aviet

I could be wrong, but the way this comes across to me is that you don't believe you are good enough to have this heard. Yet it seems to me that such posts are of most interest here. --- Again, I could be completely wrong, but your post conjured one word in my mind: sabotage. My observation is that there are many ways people sabotage themselves and society. They often appear to be closely linked to a desire for attention or deferment of responsibility. There are some very obvious instances of sabotage, such as self harm and eating disorders, but others are practically not recognised as such. I believe that to a considerable degree mental illness can be forms of self-sabotage. In particular depression. Being depressed is a choice that people resign themselves to and is an easy excuse to why you sabotage your social life and career. Responsibility deferment. Another instance is mild bullying, or rather teasing campaigns. When I have seen people subject to this, they typically end up sabotaging their person and reputation by going out of their way to make themselves comical and ridiculous. Attention seeking. Several years ago when I had ended up in a bad physical and mental place after being shunned by the NHS, I began to wish that I would just be diagnosed with some illness that meant I could go on benefits my whole life and not have to worry about anything. Responsibility deferment. When I was about 10-11 I started at a school and within a few days I was very down because I had not made any friends. So I began to fantasise being bullied. Responsibility deferment (putting effort into making friends) and attention seeking. When I was doing GCSEs, I was having trouble with bullying by teachers and by my last exam I was mentally worn through so just wrote a load of spiel about hemp legalisation for my last exam. I would not say that was deferment or attention seeking, but just a coping mechanism. Psychologists tend to think that self-destructive behaviour is a coping mechanism. It may be that you have created this false self as a coping mechanism for what your parents did to you, particularly the mental abuse of your mother, who appears to be personified in your false self. It seems to me that the false self is a vehicle to defer responsibility for your development. You say: "just so some aspect of me could grow normally without her interference" Yet it may be easier to defer responsibility for your current situation for the rest of your life on your mother. What she did was terrible, but there is no reason you should have to suffer the rest of your life because of the pain she transferred from herself onto you. The way I see situations like this is that deep down, there is a desire for their perpetuation, rather than healing. Hence self harm. It seems your imposition of your mother's malaise on yourself is a result of her humiliation, compounded with her emotional blackmail when you tried to escape. The result appears to be that you have a shame and guilt in engaging in life due to and instilled feeling of unworthiness. The way out starts with being adamant that you want to get out, that you no longer want to impose this false self on yourself. You seem like an intelligent guy. There is plenty that you could likely do if you put your mind to it.

Do you feel at liberty to share the details of the confrontation? I'd be interested to get a glimpse into what made them cry. I wouldn't necessarily see this as a way not to confront them. You have gone way out of your comfort zone and put yourself at risk. I'm not sure what transpired, but that you made the woman cry could be a sign that she may give your words some credence. I am presuming that such a woman would not be considered intelligent in any category and I think that such people are probably more susceptible to criticism. For example, if someone walked up to me in the street and told me I was ugly, I would consider it a strong experience. Its something I would likely remember for the rest of my days. You've probably given her one of those. She may become more bitter, go on as before, but there is also a possibility of some reflection. If people confronted these people routinely, they would have little choice but to conform and modify their behaviour to at least not threatening and attacking their children in public. This could be a potentially more powerful experience to give someone. From what I've heard, children who undergo domestic abuse seem to normalise the situation and think life is the same for everyone. If I was a child in that position, someone explaining that what the abuser is doing is not OK and that it is not normal would probably be a life changing experience and offer a chink of hope. It seems like it would probably be more fruitful than dressing down the abuser.

I also avoid these words as much as possible, as well as liberal and conservative. And it seems to be a growing trend. The political spectrum makes little sense to me. It seems like an archaic and muddled system from the same world as pre-decimal currencies, like when there were twelve pence in a shilling, and forty shillings in a £; or like the idea of spontaneous generation, which proposed maggots and fleas spontaneously came into existence. In the case of liberal and conservative, there isn't really a clear definition of what they mean and I would argue little congruent in terms on principles. I find in many cases the same act could be seen as liberal or conservative, e.g. The death penalty is a liberal use of government force, but aims to conserve law and order by removing criminals and sending a message. Legalising drugs is liberal, because it lets people do what they want, but its also conservative to not get involved in other people's business. Then things like imposing social customs, like wearing a burka, would generally be called ultra-conservative. Yet I would say it would better fit liberal, as a liberal use of government force. And for principles, people who identify as left often say words to the affect of 'I want to protect the poorest and most vulnerable people in society' - a vague principle. They often screech horse about the rights of death row inmates, yet when it comes to the rights of the unborn, literally the most vulnerable people in society, they see their butchery (abortion) as a virtue. I almost always avoid the use any labels to describe myself as I feel it would limit the scope of my thought and people would misinterpret them. It also makes you an easier target to be sniped down by adversities if you have various labels and thus harder to attack with personal insults etc. It makes it more pertinent that people challenge your views, evidence etc. rather than dismiss you as far-right etc. ---- The picture you paint of Belgium is not particularly enticing. At least the Belgian right criticise the empirically provable disaster of multiculturalism. From someone that has experience in Eastern Europe, it is again different there. Many of the left parties espouse views that would be considered far-right in Western Europe and the right considered ultra-far-right. When the Freedom Party of Austria were threatening in the Austrian presidential elections, even the newspapers in Britain that many consider to be far-right were saying they are a far-right party. Yet I read through their policies and even by Western European standards thought they would generally be considered standard right. In the UK, I have come under attack, derision and incredulity for being a Donald Trump supporter. Here he is considered a new Hitler by many, most of who cannot muster a reason to back up this claim, but in Serbia Donald Trump is just considered a normal guy. I know one person there who is a vegan and obsessed with environmental issues. If they were from Western Europe, you'd expect them to be reeling at Trump's name, but they quite like him. And Serbia is a country that is still incredibly infused with socialist ideas. Again, proof that the political spectrum is junk. Something that has to be re-drawn for every country and still only be marginally relevant is not worth considering. When I was in Greece last year I found there were several issues that were flipped upside-down. For example, Marxists were unhappy that the Marxist government had increased funding for state-run television. In Britain, this is something Marxists want more of - more government. --- I would agree with your general terms of what a leftist is considered to be and think that is what is generally meant, but as you point out some people may go the complete opposite way in one or more areas. As you may be aware many people in Britain who voted to leave the EU were old supporters of the left, Labour party. These people are generally proponents of the state, but against all your other points. They would be called center-left, even though they would generally be considered right on more issues than left. I have taken calling the people you have identified as Marxists. --- > For example: I know more when someone says he is a statist then when he claims to be left or right wing. Good point.

Has anyone here lost a friend because of political views? And was it because of pushing and forcing or just that they found them too far out?

Interesting. I didn't know of the specifics of the divide in the country. It sounds quite similar to the UK, where the Conservative party is at least in its actions similar to the US Democratic party. Recently I took a questionnaire here: https://uk.isidewith.com/ , which will tell you how much you are on-board with the policies of political parties. I answered from a perspective of what I thought would be best now, rather than an idealistic POV. I got 84% for UKIP and 79% for the Conservatives. Yet I have very little in common with them, as they declare their policies and then don't follow through and there is virtually no platform they have on reducing government. From what you say, one thing that is definitely better about the UK is the press, where most of the press (in terms of circulation) was for Brexit, and there are very strong anti-establishment aspects to the press. There is some good news though: Big government/socialist sentiment is really tanking in the UK: I'm hoping to see the left-wing Labour party end in 2020. They have been decimated, loosing cira 30% in Wales and Scotland the last couple of years.

Welkom, How are those in your circle taking the Brexit news and Belgium in general?

What are the fees to use this service? I am a customer of Schiff's Euro Pacific Bank and he has had a card that pulls from a gold backed account for some time, but it is too pricey for the average person. This is a good point. I know someone who is a professional Bitcoin trader and they spend a lot of money via Bitcoin backed mediums. They do so because they are all in, in Bitcoin. Like yourself, I don't see why you would want to spend gold if you have bought it as an investment, unless you have gone all in on gold. Even if you are all in with gold, you are probably getting paid in fiat, so it would make little sense to do USD -> AU -> USD, because of fees.

The male chart is very interesting. See half way down: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ Interesting thought. Very interesting. I guess that so many men have had a feeling of disposability and madness at the hands of the most attractive women, that this could build up an aversion. That has clarified the aversion for me. I'm not specifically afraid of their beauty, I'm afraid of all the baggage that has been associated with it. I was thinking this is a bit of a loose term, but most people will have an idea of the same ballpark. For me, modern, human alpha males are very rare. Among animals, they live in small groups, so they alpha will be one in a handful of men, but humans live together in vast numbers and with much more complicated social dynamics, not just small, largely isolated groups. Even taking individual groups of friends, I would say the vast majorities do not have alphas, even though there may be a dominant individual. For me an alpha human male is someone who has very strong will, largely invulnerable, can deflect attack, is confident, resilient, not petty and materially wealthy. There are only three people I can think of off the top of my head who are alphas: Donald Trump, Putin and an Irish footballer - Roy Keane. Could you elaborate on that?

I have been fleshing something out in my mind over the last few days and am interested in other thoughts on this matter. That is the reasoning for males' aversion to the most attractive women, as opposed to very attractive. This is demonstrated in OKCupid's users' messaging patterns by attractiveness: The orthodoxy is that men tend to avoid the most attractive women as they believe the risk (rejection, humiliation) does not warrant the reward. I think this is probably the primary factor at play, but I am interested to know if anyone thinks otherwise and what other factors are at play. My thinking is that the 18% of people contacting the most attractive women are primarily composed of alphas and the over-confident people who think they are alphas. There is also a theory that males want to select the most attractive mate, but it appears that theory has a magic line that appears before the realm of the most attractive women. The reality appears to be men choose to shop up in terms of physical attraction, but only slightly. However I think there are some nuances here. As readers likely know, two lines in the same direction do not necessarily mean anything. Personally I think that women who are most attractive take on other traits that can be read without necessarily verbally communicating with people: demeanor, physical appearance, facial set, clothing, air etc. And for me it is those aspects that give me an aversion, i.e. a woman who thinks she is a princess. Thoughts?

I agree. I doubt there is much we actually would disagree on. I just have a different conception as to the way the ballpark agreed on areas could be pursued.

I think it depends on what you believe the words mean. What is rational is very subjective. If you don't believe me try talking to a Jeremy Corbyn supporter. Evil is not so subjective. But, for example, some people think it is perfectly acceptable to feed guinea pigs to a snake they keep in a small tank. NAP is subjective, because people don't agree on the clauses of the principle or if there are any clauses. Sane is subjective, e.g. gays were considered insane, now they are not. If you believe person X is insane because Y. There will be others who disagree. What are your own feelings? Can you give examples of evil when you think it is sane and insane?

It is a messy situation. If you vote for Trump because you want lower taxes and a safer country (more secure border) and he follows through on them, you have defended yourself from state programs. Maybe you also want legal marijuana, but Trump jacks up the laws and you end up going to prison for possession, then you have voted for your own incarceration. Conversely all of the Marxists think that they are under attack, because their system is not getting as much money they believe they are entitled to. [not that I am arguing that position, or for the state in general] If I was in the Pulse nightclub, Orlando during the shooting and I had a gun I could have used it to kill the terrorist, but accidentally killed a couple of innocents. In voluntarism philosophy, self defence is taken as a given clause to NAP - aggression vs. aggression is OK. When you use aggression against aggression, there is the possibility of complications and casualties, maybe more than there would have been if you did not respond to the aggression. For example, if someone tried to kill me, but I killed them, their family may then kill all of my first degree relatives. Yet, I don't think that is a good argument to do nothing if someone is trying to kill you. In any situation where I am being subjugated I will evaluate and use what tools I have available to myself. If I lived in some brutal society where I knew my family would be killed if I defended myself, maybe I would allow myself to be killed. I live in a society where there is the notion of perpetual, representative majority rule. Individually, if I vote or not will have no affect on the rolling back of that system. But I can potentially assist in its rolling back by voting for someone. A complication of that is that I may end up being subject to new impositions. That you can influence people to resist statism is an addendum to voting for a reduction in the state, in my opinion. It's messy, but so is disarming a terrorist. I don't see any other option. If you went back in time to a brutal pagan society where women wailed to be executed on their dead husband's corpses, you could try suggesting to them to stop such behavior, stop endless warring with other tribes, stop mutilating their new born etc. If you could convince one tribe to abide by NAP etc., another tribe would have come in and killed them. It's what's happened in the formerly non-Islamic Middle East. The path from animalism to relatively (currently) stable statist societies where you can walk safely through the streets at night has been a very bloody and messy path. I think it will continue to be so and if we are lucky, we won't go backwards as has happened before with the fall of Rome and the Islamic dark age. It depends on the codification of your principles. Some people believe in NAP, but no form of self defence. You can believe in NAP and have various clauses as to self defense. Extrapolated, voting is a form of aggression. So long as you get what you want it is self defence in certain spheres, so far as you are concerned. Collectively it could potentially be self harm via unintended consequences. Not voting is not a form of aggression unless you considered it delegitimises the state. In which case it can be extrapolated as an aggressive act of self defence against the state. Collectively it could potentially be an act of self harm via allowing a more statist candidate to win.

I agree with your statements regarding the state being a drain, that was kind of my point. That the state drains you for socialised/rationed health care to the extent that it makes it difficult to get it private; and I am aware in the US health care is expensive due to state intervention. My point being that it is difficult to create state alternatives when you are being forced to pay for state services/waste. I am not a supporter of this situation, I just think it would be a difficult situation to deflate as state dependancy and all the business models that have no choice but to be intertwined with the state. Maybe you are right that if people changed their perceptions that there would not be a particularly turbulent transition away from statism. Since there is no example of this in history, we can only guess.

There is no methodology, but rather an assessment of the situation as I see it. We also have our wires crossed as I did not phrase it specifically. To clarify: I don't think it is feasible to expect the end of the state and by extension its use of force in our life times. We can though argue for NAP on a personal basis in relatively immediate terms; and for me that seems a key component of eroding the state's use of force. I don't think it is possible to dismantle the entire state in our life times, nor do I think it would be wise. It makes up 30-50% of GDP in most of the developed world. Even if the notion of limited or no government began to spread more widely, it would take some time for new structures to be able to replace the giant budget and multi-generational edifice of the state. The creation of non-state alternatives to things like government schools is also seriously hampered by the drain on individual's resources, i.e. in the UK if you want reliable health care, you have to pay for the government system (which you will probably be paying the 45% rate of income tax for) and then private. For one person earning about £60,000 ($77,000) you have to pay about £4,000 for the government health service and then about £1,000-2,000 for private health care. But bigger than the economic issue with dismantling the state, I think, is changing people's perceptions about the state. I find the issue here is that so many people cannot see the conflict with NAP and the state as they have created so many 'universal rules' they are believe are etched into the fabric of the cosmos, like the social contract, that there is no conflict for them. Just as you can say the self defence principle overrides NAP in certain circumstances, these people think their statist concepts override NAP.

I can't speak from him, but I have heard him say in a couple of videos in which he is essentially arguing for some sort of government that: 1) He is arguing a position, without necessarily holding it; maybe a tepid devil's advocate 2) That in the position we find ourselves, we can't argue for things like the NAP as an immediate ensuing reality; it is a much more long-term goal Though to my knowledge he has not particularly clarified his stance on, for example, civil immigration controls, i.e. his own definite position in the current situation. We know what his idealist position is. Yes, Trump violate the NAP. From what he says, hes not particularly libertarian. Though it seems he could have the most libertarian economic policies. For me it comes down to what is the better deal. I am from the UK. I have two friends who live in/near my town who are FDR listeners and are essentially on board with most of what Stefan and people on this board agree with. Two of us voted for Brexit, ardently. The other is more steadfast in his belief not to engage the state in any way; and as a professional Bitcoin trader has largely extricated himself from the system. Despite that he supported Brexit and has had an anti-EU UKIP sticker in his car windows for about eight years. The main reason he did not vote is probably because he does not want to be registered in the system rather than any strict adherence to NAP; while as a non-resident I had to have myself added to the electoral register just to vote. I had not voted before that, but I will consider voting again. The way I look at it is if I want a world with less government, it can only occur slowly over time. There isn't an option to change the system at a click of a button, only change it slowly over time. I voted to remove the EU as it is an imposition on me, just in the same way as I would defend myself from someone who tried to attack me. So I see as voting for Brexit as the practice of self defence. If I could vote over time to change the UK from its current 40% total taxation level to a 13.5% total taxation level (Hong Kong), I would do it. This is again self defence. It would violate NAP, but it would be a considerably lesser violation than the alternative. The only other options are 'going to live in a tree', accepting the encroachment of the state or what I am lucky enough to do - extracting myself form the system as much as possible by being non-resident. The decision to go non-resident is again a practice of self defence. I don't have a better option.

I didn't have time to listen to all of it., but my initial reception is that it is professional enough, grounded enough and devoid of the low-brow pith, vitriol and childishness that many such sapling videos tend to come out with. Keep at it. I think you have the basic components required to build up an audience, which will probably take a few years. I think there is a lot of need for more UK voices in this sphere.

You will need to research this. I seem to remember that the Western European nations decided among themselves that since natives of various regions had no real legal system and in some case little concept of property ownership that any of these such regions could legally and morally be taken control of. It is obvious that Europeans displaced natives in the Americas, but legally I think it will be more ambiguous.

Have you listened to the podcast about Robin Williams? I don't know what might have happened to you, but that was an interesting one in terms of origins of such behaviors as yours. My observation as to people I knew who were in similar situations to you in my first school is that they were all from poor, single-mother homes. In my first school I would put the roughly fifteen boys in my class into three groups: Unpopular - 5 Popular - 8 Middle-class - 2 All of the unpopular ones were from single-mother homes. Two of the popular ones were from single-mother homes. They were actually half brothers, born one month in between each other. One's mother made a lot of sacrifices to give her son a good future and he has turned out well. The other's mother is a complete disaster. The only thing that separated him from the unpopular illegitimate boys is that he came from a large, very close Irish family that has a lot of men in it with big characters who essentially filled the gap of his dead-beat father. He has had a lot of mental problems with anxiety and paranoia, though I believe he has got himself on track now. The popular boys were all from families with two married parents. They were all working-class in terms of manners, boisterous, though some of their father's probably earned above average. From my experiences of going to their houses, in hindsight I could have seen the divorces that came to their families. I am fairly sure there was physical violence in some of the homes, though probably not prolific. Though there were certainly a lot of bad mental traits. The two middle-class (in terms of manners), including myself, were from stable families. We were able to mix with the popular boys and indeed were fully integrated, essentially as equals. In the second school I went to, which was private, there was a similar setup, but this time consisting of just: Popular Unpopular There was one boy who fitted the description you give - very aloof and isolated. In his case I believe it was because his father traveled a lot for work and was not at home much. I have a relatively close relative who has/had similar issues. His parents were from a wealthy gentry family and they spent most of their time travelling in Europe. One time they came back to their mansion and encountered their son. They asked one of the maids, "Who is this boy?" That's my anecdotal evidence and from call-ins and other shows it seems parental absence, treatment and single-motherhood seem to be big factors in this.

Either way, I was not able to find anything to substantiate the claim.

I did think this. I've not been able to find better data as per the claim though.

It is very sad. And for all those who are cheer-leading the dying white majorities of Europe and the Anglosphere, I don't think they will be happy with what they get. Human rights (or civility, if like myself, you don't like that word) has been largely imposed on the world by Western Europe and the US. If they cease to exist as they do now, I can't see who is going to continue that imposition. I doubt China will, though I think that the same thing will happen to them as has happened to Japan, they will hit stagflation in 2040-2060.

If only achieving this was as easy as writing it. - In reference to your constitution.

You look very good for your age. I'd quite happily believe you were in your 30s. Permaculture is not something I'd typically associate with AnCap. All of the premaculture lot I have come across would be quicker to pick up Mao's Little Red Book than The Wealth of Nations. There are quite a few British gentlemen here, though I am not sure of their age and locations. Though as a woman you will have the pick of the crop in a top-heavy arena for males.

I think I heard the title stated on FDR, as well as somewhere else, but I was not able to find the source of the statement. After some searching, I came across this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm Which states that the average number of partners for a given demographic is 6.6 for men and 4.3 for women. Men appear to be little changed over time, whereas women appear to be becoming more promiscuous. I am not versed in maths, but this seems that it may be more like 40% of men are having sex with 60% of the women. Interpretations? Insights?

And without attitudes like this they won't even let you buy pepper spray or tasers. I was surprised to find out a few years ago that both are illegal in the UK, where you are essentially unable to defend yourself.