aviet

Seems like you are quite a catch. If you want to broaden your options do searches like: site:pof.com "peaceful parenting" site:pof.com anarchocapitalist etc. They are few and far between, but there are some and even more if you want to broaden to "libertarian", "Alex Jones". You can probably do the same thing with other dating sites.

The closest I have seen on here is Berlin and Portugal. At the moment I am in Serbia; and will go to either Switzerland or Hong Kong next. If Switzerland I was thinking of going to one of the South European islands after to squeeze in a little more summer. The scenery in Corsica look a lot like Greece, which was a very nice place for cycling though, but best overall has been Slovenia, because they have very good quality roads for road bikes.

If the people of the world were evolved enough to live in a voluntary fashion, I doubt there would even be any real need for much of what I see as the anarcho-capitalist state apparatus of rules and DROs. Such a state is far beyond where we find ourselves. Much of global stability is derived from the US-NATO world order, in which most sectarian tendencies are kept in check. Many nations have had their development given and foisted on them by the west in the form of aid, technology, enforced human rights etc. Yet many of those nations have not gone through the appropriate pyscho-emotional and intellectual development that led to their creation. Give a third-world nation plastic and guns and you will see cities of garbage and bullet-ridden buildings; give them to the people of Hong Kong and you will see recycling plants and skyscrapers. If you think third-world governments are bad, look what happens when they collapse - think machetes being wielded by illiterates. Right now, unless you are willing to put up a wall, you will have people well below the level required to sustain your country moving in and turning it into theirs. If globalism continues, the reality in much of America will be that of Detroit or Baltimore. Right now practical anarchy is just a theory. There isn't a practical question, 'Would a voluntary society get taken over?' right now. There is only 'Is my country being taken over?' And it's not foreign governments that are doing the taking over. The same would go with a voluntary society that somehow managed to exist in a vacuum. Unless it was protected against both inappropriate outsiders and internal generational decay, it wouldn't last.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twister_(software)

I'd also noticed the predilection of the von Mises set for liberal immigration or open borders, but was not sure why. I think some of this may have to do with their overly-economic world-view that pays little attention to social factors; and a belief that in more libertarian societies, migrants will have to perform or leave the society. But I don't think that is necessarily true as many migrated to the US and lived in poverty. That you don't have to associate with them is irrelevant if they are associating with you via crime, property devaluation, capital flight etc. As a modern example, you have the wave of mass migration to South Africa from elsewhere on the continent. They are not going for benefits, because there aren't any. This links to an argument, which it seems you might be invoking - that many libertarians fail to see the use of private force in the same light as the use of state force. Particularly with the state of the world as it is, there is no way you can catch and redress all non-frivolous uses of private force. And what use of private force is, is open to interpretation. You can argue that the government in Australia is slightly larger than the UK government, but given the choice I'd choose Australia, because the overall societal freedom provided by their tough immigration system seems freer to me, as I see some people as a bigger threat to freedom than Western governments. There is a conflict that many on this board recognise and that conflict is between a desire for liberty and the knowledge that many people in their country/world cannot be entruseted with that liberty. Manipulative, emotional, low IQ, responsibility deferrers do not have the facilities to restrain themselves in a society with little restraint. A freer society needs to protect itself from incompatible outsiders and fortify its insiders from degenerating into people who cannot restrain themselves and turning the free society into Venezuela. To borrow a term from social justice, I would go for libertarian-fluid. I want as much freedom as is sustainable long-term, but at the moment there is not the quality around to sustain leaps and bounds towards a libertarian utopia for all. If I knew I could leave the world 10% more free in terms of idealogical, crime and state imposition, that would be a good result. I don't see the point of sitting on the sidelines saying, "NAP or nothing!"

Probably not. He's from the let the chips land where they may school of thought.

Similar to Graham's method, another option is The McInnes Method: 1) Abolish prisons 2) Everyone has guns, the more the merrier 3) Rapists and murders get shot Since there is no data that I am aware of that provides insights into the results of alternatives, I'm not sure what would actually work. In the meantime I'd like to see prisoners doing jobs that otherwise would not be done: picking litter from road-sides, digitalising and transcribing historic documents or bringing backs jobs that have been shipped abroad. What are your leanings?

To paint a broader picture, in the US and the UK, it is more socially permissible to attack and deride whites and men, than blacks and women. This require a whole book to lay out, but as an example you have Ice Cube whose long history of racism and mocking of whites as inferior to blacks includes his song feat. genocidal black-supremacist, Khalid Muhammad, Cave B*tch, in which they promote the notion that white people being created as race of devils by a black scientist in pre-history. Add that to his murderous-rape and misogyny, which has been OK'd by feminists, because Cube says he is not sexist. Yet he is now being painted as a human rights icon and this has had no negative effect on his career, even going on to lead children's films. Yet if you are white all you have to do is say you are against mass-immigration and you're career is at risk and you are called a racist. I don't think you can say there is an equivalent group to BLM for whites in terms of its mainstreaming and social acceptability. All of the white supremacists groups are underground and obscure. And there is no equivalent to the daily stream of articles like: Of course all white people are racist Barbecue is an American tradition – of enslaved Africans and Native Americans You might not think you're sexist – until you take a look at your bookshelf Stupid White People (Michael Moore book) 29 Stupid Things White People Do We’re all racist. But racism by white people matters more Why white people aren’t as cool as black people Only white people can be racist In academia you have those calling for whites to commit suicide because they are racist. I could continue ad finitum... All in the mainstream, endorsed by Obama, Sharpton, Jackson etc., all published as social justice, progressive and so on. There is no equivalent to this in the mainstream for white supremacism. White supremacism is underground and socially unacceptable. Are you totally oblivious to the new culture of everything is racist, everything is sexist? But only if your're a white male. And I know this is a minority, probably in the single digits, at least with some form of coherency. But it dominates in much of the Marxist media. If you look in the comments, even a majority there are against the tripe. If you want to come back with 'this is just some people'. I'm not arguing that it is all people of a group. It is that there is a double standard on what is socially acceptable to say about whites, men and other groups. I said there is something different about BLM, as above. There were several, such as the assertion that Darwinism was used by Britain to spread slavery, yet Britain had abolished slavery. Then eugenics was used to push British slavery, even though by that time Britain had ended slavery in about a quarter of the world. As for Britain's role in promoting racism, as someone who works in history (free market, not academic), you will be hard pushed to find much evidence of British state racism. What there was, was among some people, as you allude to. Britain has the best track-record in when it comes racial relations, 1600-present. That people don't know this is part of the great white-washing. A lot of my ancestry is not European. An ancestor who was not European died in London in the 1690s. He was highly respected by the British and had his estate processed by the Church of England. Other ancestors who were not European worked in the British empire as lawyers and government officials. They married Indians, they married Chinese, they married other Europeans, they married Jews. This was actively encouraged by the Empire. This at a time when most of the rest of the world were enslaving each other, waging totalitarian conquests. My grandmother, who was largely not European loved the empire, loved Britain, loved Churchill and loved Thatcher. I'm just sad I did not realise the cultural implications of those characteristics from a non-European woman, born a few miles from Afghanistan in 1921, when she was alive. There were no problems for her with life in Britain, which is a very different story than that of my persecuted, mixed-race, religious minority relatives that live in Pakistan. You'll be hard pushed to find any country with a better record of any human rights at any time since 1600. Yet the dominate narrative in the culture right now is Britain = racism; America = slavery. I am because I think they deserve it based on the evidence. The continuation of Western civilisation was not in reference to BLM specifically. I don't think they are likely to threaten it on their own, but they are part of the erosion in confidence of The West, which is going to be replaced by what? Immutable sharia law? Safe spaces? Pan-Africanism? Globalism? This system has given them more freedom of expression and lifestyle choices than any other system that has probably ever existed, yet they seem to think the exact opposite. As for police brutality. I would agree that this goes on, but to use your own logic, there will always be a minority that causes trouble. The US is a violent country. You have four cities in the top 100 most deadly in the world. What is the acceptable margin of error and compromise? According to The Guardian there have been 88 unarmed people killed by the police this year. Someone posted in the comments there today that the officer who killed Mr. Smith in Milwaukee should have waited for him to fire first. BLM are saying the killing was unacceptable.

This goes a long way from anarcho or libertarian thought and into the world of laws created 100s or 1000s of years ago, that according to Vox, are seemingly immutable. This sounds something that would be much more at home in Islam. For example, the Shia Family Law (2009) in Afghanistan, which requires a wife to submit to her husband's carnal desires once every for days, if he so chooses. This puts Vox on a par with the following countries, where forced congress is not recognised as a crime in marriage. Afghanistan - Islam Algeria - Islam Bahrain - Islam Bangladesh - Islam Botswana Brunei Darussalam - Islam Central African Republic China Chad - Islam Democratic Republic of Congo Egypt - Islam Eritrea - Islam Ethiopia - Islam Haiti India Indonesia - Islam Iran - Islam Iraq - Islam Ivory Coast Jordan - Islam Kuwait - Islam Laos Lebanon - 60% Islam Libya - Islam Malawi Mali - Islam Malaysia - Islam Mongolia Morocco - Islam Myanmar Nigeria - 50% Islam Oman - Islam Palestinian territories - Islam Saudi Arabia - Islam Senegal - Islam Singapore - 15% Islam South Sudan Sri Lanka Sudan - Islam Syria - Islam Tajikistan - Islam Tanzania - 35% Islam Tunisia - Islam United Arab Emirates - Islam Uganda Vietnam Yemen - Islam Zambia

They say it's lonely at the top. Since you are here you probably already know that many people cannot be swayed by reason and logic. What society now calls liberals are the most immune to reason and logic, because they are given to emotional arguments. A more logical person will typically seek to win arguments by presenting information, while an emotional one will be more likely to talk about hurt feelings and use emotionally charged language like: "That's racist! You're racist! Shut the **** up! We're trying to have reasonable discussions! **** you!" For emotional-types this is a perfectly fine way to win an argument, as they are emotionally-powered being. I was once involved in an argument with an "old-fashioned socialist" woman. Her response to everything I said was to blow up with slander, emotionally charged words and eventually obfuscation, "What Language are you speaking?!?!? Do you not speak proper English!?!?!? I don't know what you are saying!!!!!" Luckily by this point I had been introduced to the Stefan Molyneux method, "... is not an argument." For them arguments are typically won by feelings. It doesn't matter if there is $21 trillion in debt. A logical person goes where they think is factually correct. While an emotional person wants to go where they can stew in their desired emotional state, whether that be a happy safe-space or a pit of vitriolic hate. Even if your liberal Marxist peers are more logical, they can still be propelled by the same notions as emotional Marxists, because in their mind those conclusions are logical. For example, it seems intelligent, logical people who have not succeeded in the market are often given to the same notions as emotional Marxists. For them 'unfair' systems, like capitalism, are a logical point of blame for their failure. A simplistic boil-down of the modern 'liberal' archetype: - Is everyone equal? Yes - Are you an emotional decision maker? Yes With a combination like that, logic and facts are more or less impervious. To dismantle the illogical notion 'we are all equal', you have a barrier of emotional fits and bursts protecting it. If you want to change the perception that we are all equal, essentially what your argument was against, you would do better to question the individual on this. How they feel about topics related to it and what other beliefs are contributing to it. Then you might have a chance of slightly impacting on elements and change their perceptions over time. As for what you wrote, to me it seems like you are feeling the need to pull back, which gives it a slightly manipulative feeling to me - some of the statements are concessions intended to defend yourself and your arguments, rather than let them stand on their own. It also feels a bit hasty and emotional. ------- As for what to do. You have two options: shut up, or speak your mind. Loosing friends is a pretty common in this area. People who look at current problems logically have been to a considerable extent shut up and marginalised over the past several decades; having been subdued by emotionally charged words. Boiled down the modern Marxist's argument is, "Shut up. You're hurting my feelings."

I'd feel safer living in Liberia; and statistically that is justified: Homicides per 100,000 in Milwaukee: ~15 (source) Homicides per 100,000 in Liberia: 3.3 (source) The perp's father has been pretty open on his status as a role model to his son: (source) Rumors are circulating the officer in question is black.

At least they haven't made the side exhibition Michael Moore's Stupid White Men yet. What do you expect to happen when big government comes to an end? There are a number of scenarios I envisage. I think one of the most likely will include a massive reduction in population. If European, the US and a few other countries' governments fail or are massively reduced this will mean: - an end to the threat of US/NATO intervention in the numerous conflicts that would otherwise be raging - an end of the ability of said governments and associated NGOs to force human rights on the third world - decimation of 3rd world resource-based economies - an end to foreign aid which can constitute up to 50% of a 3rd world government's budget All the problems of the third world will blow back on the inter-dependent West and cause global food, energy and raw material markets to collapse. I would expect large portions of the world's population to die of starvation and conflict in this scenario. We've never seen such an inter-dependent world, where relationships have been crated by a small number of people by force and against market (natural) forces. The collapse of major governments would outweigh the affect of the Roman Empire. But I also think its quite likely that the system will be able to be propped up for a long time. People with a stake in society will rather keep some of their net worth rather than loose pretty much all of it; and they will keep rolling things over until it becomes obvious to all that there isn't much left to roll over. My eye is mainly on Italy, if it goes, I think France could be drawn into essentially insolvency and that would probably be enough to trigger The Greatest Depression. It's just a question of what schemes they can dream up to manage the decline.

Keep plodding on. A while back I didn't see many possibilities that could happen in the future, but I am glad I stuck around. With you attitude for self improvement, options will likely appear.

The French Revolution had an effect, but like pretty much everything England (and Wales) were ahead of France by a considerable margin. England (and Wales) had its version of the French Revolution in the 1640s and 1650s, in which the monarch was also killed. The monarchy was later reinstalled, but there was a considerable reformation and compromise. This is something that England did well, as opposed to continental Europe who were more given to state, religious and social totalitarianism. Going into the 1800s in Britain, you had a lot of agitation for further reform and this is something the elite were gradually pressured into surrendering. Of those who pushed for reform, I would put them into two categories: Proto-Marxist-radicals: emotionally charged, irrational, deferring, bile-spitting degenerates (R selective) Socially-conservative-progressives: those given to temperance and high moral standards, but also for women's rights, against landlordism, against trade unions and ... against state education (K selective) The latter group have a lot in common with those in the US who are very independent, into homeschooling, the constitution etc. It is a shame this tradition died out and its proponents are virtually unknown, yet Marx's visage adorns the mental mantelpiece of every plonker in the country. Even though Marx himself peddled his excuse for failure novels from the UK, the country was largely able to fend off communism and the bile-spitters by working to provide access to capitalism for everyone, rather than working on providing redistribution for everyone ... and much of this was done voluntarily via education provided by the Church of England, other religious denominations and the wealthy; unemployment insurance provided by subscription, libraries provided by subscription, hospitals provided by subscriptions and so on. This all started going out of the window at the peak of the K selective cycle (cira 1875) when the government started getting involved in education. By 1930 the government had pretty much taken control of all education; at which point innovation in education ended. The great experimentation in English voluntarism is now largely unknown. For a flavor search the text here for 'charity' and 'subscription': http://forebears.io/england/yorkshire/sheffield#historicalDescriptions Describing a town with a population of about 90,000 in 1871 and you will find it had about fifty various charity/free/voluntarily funded schools and other institutions. Now it probably has zero. My town had a population of about 6,000 at this time and had many more schools, hospitals and other institutions, all voluntarily funded than it does today with a population of 16,000 which are all state funded, bar one which is a £12,000 / year private school. To me it seems fairly clear that resources are the primary driver. You could be at the peak of a K selective cycle and then the black plague hits. That will only push society more K, even if the society is ready to go R due to wealth. Genes are largely irrelevant if the situation requires improvisation or forces extinction. Looking at the cycles in Britain: 1720-1830 - R-selective <- driven by raising standards of living caused by agricultural revolution 1830-1918 - K-selective <- driven by industrial revolution, overpopulation, smaller farms, people forced into cities in poverty; mass unemployment from mechanisation 1918-2030 - R-Selective <- driven by state redistribution2030-2120 - K-selective <- driven by turmoil of the demise of state redistribution We are certainly at a peak of R behavior right now. So many young people just think: Oh, I'll take a gap year, spend some time travelling, see the world, go trekking, smoke a peace peace pipe. And most of the jobs they want to do are economic dead-ends, i.e. no one can do anything else productive with what they have made: arts, academia etc, which are full of state money. Then they are in their thirties, renting in a city, with no saving, no pension. Entrepreneurship and independence are rare. People expect things to fall onto their laps. We've never seen anything like this before. On top of that, the more you do what you are told to do (be ecconomically productive) the more you are punished (taxed) and the more you do what you are told not to do (make bad life decision, e.g. single motherhood) the more you are rewarded (benefits). It's the worst R system that has ever existed.

There is not a widespread movement to constantly shame and chastise any of these groups and its not generally socially acceptable to deride any of these groups. To quote a BLM supporter, "It's open season on killing cops and crackers." The Marxist media by and large avoids dealing with the torrent of such speech unless they are actually publishing it, while moving the goal posts to include saying things like 'I think we are all equal' and 'we live in a melting pot' to come under the umbrella of white supremacy. The mainstream grievance industry has made the realm of white supremacy so wide that anything can be classed as such and even Hispanic police officers shooting black males is an act of white supremacy. There is something very different about BLM, as opposed to other prominent identitarian groups, its membership has been very vocal in its call for violence and executions. Leaders have openly advocated killing, putting it beyond the realm of some of the worst white supremacist groups. The article I linked to stated that the UK is racist, a blanket statement that does not hold up to scrutiny. She goes onto make a number of completely false statements painting the UK the to progenitor of racism, while suggesting the rest of the world is innocent and a victim of white supremacy. Some empirical evidence: The author of this article is of Indonesian extraction. The World Values Survey found that 30.7% of Indonesians do not want to live next door to a person of another race, compared with just 4.8% in the UK, the lowest of all countries surveyed. The survey found that racism is prevalent in black and Asian countries, but rare in Western Europe, the Anglopshere and the Latino world. The UK doesn't have laws to discriminate on race, but has programs for 'positive' discrimination; the US more so. Compared to Indonesia where non-Mulsims have been forced to wear visible identification and at least 500,000 Chinese have been murdered in living memory. Yet every day I can wake up and find a new article saying 'The UK is racist', 'America is a white supremacist nation', 'I can't wait until white people die out so we can have a revolution in the countries they built slaves built', 'If you are white you are racist no matter what', 'Why white people will always be racist'... If you can present evidence for any of the groups issues you mention, I will accept them. I am aware men are more violent and there is a problem with rape. I don't pidgeon-hole all men as violent or all women as the minority of hateful female supremacists. Like Stefan, my main concern right now is the continuation of Western civilization (which includes Korea, Japan ...) that has allowed wide freedom of expression and lifestyle choices. I don't really care if an obese feminist feels socially awkward because of her weight or any of the piddly little issues that are the best the grievance industry can come up with.

I subscribe to your definition and reasoning. What are your and other's thought on statements like: "Somalians are 340% over-represented in felony crimes in Norway, while Western Europeans and Chinese are under-represented." Source: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/kriminalitet-og-straff-blant-innvandrere-og-ovrig-befolkning I think such data is very important and needs to be discussed. As a male I a quite happy for people to bring up statistics on the over-representation of males in crimes, violence, rape etc. I just don't like the incessant tarring of men by feminists, i.e. female supremacists.

I'm given to being provocative. I understand this would be viewed as a provocative post. My purpose is was what I said. I am growing increasingly tired of the constant stream of factually inaccurate articles and arguments like this: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/four-reasons-why-racist-uk-needs-black-lives-matter-1575149 Telling me I am the worst person in the world for something I have no control over. Hence a post like this, rather than something more balanced.

Sanity warning: This article comes from a Marxist newspaper. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/12/pressure-mounts-on-may-to-respond-to-philip-davies-feminist-zealots-comment Breitbart alt: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/13/how-dare-you-call-us-zealots-say-feminazis-who-want-philip-davies-mp-sacked/ The Trotskyite-led Labour opposition has been going into overdrive with this one at the same time they are championing the complete exclusion of men from from even being eligible for Labour target seats via the use of all-women shortlists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-women_shortlists Does anyone know if you can short the Labour Party?

A good nut-shelling of the situation. In the UK, from around 1720 there was a growing economic boom, which was coupled with social liberalisation and the collapse of the church, owing to the end of the imposition of state religion in the mid-late 1600s. In 1731 Montesquie (an enlightenment philosopher) wrote of England, "There is no religion in England ... if religion is spoken of everyone laughs." This liberalisation led to a vast growth in illegitimate childbirths. This cycle continued up until the 1830s, when the problems created by care-free living, growing cities and illegitimacy led to the creation of workhouses, in which the poor were quasi-criminalised. It was also the beginning of the Victorian era, in which moral values as well as religion made a come back. Although illegitimacy continued to rise it did eventually abate and decline. People joined more hard-line religious sects, as opposed to the bog-standard Church of England. They joined such sects as the Methodists, Baptists and Quakers, which are typically adverse to risk and pleasure seeking. Temperance gained massive traction and there was an organisation that promoted similar family values to Stef that had about 4 million members. This K cycle lasted up until about the end of WWII, at which point the giant rise of the state began: state pensions, state healthcare, child support and so on. Attitudes again loosened, the church again waned and illegitimacy again soared. When the UK state inevitably collapses and the deferment of responsibility to government ends will be the real beginning of the next K cycle, though it seems we are already in the transition period. So the cycles go something like: 1720-1830 - R-selective 1830-1918 - K-selective 1918-2030? - R-Selective The dates are somewhat arbitrary, but there are roughly two generations per cycle. The K cycle create a strong foundation that provides a safe footing for liberalism. The liberalism of the first generation weakens this foundation and the second generation seriously damage or destroy it. The cycles appear to end when there is a critical mass of people who loose faith in the R/K selection. 1720: state religion, monarchism and restraint are rejected (K) 1720-1830 - R-selective 1830: loose social and fiscal standards are rejected ® 1830-1918 - K-selective 1918: idea of Great and individualistic Britain is rejected (K) 1918-2030? - R-Selective 2030: idea of the welfare state is rejected ® You can see the epic movement to K-selection is already in play in Northern Europe: Within the next few years it appears most of Northern Europe will go under the control on supposedly more K selective political parties: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47892-polling-the-rise-of-western-european-anti-establishment-parties/ In the new and harsh world that will follow the collapse of government people will have no choice but to become K selective or be removed from the voluntary gene pool. ---- In Singapore, a relatively and highly K selective society, things are currently going the other way. The vast wealth created by the K selective system, which went from third world to first world in one generation is now spawning people who are prone to emotional arguments about welfare and taking in refugees. Singapore has refused to take in refugees since the 70s, when some Vietnamese came in and made a bit of a racket. How much more Europe is prepared to take.

My point in posting this is that BLM have no interest in this. To them black lives matter when they can be used to push the notion living in a white supremacist nation, but when they push the notion of black-on-black violence, such as gang shootings or police brutality in Africa, they don't want to know. The data shows that blacks in the US are more likely to be killed by police: But using the logic of BLM, we should be making much more of a fuss about Men's Lives Matter. Given that men are about 20 times more likely to be killed by police. That blacks commit more crimes in America is not seen as a valid argument by BLM. In the UK deaths in police custody are in decline: http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody Non-whites are less likely to be killed by police than whites, even though non-whites commit more crime. Yet we now have BLM in the UK, closing down roads and kicking off in the streets because of one black person killed in police custody. The UK Marxist media are platforming BLM as if they were MLK and have a legitimate grievance. There doesn't appear to be any published statistics for Africa, but Amnesty and HRW suggest that police killings have doubled in ten years in Nigeria. Similar reports for other countries. Googling [police brutality {African country}] it looks like stills from Mad Max, including a photo of a man stripped naked, castrated with his boxer shorts stuffed in his mouth. Google [uK police brutality] and virtually nothing questionable comes up.

When I started the thread I did not have anything in mind which I could use for a poll. I started the thread to get people's ideas on what life experiences, genetic factors, personality traits etc. people think could contribute to anarcho/libertarian leanings. So far there is: - bad experience with the state - positive experience in the free market - logical rather than emotional decision maker - more intuitive (looking at bigger picture, rather then immediate reality) I think if you answer yes to 3/4 of those you will have anarcho/libertarian leanings, or would do if you were exposed to such ideas and have the intellect to understand them.

... up until they don't. https://youtu.be/SWxylzHU4Ng?t=50s https://youtu.be/2u8c9JDaBjM?t=1m30s

The Lannisters did not have the luxury of limited liability to fall back on. The hapless muckrakers have not been able to come up with much. A few days ago I saw a whining softy still blurting about Trump's four bankruptcies. I looked him up: academic and journalist, i.e. had never faced the market and is as a result not qualified to comment on how those who have.

I agree with all you said, but this last part isn't 100% true. There are some countries where we straight, white males and straight, white women are revered by many. In Ghana for example a lot of black women bleach their skin to try and appear more white. If your a white female in particular, walking around in Ghana, you will get many people approaching you for marriage. They revere white western culture and for many going to the US, UK etc. is the best thing in the world for them. There is a genuine respect and not just people wanting to come in and overwrite the culture that has produced the things they want with stone age droppings. Ghana has some considerable differences to pretty much everywhere else in Africa. It has problems, but their homicide rate is lower than most of Eastern Europe and although the economy is still poor Heritage rank it as being better than France (which is on its way out IMO): http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking Fighting back against the SJWs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l06WQ2mJ8I0

I'm not into the genre, but it has a professional sound and does not have the elements of pretension and ego that typically make me cringe when I hear music.