aviet

I completely understand your state of mind, I am presuming having no idea where your country is heading, but having an idea of where it seems to be heading: stripped of its history, coloured in guilt laden multi-kulti stripes, enriched with practically pre-medieval cultural practices and garnished by totalitarian and censorious toppings, is distressing. One thing I would hold out on is the apparent opening of Breitbart offices in Germany and France: Exclusive: Riding Trump wave, Breitbart News plans U.S., European expansion

reaches highs not seen under Obama, whose almost entire Presidency was in negative digits: http://www.gallup.com/poll/200126/economic-confidence-inches-new-high.aspx?g_source=WWWV7HP&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles Not tired!

The Gov. said this long-form birth certificate did not exist: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html But Snopes says this is all totally untrue! Case closed!

Mo' thoughts, mo' problems. Look at all the philosophers, thinkers and commentators out there. They are typically among the most glum. Then look at those whose worlds revolve around ready meals, TV and nights out.

One other thing that the tax the rich excessive amounts set don't understand is just how little the most wealthy earn in one year. In 2013 the Forbes 400 (US) was $2 trillion combined. If you give them a 5% annual increase in net worth and did what the catastrophic French Socialists did and taxed the rich 110%, you'd still only get about $110 billion, or around about 2% of government spending in the US. Most of the net worth of the top 400 is in appreciating assets like real estate or stocks. The actual cash they receive between them per year is probably a few billion. Thus, even if you did tax them at 110% it would be peanuts. I find that the tax the rich set do not know this and on finding this out they go on to suggest that they think the rich should be subject to a wealth tax, when previously suggesting just higher income taxes. Since most of their wealth is not in cash, this wealth tax would require real estate, stocks, bonds, metals etc to be liquidated. So potentially you would have 100s of billions taken out of the stock, bond markets etc. Liquidating real estate would be even more of a problem. But the biggest problem would be for people like Donald Trump, who own very large, privately owned companies. The wealth such assets gives them would mean they'd have to make their companies public and sell them off. But the reality, of course, would be that people wouldn't even bother starting or growing companies. These practices would be so destructive that tax receipts would plummet instantly, asset prices would go off a cliff and investors and business owners would go elsewhere. These people do not know what they are talking about. Flaccid ideologues like Michael Moore have spent their lives running round saying 'there is a ton of money, if only we taxed it'. As noted above, there are a ton of assets, which have a large monetary valuation. Then there is a much smaller amount of cash going round and round in exchange for assets and services. The money is taxed during many of these exchanges. If you want to increase tax revenues, you do that by more people producing goods and services, particularly those which then allow other people to produce other goods and services; and not economic dead-ends like arts, social justice theory almanacs and all the rest of it.

Large swathes of the fake news industry are also in decline. From what I've seen only Politico has climbed this year. A few have stayed the same and this is during a major news cycle, the presidential election, during which news consumption soars.

There is a big opening in Europe for meme studios, YouTubers, news sites etc. Other than Breitbart the only other alt-news site I know of is Guide Fawkes, which is relatively backwater.

I don't see why people would want to block ads on just fake news outlets. Next year I am going to set up a site that will provide a live feed of companies that announce social justice injustice policies; so people can short their stock. I think this will take two years to bed in. It will be a small effort, but potentially quite effective. I think the main thing required is more media outlets, meme studios, platforms like SteamIt to counter fake news outlets, particularly in Europe, where there is little alternative to fake news. The trend right now shows mainstream media is in decline. The trends that are driving that trend are increasing, while the MSM fails to change because its business model is PR and fake news. If you look at Alexa ranks of news outlets, you'll find that fake news outlets have either declined (sometimes by many magnitudes) or stayed more or less the same. And that is during a major news cycle - the Pres. elections, where news consumption is much higher. Now is a great opportunity for people to find niches as podcasters, YouTubers, journalists, infiltrators, meme barons and so on. They just need to keep at it for years, building their audience; and reallocating wasted time like playing games.

Breitbart soars to 235th most visted site in world US: 36 UK: 266 Its been made invsisble in the rankings on Quantcast, anothre traffic metrics site. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com

When presented with this information Michael Moore said: "I feel like putting a bullet between the eyes of every progressive that won't screw to save its own ideaology. I want to suck the brains out of all the children liberals will never have. I want to eat smoke." - They are edgy.

I have a database of about 270 million US citizens, which incorporates data from multiple sources, such as voter lists, including about 270 fields. Next year I am going to use this to produce various statistics, such as fertility rate by political affiliation by town/county/state. Here is a flavour for Maryland: Maryland state fertility rate by political affiliation: Republican = 1.99 Democrat = 1.62 Children 18 and under of voters registered to political parties: Republican: 541,806 Democrat: 485,400 The 2016 Presidential election in Maryland saw 60% of votes for Hillary vs. 34% to Trump. Looking at a local level - Prince George's County, Maryland voted for Hillary 88% to Trump's 8%. Here the Democratic fertility rate is 1.22. Garnett County, Maryland voted 77% for Trump to Hillary's 18%. Here the Republican fertility rate is 2.21. According to a Gallup survey, 71% of teenagers said their political beliefs were close to those of their parents. The same survey suggests that in aggregate half of teenagers who identify as liberal will end up identifying as conservative in later life. The database contains marital status for some citizens. The data is as follows: Married Democrats: 148,438 Unmarried Democrats: 363,574 41% married Married Republicans: 424,709 Unmarried Republicans: 38,282 90% married 27% of pregnancies are aborted in Maryland, the 3rd highest in the country. The difference in fertility rate between Dems and Republicans is 20%. I would guess most of these abortions are by Democrat-learners. According to Pew 68% of conservatives are against abortion in all/most cases, whereas 84% of liberals are for it in all/most cases.

Interesting. I've surmised that a lot of my reactionary, uninformed SJW-ballpark leanings I picked up came from cartoons. In particular Captain Planet, which was featured a band of perfect, multi-cultural young adults who had the power to summon a super-hero who had the ability to effortlessly destroy a number of enviro-villains whose business model was producing nothing but needlessly pollution, cutting down forests etc. A few years ago the topic of Captain Planet came up with a friend who is a spring-coil-socialist. I said that Captain Planet was probably UN propaganda. He was aghast. We went on Wikipedia. Turns out it was written by chairman of fake new outlet, CNN, largest landowner in the US and billion dollar UN donor - Ted Turner and another UN apparatchik. When I was young I used to think any factory giving off emissions were 'pollution factories', which existed solely for the purpose of creating pollution. Other media in this vein were Fern Gully in which forests were cut down for fun and infected by humanised oil slicks and The Smoggies in which a bunch of European treasure hunters needlessly polluted at the expense of some Mesoamerican-looking creatures. I always questioned what was the point in making these films, with all the resources they must take up. I'll make sure my children don't view all this propaganda and instead view moralising stories:

What direction do you think that The Netherlands is going in? From the little I have seen, it seems like the free-for-all and it-doesn't-really-matter-what-you-do attitude of the past few decades is being swiftly rejected?

I'd imagine finding a good therapist is quite difficult. You could end up with a radical like this: On my depression, my advice is to become ruggedly determined to not be depressed. Its very easy to languish in a pool, climbing to heights requires work and determination.

Some things never change: But some things do. At the moment there is some hope with a rise in the number of black conservatives and libertarians. There is a real battle to get blacks out of victimhood mentality and it will require a lot of perseverance on the part of yourself and the aforementioned. You need to unrepentantly go against the grain, the peer pressure and insults to bring people the ideas that if they listen will transform their lives and more importantly their children's.

I think your ideas of cutting off family because they don't agree with you are extreme. This is the type of behaviour of the left and safe spacers. Left ideas pervade on campus, in entertainment, in the news... and now they are trying to ban, censor and smear the growing backlash to their ideology. Right and libertarian people don't tend to act in such a way. They go low and we ignore them as they go lower. There are a number of themes that could be at work driving the cultural Marxist predilections of your family: - they want to use emotional manipulation to divert resources towards themselves and their tribe - they want to use emotional manipulation to gain the moral high ground - they have been wooed into the tribe of Hispanics placed in the victim hierarchy and as a result are adopting facets of this tribe (If I am right your family is Colombian?) - they see it is increasing their sexual market value among a group that is given to promiscuity - they use it as an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibilities - they want to belong to something now all traditional groups you might belong to are being torn down and labeled hate groups Given that your brothers seem to be financially successful , my guess it is to do with the moral high ground. Just as some people are addicted to power, others are addicted to feeling good about themselves by cradling perceived victims. It has nothing to do with morals or values, in most cases, as you can see their morals and values are not universally applied, for example a poor, black person burning down their neighborhood is a victim, but Clarence Thomas is a koon. It has little to do with morals, values, or even identities and more to do with perpetuating psycho-emotional states. For the vast majority, their actual drives are unconscious and this creates a disjointed outlook, based on a wishy-washy amalgam of bits and pieces, with no real direction, goal, ability to counter arguments etc. And that is why, I think, your brother would dismiss videos without watching them. When I was about 17-20, I vaguely subscribed to notions that would now be called social justice. This wasn't a particularly big part of the way I saw the world, particularly not in any way approaching concrete. But I can analyse what was propelling my thinking and mentality: I had a victimhood outlook, probably largely because I was victimised and subsequently came across material that justified that outlook in a wider context. This wider context was a focus on perceived victims and how the perception of victimhood could be used as an excuse to complain and absolve X of all responsibility. I can firmly say that I actually wanted the situations of (perceived) victimhood to exist as at that point it worked for my mental-emotional state. What do you think the likes of Al Shaprton, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky would do if all the victimisation they use to prop up their entire being ceased to exist? The answer is they would have to conjure mirages and endlessly cry wolf, which is what they have been doing. For some people thinking that you can blame all your problems on someone else is very seductive. It excuses you of everything. I have a very shallow subconscious and was vaguely aware that I wanted to perpetuate the notion of victimhood even when there was no justification for it because it suited my psycho-emotional state at that time; but I think the vast majority of people, particularly hardened SJWs, are completely unaware of what is really going on in their mind. In the case of SJWs, their outlook gives them (in their mind): - the moral high ground - the excuse of personal responsibility, because everything is the fault of someone else, or some other group - a right to other people's labour and possessions on right of being a victim, or siding with victims - a right to state power to end 'social injustice' This is very attractive to some people.

I share your frustration and think that your point that the paradigm has to be shifted is a good one; and that people don't know exactly what would replace the current paradigm a good observation. But a gargantuan paradigm shift that is well beyond the realm of the most people's mental and philosophical evolution is not possible, as the paradigm is the sum total of people's mental and philosophical evolution. For example, if the US shifted towards highly limited government and allowed tens of millions of third world people to gain citizenship, they would quickly dial the state back up as they would not be getting the standard of living they demand, regardless of their own actions. We have the level of societal evolution we collectively deserve. Regardless of whether you desire collectivism as a formalised political force or not, the soup of people we live among defines our society. If you had an AnCap society in which 100% of the people agreed with that social structure, but after ten generations degenerated to the point that only 33% of people believed in AnCap, AnCap would be done away with and some sort of coercive government structure put in its place. Governmental structures or lack of are a making of both the will of the people and the raw political force of whoever has a democratic mandate or ascent to dictate. As for paradigm shifts, I think we have just entered one, led in by the Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. The main component of the shift is people's perceptions of the media. The US Pres. election and Brexit were major news cycles yet many mainstream news outlets either had little difference or a decline in audience and outlets like FDR, Infowars and Breitbart have gone through the roof and this trend looks permanent. And of those three outlets, among others, the sentiment is very much more for limited government and a preservation of Western culture and limited government ideas, which were threatened by the mass immigration of people attracted to free stuff. This shift has also unleashed a whole new generation of young people who may have otherwise not taken an interest in politics. These people are currently unpolished and as such will be receptive to libertarian ideas. Before this I didn't trust the media, but now I despise them; as do many others. There has also been a big shift away from globalist ideas that are one of the biggest threats to liberty. Last year it looked like globalisation, such as the EU, was going to continue on unabated. Now, in 2016, its difficult to see how they can continue and the trends are running against globalism. Beyond those paradigm shifts, Trump will have saved the US from paradigm sifting in the other direction, towards big government and globalism. It does not make sense to me why someone would sit by and allow more and more government to wash over them. As for Trump's policies, you are right that they could fail the libertarian bell-weather in terms of finance. But there are ways in which they should: - devolution of powers back to the states - exposing schools to market forces - less interventionist - cutting taxes - for every new regulation, two need to be repealed Though I would agree that its quite likely that Trump will do the same as Reagan. It is certainly the easiest option. We can only wait and see. Personally, I am not overly bothered as to what happens to the nations' finances. Like yourself I think we are heading towards collapse, but in the meantime I'd like to make as much money as possible to feather my nest for said collapse; and in a country which does not have open borders.

How else do you think you are going to get any improvements? Humans didn't go from illiterate barbarism to the modern world in one step. If at every step of the way there were people refusing to act to increase freedom and rationality because it wasn't perfect freedom and perfect rationality, then we would still be in illiterate barbarism. Right now there isn't even a battle between in the US between somewhat limited, constitutional government and actual limited, constitutional government. The battle of 2016 was a battle between a regressive system of open borders with unlimited welfare and handing control over to unaccountable globalist instruments that will be hard to extricate from and preserving somewhat limited constitutional government. Your not going to get to the battle between actual limited, constitutional government and libertarianism; and between libertarianism and minarchism; and between minarchism and practically no government if you refuse to first preserve somewhat limited, constitutional government. Most people wont. It is an imperfect situation and completely sidelining yourself in a small minority will achieve nothing. As Stefan has covered in his some of his videos, particularly the one titled: The Death of Reason: Why People Don't Listen to Reason and Evidence, most people do not want to operate in the realm of even trying to be reasoned and empirical. Most of the world wouldn't even be able to tell you what that means. They instead operate in the world of biological and subconscious impulses. Dropping everyone into anarchy when that's how people operate will result in only one thing: the imposition of new power structures. Getting to 'thou shall not impose thy will' is probably going to take as long as getting to 'thou shall not kill' and it will probably be just as bloody, just as hard and just as riddled with having to accept imperfect compromises.

I don't think that we have many more years left in which a cork can be put in the de-Europisation of Europe. In terms of the electorate, it seems like countries like Germany may already be beyond salvage. We will see how perceptions change. Standards of living are going to decline anyway, if not plummet in a collapse. How will the people react when it becomes patently obvious that third-world immigrants are consuming ever larger portions of national budgets among other problem? I didn't think that we would have just seen the year we have had. Things are moving quickly. Hopefully next year can be as productive for Western civilisation. I think Britain is one of the better options as there is the possibility of a reverse on mass immigration. As for Serbia, its a good one for now, as we have seen refugees quickly traverse this safe country. But if the major European countries go in the future, there will be little to stop the colonisation of the vast expanding populations of the Middle East and Africa. We have ten years to turn this around.

Do you live here?

I don't have any experience in such a place, but I know two people who have, a long time ago, and I would say neither have ever recovered. Both have negative mind-sets and are quick to blame their lot on anything available. One is particular is child-like and has been on welfare for about 15-20 years. He has not become an adult, taken responsibility and control of his life. The nature of the rehab you mention seems manic. That you are questioning that, questioning the collectivism - rather than individual healing and that you seem to be looking forward and not wallowing seems positive. Good luck.

https://gab.ai/

I'd not thought of it in those terms, but as they are presented, would agree. Dating sites are full of profiles starting with something like, "I have a special little boy. If you can't handle it then look elsewhere." and "I have three children and they are the most important thing in the world to me." This is a big barrier to surmount. The only way to do it would probably be to make the children like your own. As I see it there are some unhealthy themes driving relationships with single mothers: - potentially easy target for short-term relationships or 'one thing' - an opportunity to trade up to a more attractive model on account of the kid(s) reducing her market value - just seeing it as a low barrier to entry For me, as someone who would like a Catholic-eqsue number of my own children, brought up from day one with my philosophical approach, pre-existing children are an insurmountable barrier to entry.

You've laid out your motives pretty clearly, which is much more honest and analytical than most people. It doesn't sound like you plan on being around long, which as an attractive single-mother, is the kind of thing she absolutely needs to repel if she is the better herself.