unreality which has been allowed to exist will be shattered. It reminds me of the film "The Road" in which the wife of the main character chooses to kill herself, because she would rather have died than gone on in the world that developed. And when this future materializes; "Good men" will not come to save you. The few that might have can already see clearly its not worth it for them. But the truth is, most of the "good men" had already died off. Their hearts died when you refused to love them, and all that is left is the kind of men that will perpetrate attacks like that of Cologne.

Of course he does. He's a game show host who ran one of the most popular television shows. He knows how to get people to watch. He knows people love to watch things they hate. That's why the Kardashians, Bruce Jenner and all the other dramatic controversial crap is so successful.

Continued at source; http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-a-revealing-interview-trump-predicts-a-%E2%80%98massive-recession%E2%80%99-but-intends-to-eliminate-the-national-debt-in-8-years/ar-BBrgMgZ?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=mailsignout The more I see of trump, the more he reminds me of Andrew Jackson. Both are seemingly authoritarian with libertarian values. Both don't like central banks. Both have people trying to kill them. Both successfully ride the wave of hatred towards a successful campaign. Only one actually succeeded at taking down a central bank. Maybe Trump will too.

And here I was thinking my faith in humanity might be restored.

But that's what I am saying, they ARE just ideas in our heads. Survival of the fittest exists whether we accept cognitions or not. Where does morality exist? If there are two people, and one believes in morality and the other does not, guess what? The moral guy is dead! The other guy killed him and took his stuff. Or beat him until he did what he wanted. By survival of the fittest, that is not wrong. Ghengis Khan would murder husbands in front of their wives before he raped them. Completely morally wrong. Regardless, there is a 5% chance that any random person in the world is related to him. Completely right and justified by survival of the fittest. Morality only survives, because the weaker moral individual who would not survive the aggression of the individual who succeeds at survival of the fittest, used other weaker moral individuals to avoid being killed or enslaved. I don't see where that applies, except where the validity of morality is concerned. I just explained that in my response to teabagger. In fact, Labmath seems to get it. Ok, good. So right here. Do you see how, in survival of the fittest, only about the top 10% of the species is free? I say that because within 10% you could have a margin of error where, in fighting, the 100th percentile could always make a mistake that the 90th percentile could capitalize on, and so it's best for these "alpha males" to simply never risk fighting each other. However, the 100th could likely always defeat the 89th, therefore it's always best for the 100th to assault the 89th and lower for their resources or servitude. True and not true. I needed my parents to get me through the years which I could not fend for myself, thus socializing. Then I needed them, or some other source, to teach me the basics of surviving in whatever times might have existed, including modern. After that, the measure of socializing depends upon the environment. In America, for example, we are drafted into collectivism and pay our taxes. In Africa, the strongest and smartest takes whatever he wants, and sometimes beats others into fighting for him, which is not morality, but slavery. The weaker individuals survive not by morality, but servitude. Only in collectivism does morality exist. EXCEPT the alpha males, who lose the opportunities they would have got doing such things, because they have the power to get away with it. Sure, they can also do pretty well by subjecting themselves to morality, but never as well as they could beating everyone into submission and compliance and taking the spoils for themselves. That is what I am arguing, this IS the natural state of mankind, we have just modernized it. I think it is in the interest of weaker beings to be moral, as reciprocity is just an idea in our heads that we are just hoping will happen. It does not seem like morality to me, it seems like supplication, hoping that other weaker individuals will conform, and stronger individuals will not agress against us anyway. This is itself a survival tactic.

Your first statement is true, people don't want bad stuff to happen to them. This is true pre-morality, before conciousness kicks in. The problem is when you say we all implicitly agree. Don't you see, that is collectivism? It may be collective humanity, but it's still collectivism. Society develops out of this collectivism. If the biggest cave man does not care for morality and decides to take what he wants, how are you going to stop him? Only by subjecting yourself to collective morality, going to "the group" and expecting all of them to agree what the cave man is doing is wrong, will you override that philosophy. Even then, you are going to need others to fight with you when the cave man decides to fight all of you, meaning you need collective action. Wrong by WHAT though? Collectivist morality? The idea in our heads that we should all behave a certain way, and we will oust anyone who does not conform? You just validated collectivism, which validates a host of other things.

I was listening to some material about population control earlier, and I heard something that made me consider the validity of legal fictions and other things that are just "ideas in our heads". Things that are in opposition to many of the stances Stephan and many people here take. For example, the idea that there is no state. The state is just an idea, a thought in people's heads. The idea that part of a land belongs to one state, and part of the land belongs to another. If I were to be just on one side of the border of the first state, nothing would happen to me. Now, there might be a wall where the idea of the border is supposed to be, or their might not. Regardless, if I cross the imaginary line of where the states are supposed to be, I might be attacked, imprisoned, or many other things may happen to me. All because of the idea in our heads, the idea of the state. So here's the inherent problem; morality is an idea in our heads as well. It is something we develop in our evolution and age. There is even a fairly well known term, pre-morality, that is used to describe the age period of 0 to 5. During that time, our consciousness is not fully developed, and we "do not know right from wrong" yet. All that exists during that time is the philosophy, recognized or not, of survival of the fittest. Only when we come of age and develop our consciousness does morality exist. Do you see the bigger problem now? Morality is just an idea in our heads, and the truth is, we are all still operating by the philosophy of survival of the fittest, while... lying? to ourselves with this idea in our heads about morality. Now, ok sure, there are plenty of valid reasons to operate morally. But if you accept that, if you accept the concept of morality being a valid way by which to operate in your day to day life, you also have to accept the validity of OTHER ideas, especially philosophical and moral ideas, including statism, collectivism, the greater good, and so on. So in conclusion, either survival of the fittest is valid and everything else a lie, or collectivism and the greater good is valid, in which true freedom for the individual can never be achieved. Which, actually, could never be achieved by anyone except the top 10% of the species anyway.

Don't have time to get all through this thread, but it seems relevant to my interests. If anyone cares for my two cents, I have my own problem with philosophy. It is a manifestation of the neocortex, the highest intelligence of the human mind. Unfortunately, philosophy ignores and denies humanity, in the aspect of survival and replication; the paleocortex and the lymbic system. What we SHOULD do according to philosophy, is not what we SHOULD do according to our evolutionary humanity. Case in point, Stephan likes to talk about the idea that if a woman is unfit to be a mother, you should not sleep with her. Well ok philosophy, that makes sense, but if that was followed to the rule, you would probably eradicate 90% of earth's population. While the philosophy of only allowing the highest quality people to reproduce is ideal, it forgets the aspect of the philosophy of survival of the fittest, in that the survival of humanity should be pursued to its full extent by producing as many humans possible and spreading across the universe. Long story short, I have been conflicted for a while now, that philosophy is ideal, but impractical.

There are many comparisons that are valid. The question, I think, is more about if that is good or bad, in a person's eyes. General society hears the word "Hitler" and automatically associates anything with it as bad. And Hitler was in fact bad, for the Jews and for most of the rest of the world. But did you know that, in consideration of the German people and their economy, Hitler was quite possibly the best thing that ever happened to them? In fact, after experiencing the worst hyperinflation in history, Hitler turned their economy around so successfully, they put him on the cover of Time magazine as man of the year, and called what he did "The German Miracle".

There seem to be a lot of people on both sides of the fence on this topic. I know one side, to be sure. I am thinking maybe I did not elaborate properly. For those of you that feel you are indeed cared about, I am wondering, what is it in your interactions that makes you feel cared about? Is it really care, or is it perhaps a delusion? A woman, for example, might flirt with a man to make him think she cares about him, only to get a free drink. What makes you think the people you think care, actually care? As far as reciprocal value, I have my own reciprocal value I can provide to FDR that does not require a donation, but people do not always recognize it. For example, in real life, I try to interest people in philosophy and FDR. This provides value to Stephan as far as gathering listeners and thinkers. People, unfortunately, do not always recognize the value of philosophy, and do not want to talk about it. That's their choice. In the same way, I have value to provide, and people choose not to recognize or interest themselves. I do think about donating. Philosophy seems to create just as many problems as it does answers, unfortunately. While it makes sense ideally, it does not seem to fit practically. But besides all that, there is nothing stopping anyone from volunteering an answer to my question, and staying on topic.

This is what I find as well. People wont LET me care about them. When I am true, honest and philosophical, people flee. When I am superficial, it's a party. I don't want to answer anything else. That's not the topic I am looking for. I want to know if any of you men are cared about, and what that's like for you. It's looking like nobody is.

You know what interests me, is why divergent icons like Bradley Manning, the first Wachowski brother, and now the second, are doing this. Bradley did not become transgender until, of course, he was in prison. We should all know by now our government is not above torture. I don't think governments appreciate movies like The Matrix and V for Vendetta coming out.

Something happened to me today, and I started getting all into it, but decided not to post it because I did not want the topic getting off track. What I wanted to get to, is the fact that I am not a cared about man. I tend to stay alone. I work, play video games, and pick up the occasional chick at a downtown club. And yet, people seem to treat me as if I am not a person, or have rights. They talk trash, and whine when they get it back. They treat me poorly, and whine when I treat them poorly. Some even go as far as putting their hands on me, and then want to cry when they realize their stupidity can't compare to an ex cage fighter's skills. I live as a man who is not cared about. I have to document events. I have to constantly stay on the proper legal path to ensure that, when one of these events happens, none of the lies that the other parties or their friends will say will have merit. I am constantly planning, preparing, and pre-empting responses for when others conduct themselves improperly. The thing is, I don't know how to not live this way. I just go around expecting poor quality behavior from people, because, ya know what, most of the time that's exactly what happens! Even before I open my mouth to say something a lot of the times. I can't believe that I just walk around minding my own business and people I have never met find the need to say something rude to me. I find myself wondering what it's like to go through life living as a man who is cared about. By anyone. All through my life, people have always been the source of my problems, and by avoiding them, I have been much happier. I don't know what it's like to live as a cared about man. I want to know if you, the reader, are a man that is cared about, and what that's like for you.

Absolutely. The Jews themselves will tell you Christianity is fairly deviated from the original religion, and does not even serve the same god. In fact, it is a hobby of mine to go looking into this very topic. You may want to look into a couple topics which purvey the original sources for what god was supposed to be. The first is Kabbalah, part of the original Jewish religion which was much more paganistic. According to Kabbalah, god is basically the universe. God is everything. He is all, and is in all, as Kabbalah says. The same way you would rarely be conscious of a single germ in your body, you are a germ in the universal body of god that he is rarely conscious of. The second topic is the ancient Sumerian texts. You may have heard of Mesopotamia, or Babylon. Sumeria was a third region which was very intellectually and culturally advanced. The Sumerian texts and hieroglyphs speak of the gods as beings who actively walked among man and taught them to do their bidding, and hold many descriptions of the original bible stories. According to the texts, the gods were aliens looking for gold to take back to their home planet to save their atmosphere. Their home planet was supposedly a tenth planet of our solar system. Coincidentally, NASA has recently begun to talk of evidence for just such a planet; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/03/is-there-a-planet-x-a-massive-perturber-hidden-beyond-pluto/

If the non aggression principle were to be applied, I would say let the Islamic migrants go Cologne all over their asses and bring the state down with it. These women are ruined to the point where they can't even entertain an idea that they are not perfect. When the shit hits the fan, I won't fight for any of them, and the nice guys who do will be unapologetically weeded out of the gene pool as the collapse runs them over. But, unfortunately, because of the state and control of the sexual domain you speak of, to let such a thing happen would be like to let a 5 year old child chase a butterfly off a cliff. Women simply have never had the chance to understand what is truly at stake, or what's going on. It is a point of confliction for me.

For example, the response to my post, is predictable. Why face a challenge directly and put forth a rational argument, when you can outsource your independent ability to discuss, to the collective societal prudery of mechanics on an internet forum? In the same way, do women naturally avoid fending for themselves by learning to defend themselves. Instead, they expect laws of the state to be there to save them. There are of course exceptions to the rule. I admire such women who take survival into their own hands like, say, Rhonda Rousey. But like in the UFC, women are very much the minority. So is the case in philosophy, and so is the case in the state.

Difficult does not even describe it, I simply have not found one. Or the inkling of one. Philosophy shows me the truth. The truth is that humans are generally inhumane. The beautiful lie I was chasing, was the lie that the perfect woman was out there waiting for me to find her. It just does not exist, and anyone chasing that is going to weed themselves out of the gene pool. I have not exactly been looking my whole life... it's complicated. But I do believe I waited too long, although I might not have been able to start any sooner. I felt ready, not so long ago. I went looking for the girl of my dreams when I felt I was ready. She had sent my sister an invitation to her wedding two months prior. Of this I do not doubt my friend! An arched brow on a face like yours wearing a nice suit with a grey tie would be sure to kill a woman upon eye contact, before including your demeanor. But you said it yourself, you find women tend to never be interested in the philosophy and chill. There is a reason for that, as well as a reason as the female population being so sparse here. I don't think you will understand if I just tell you what it is. You will have to go out and experience it over and over before you start to challenge what you've been taught throughout life. Yes, women are ALL, NAURALLY; statist subservient beings, happy to outsource their independence for the benefits of socialism, as they live their lives in the matrix. I say naturally because, it's in the genes, the evolution. Stephan himself says socialism is porn for women. They are simply developed to do whatever it takes to make the most well taken care of babies. They did not develop to survive; they developed to reproduce. Now, seeing as how reproduction without survival is a problem, the species needed a separate entity who's focus was survival, and not necessarily reproduction, therefore men, and therefore, the beings of survival and reproduction were meant for each other. Now this is not to say that with proper utilization of the neocortex, a woman cannot rise above their natural development to become something more philosophical. Indeed they can, and men can become more than the dogs they are generally (and I would say mostly) rightly accused of being. It is, unfortunately, the minority of men and women, as noticed by your earlier observation. And unfortunately, it appears to be getting worse. I am writing another article, like the one in my sig, concerning corporate and state interest in child abuse. Because of my semi-relationship, I have taken quite an interest in borderline personality disorder, and have tested the dynamics of the disorder on my relationship and other women. There are some unbelievably fundamental mechanics at the core of most women, almost as seemingly fundamental as, say, being hungry. I play with these mechanics at an alarming success rate. Either these dynamics are evolutionary fundamental to women, or large percentages of women are being abused as children, or both. It will take time to write thoroughly. But for now, without ever getting into knowing women in general, you probably would not even get to the point where you would believe these dynamics exist.

Is that you shnugwa? I say it's better to start now. You don't want to be like me almost 30 years old, having resources and only recently thinking about serious relationships. You notice yourself, you lack experience. It's not something you pick up and read and then you're good, its a journey. Like weight lifting. It's something you gotta do a little bit every day. Also, you are looking for a needle in a haystack looking for an intelligent virtuous woman. You could go your whole life and never find one. And if you did, you might not even be ready, as you yourself notice your own lack of experience. Opportunity without preparation is irony. If you do find one, and youre not ready, at least you can befriend her while you develop. Also, youre much too intelligent and formal. Girl's gonna be like "talk dirty to me" and youre gonna be like "the financial crisis was caused by poor distribution of subprime loans...". Women are naturally statist subservient beings all but happy to outsource their independence for the benefits of socialism as they live their lives in the fantastical matrix. As the saying goes, girls just want to have fun. Tell a joke. Do something bad. Argue even when you know youre wrong just for the banter of it. One day youll recognize, for perhaps a reason you can't explain, this always works better than a formal engagement where both parties are always walking on egg shells. The best relationships are anarcies with universally preferable behavior, not a statist lockstep with punishments for non-conformity.

Hm. Well it seems like you are in a populated area. That can be one of the worst places to be in a disaster. I apparently live in one of the top 5 places you don't want to be during a global breakdown. I have access to a boat and am fairly close to it at all times, I plan on bugging out to a nearby island with supplies if anything gets too bad. Hungary is fairly land locked, but I bet there is some wilderness near you that you could go survive in if people started freaking out. Somewhere with water preferably. Take a little camping trip maybe, get to know your local wilderness, test yourself and see what it might be like to have to survive alone for a while.

I seem to have forgotten America is not the only country in the world like a typical American. What country are you in rotten? What's going on there that's got you concerned?

The only thing I couldnt survive is a nuke. We wouldnt be told if it was coming. The closest we have come recently, I think, is North Korea threatening to nuke California some time ago. The scientific community put us at three minutes to midnight on the doomsday clock, citing deteriorated relations between the US and Russia. Outside of that, I am fairly well prepared. It's possible enough to go on living your life. I am sure a lot of people here could give you great advice for anything youre concerned with.

Ya know Joel, I don't think men will ever get an apology. Maybe not for the reason you might think though. I think feminism is not actually about feminism, but about a psychological method of controlling populations. Case in point, the mass rapes in Europe that happened on New Years. After the news came out, I expected we would see militant feminists marching up and down the streets Nazi takeover style. Instead, what happened? A great, big... silence. Nothing. No women up in arms anywhere. No heavy media coverage. That's because as soon as the agenda for allowing migrants to populate a country is interfered with from the narrative from feminism, the feminist narrative must be silenced. Because it's not actually about caring for women. It's about whatever best suits the establishment's goals.

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/flashback-1988-get-ready-for-a-world-currency-by-2018%E2%80%B3-the-economist-magazine/ I bought this book two years ago in 2014. It was a great read, touching on some aspects on the history of money before going on to outline some problems of the modern American system, as well as giving me another well researched source on modern and historical economic events. Towards the end it focuses on three main points that, while not exactly perfectly correct today, did indeed get it mostly right. The first three factors I will discuss today are from the book, as well as from other sources. Factor 1; China http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/chinas-stock-meltdown-is-now-becoming-our-problem/ar-AAcI1Fr?ocid=mailsignout The Chinese and US economies are fatally linked. China could dump it's ties with the US, but then they would have no one to sell their products to, and damage their economy. The US could default on it's obligations to China, but then it would have no one to buy cheap and necessary products from. There are several products and corporations that come to the US from China, but none is so prominent as Walmart. Look at all the products that come from China the next time you go to Walmart, and you might develop an understanding of just how important it is that America maintain its relation to China. If products from China suddenly ceased to become available on shelves such as Walmarts, the value of such supplies could easily go up 1000% or more, as all of our industry has been outsourced to countries like China, and we have no established means of producing these items ourselves. China is in turmoil, and its problems are beginning to burst at the seams, as will be described in more detail later. Factor 2; Oil http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/opec-unity-shattered-as-saudi-led-policy-leads-to-no-limits/ar-AAg24DU?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout A couple few years ago, gas was as high as 5.50 a gallon in California. Prior to such prices, it was not worth America's while to tap it's oil sources on its own land, because the oil that was left was mostly under shale rock that required expensive machinery to harvest. With gas prices so high, however, it suddenly became worth it to purchase and develop the infrastructure required, and corporations took out loans to purchase everything. Unfortunately for the oil companies of the world, the US never joined OPEC, but only ever agreed to use its military industrial complex to provide its military as mercenaries to protect their infrastructure. With America now drilling its own oil outside the oil cartel, OPEC has a new competitor, and has decided to sell its oil for cheaper than what the US sells it for. OPEC hopes that by doing so, it will prevent American oil companies from being able to service the interest payments on the loans they took out to purchase its oil infrastructure, bankrupting them and returning control of the oil market to OPEC. I thought for a while that they would indeed succeed. However, some interesting new information has become available; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-16/exclusive-dallas-fed-quietly-suspends-energy-mark-market-tells-banks-not-force-shale When the US banks were about to go under, the government used its citizens tax dollars (and unborn children) to bail out the banks. This time around, it seems the plan is to use taxes and unborn babies to bail out the oil companies. Without doing so, gas will one day pop back up into about 6 dollars a gallon, maybe more, as US oil companies go under. If they do in fact use our tax dollars for a bailout, gas will stay low, but Americans will be gouged in their taxes and slavery. Factor 3; US housing http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/brace-for-a-flood-of-foreclosures-when-boom-era-helocs-turn-10/ar-AAbDeGu?ocid=mailsignout Beginning in 2005 and during the crash throughout 2008, Americans were finding they were unable to service their housing payments as the system began to collapse. So in order to sustain their loans, many citizens took out HELOCs, or Home Equity Line of Credit. These loans allowed borrowers to take out a loan against the equity already in their housing, and only have to pay interest in 10 years. After those 10 years, however, borrowers would have to pay interest AND principle, effectively doubling a borrower's payment. As we head into the second year of the end of the 10 year period in which an explosion of these HELOCs were taken out, more and more borrowers will find themselves unable to maintain payments, and the housing market, which is widely recognized to be overvalued, will plunge back down into severely depressed valuations. Factor 4; The Actions of the Federal Reserve http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-feds-dilemma-is-the-economy-slowing-or-surging/ar-BBpbboc?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout The US Federal Reserve is in a tough spot. It began it's quantitative easing programs around 2008 at somewhat higher percents of interest. The benchmark 10 year bond will be coming due soon, and the Federal Reserve has kept it's interest rate at 0 for many years now. It has not generated any money outside printing more dollars for a long time, and a large portion of these 10 year bonds will have to be paid off at 100% plus interest. Usually, the Fed would do what it has always done, and sell more bonds at a higher interest rate to kick the can down the road further. Unfortunately, the Fed has been backed into a corner. The economy depends on free money in order to sustain itself these days, and a raising of interest rates can trigger a selloff of many things. Loans across the board will suddenly find themselves having to pay their original interest plus whatever the Fed hikes interest to, and debtors may default on their loans. Additionally, as the Fed has raised interest rates beginning in December last year, China has responded by selling off portions of it's Wall Street Market share, sending the DOW from its peak of 18k last year, to bouncing around under 16k this year. So the choice for the Fed is tough; either keep interest at 0%, and service returning bonds by printing more dollars and inflating the money supply (thereby causing recession),or raise interest rates, service old bonds with new bonds, and deal with the fallout caused by China and debtors selling out. There seems to be no clear answer, except perhaps, to wait and see what happens. There is indeed an advantage to this option; other countries could take actions that prop up the US dollar. In fact it has already happened; Japan has taken their bonds into negative interest rates, triggering a selloff in Japanese markets, and a buy up of American markets that saw the DOW go from under 16k to over 16k. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Most interesting to me, I think, is seeing how much attention is being given in the media to the Federal Reserve actually going into negative interest rates itself. Factor 5; Minimum Wage http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wal-mart-pulls-plug-on-smallest-store-format-shuts-269-stores/ar-BBoeOI6?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout In 2015, at least here in California, minimum wage was 9 dollars an hour. Beginning this year it is now 10. In some cities, like LA, it's 15. Walmart has notoriously been closing stores over the minimum wage hike, even though they have been one of the main lobbyists for keeping minimum wage down. I have read that, if wages had kept up with inflation over the dollar's history, minimum wage would have been 22 dollars an hour a while ago, if not for lobbies like Walmart. Regardless, corporations across the board are being effected by the wage hike, as they suddenly find themselves paying today's wages while selling products at yesterdays prices. In order to stay afloat and make a proper return, they will have to adjust prices to an appropriate level, causing inflation. Many business, like Walmart, have chosen to cease hiring and producing jobs in the face of raised minimum wage, and the result is more people will be out of work and money and homelessness will become more common. As if this were not enough, this comes at a time when the market is in turmoil, the Fed does not know what to do, and oil is ready to crash one way or another. We have had a brief period of economic success, and citizens have had some time to acquire some savings. As business adjust to the new minimum wage, first people will find themselves out of work and unable to find a job. Then they will draw upon their savings. Then they will depend upon credit. Then they won't have anything, as another recession sets in. Factor 6; Potential government shutdown http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/spending-showdown-looms-as-national-debt-hits-dollar19-trillion/ar-BBp7sRg?li=BBnb7Kv&ocid=mailsignout In 2013, the US government shut down, causing several unobvious events including the EPA preventing Chinese goods to enter the US, causing a delay in revenue that pissed the Chinese off enough for them to make a statement confirming that they will not be investing in America again. While it likely means they will not be purchasing Federal Reserve bonds again the next time they become due, it also meant they will be offloading American stocks, and they have been. A simple look at the DOW's history will show there we several days in which the DOW began with a sharp drop, as China has opened the market with selloffs. As I write this, the DOW is back under 16k. And though a spending budget was approved last year that was supposed to see the government fund itself through next year, politicians are beginning to regret their decision and call for a spending reform as the national debt breaks 19 trillion. It could cause another shutdown, or at least a stagnation and maybe a selloff in markets as investors watch and wait to see what happens. Factor 7; The Presidential Election After studying everything relating to my article in my signature, it is my educated guess that the 1% in control of the global economy strive to create these chaotic situations in economies in order to tell the presidential hopefuls "do what we say or we are going to leave you stranded with this gigantic shit sandwich". Things are already getting crazy in China, Europe, the Middle East, and everywhere. America is still in charge, and only the executive actions of the president are capable of making any real difference. That is, if a president even knew what was going on or how to fix anything. Most presidents, like Obama, would just play along until the elites were satisfied enough to make things marginally better for people. Regardless, before the presidential election, bets are being made on wall street. Each candidate comes with different sets of agendas, and that means different investments which can boom or bust depending on which candidate wins. Before the election, investors are buying certain stocks, assuming one candidate or the other will win. They will settle into the trenches in an already tumultuous market, further stagnating the economy and making things worse, but not that much worse... not yet. Then, a candidate will be elected, and investors will know what to expect. There will be booms and sell offs as investors realize X will happen with one candidate, or Y will happen with another. Then with the candidate in office, he or she will take actions, and it can be anyone's guess whether they were right or wrong. There will be winners, and there will be losers, and the only thing that will be certain is uncertainty. My personal speculation is this; it will come down to Donald and Hillary. Sanders has a good heart; some of my favorite videos are of him sticking it to Ben Bernanke during the recession, trying to figure out what is going on. Unfortunately, he has no idea what he is doing, and would likely make things a lot worse. I think he would be better than Hillary, however, because I know she is bought and paid for by the Saudis, and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, a group cited to be the the people actually in control of the US government. Donald Trump could certainly win, and I have seen articles providing evidence that wall street is interested in voting republican. My concern with Trump is, he IS a corporate kingpin. Though I know he knows about money, and how to fix America's economy, I have to wonder if he will indeed make life better for citizens, or just for himself. 2016 will certainly be a very interesting year.

Here are SOME sources on it; http://aapel.org/bdp/BLgenderUS.html http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime.com/disorders_psychologist_and_psychologists/psychologist_borderline_personality.htm http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/what-is-bpd/ One of the sources specifically states gender dysphoria is clinically associated with BPD. I was planning to do a very involved article on this subject, but it will take a lot of time. If you require it from me, I ask that you wait until my research is properly prepared. Last time someone doubted I would come through, I wrote a 20 page article, which is my signature. However, if you are fine with a short version, here you go. BPD stems from severe childhood abuse/neglect. BPDs find themselves doing anything and everything in order to acquire and maintain attention. BPDs will entertain any falsehood in order to maintain their inner narrative which perpetually shifts the blame outside of themselves. BPDs usually cannot face the truth, and will go to murderous and/or suicidal lengths to avoid doing so. In pursuit of their inner narrative, one of the manifestations of BPD is to entertain the falsehood that the BPD is actually the wrong gender. As this is controversial, it produces all kinds of attention for the BPD, satisfying their desperate inner desires. BPDs can be so fundamentally opposed to facing the truth, that they will entertain their fantasies, such as being the incorrect gender, to the point of physically mutilating themselves in an attempt to align reality to their fantasy. It is not uncommon for any and all BPDs to self harm even if they are not entertaining the gender dysphoria fantasy. In the end, collaboration with a BPD entertaining gender dysphoria is the same as collaborating with an anorexic's idea that they are fat, when they are skinny. It's all actually in their head, which was unfortunately broken at a very young age. The state has a vested interest in entertaining this issue as it distracts and disarms the public while the state commits atrocities around the globe. The media has a vested interest in entertaining this issue because as can be seen with people like Bruce Jenner, there is lots of money to be made off the story, and corporations collaborate because they can sell expensive products and services to these poor broken people in the form of expensive surgeries, makeup, dresses, hair products etc. It's an environment so catastrophically insane, the average individual cannot even comprehend it.