aviet

An anarchist forum isn't going to be the first place to go to to convince people of the unpracticability of instant anarchy. It would be like going into a Britney Spears forum and trying to convince Spears fans she is terrible. As far as I am aware no one has ever come up with a method to get people to seriously question or discard their deep held beliefs. I think you would do much better in communicating to Tumpers who have only just got into politics and/or considering the nature of the world, reality etc. I am in the same camp as you. I have a friend who is an anarchist and even though he was in favour of Britain leaving the EU, he did not vote for it on the principle of not wanting to legitimise the state; even though it was a referendum on removing an unelected mega-structure of the state. But I think he may have flipped for Trump, who he obviously can't vote for. With that in mind, I think its better to not specifically attack their belief, but try and present people with ideas, arguments that may shift their belief. I was never an anarchist, but I was essentially a minarchist, but even then I realised it would be difficult to transition even to a mild libertarian system. In the run up to the Brexit vote, I went though a schism. It seems as if this was some kind of cosmic event, because so many people went through it at the same time. I realised that I would be better off trying to inch myself and the world into a freer path; not that I have much influence to do the latter. There is no pointing virtue singalling on the side lines saying you won't join the battles of today, because they are against your principles. Even though your principles can only reach the battle arena by engaging in the battles of the day. Just in the same way we wouldn't have libertarianism on the fringe today without religious reform of the early modern period. I think Trump and various other people like Stefan did a good job of presenting arguments and reasons for people to make imperfect choices in an imperfect world. I am a customer of Peter Schiff and watch quite a lot of his videos. He has voted libertarian for something like 30 years and was going to do again for Gary Johnson. He had a few positive words for Trump, but also negative words. But then a day or two before the election a combination between this ad: and his an argument from his wife made him flip his vote to Trump. So, for him to change his mind, no one challenged any of his beliefs, they just presented him with counter-narratives and a vision of a different world and a path forward.

Your experience on the Sam Harris forum is interesting. My current analysis of this phenomena is linked to your list of 'liberal' values: Equality Fairness Protection from harm Tolerance Diversity Multiculturalism These values give strong leanings to supporting certain groups that can be wrapped into the 'liberal' side. Here are some groups that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' typically side with: You will no doubt have observed leftists side with unflinching loyalty to the groups in the left column. They may tend to ignore their groups' wrongs because they see them as being on their side. Just in the way you might take the side of a relative, even when they are in the wrong. Or at least treat them less harshly than you would have otherwise. If you flip this on its head and think of white farmers in Zimbabwe, this minority group does not get wrapped in the protective values of the left, even though the group is a victim of people who abuse 'liberal' values. I have seen, in many cases, leftists say that these Zimbabwean farmers have got what they deserve, despite being victims of genocide and racially targeted property confiscation, which are against their values, allegedly. The white Zimbabwean farmers are not seen as part of their tribe and thus do not get the protection of its values. They have nothing to gain and something to loose by supporting them. In short, the tribe is stronger than values. I would argue that the values are to a great extent a mirage used to leverage society into their desired path. The tribe, in this case, is people who demand resources be diverted to them as their strategy for survival; whether they be academics who want to cream government funding or single mothers who want their entire life fully subsidised. And they will take into their fold people they see as making their world more viable, even if they don't agree with some/all of their values. For example, a poor, low-IQ single mother probably won't have any real societal philosophy as to why she should get money for nothing, it works for her and as a result she may vote for those she sees as protecting her survival strategy - the left. One of the reasons I think that the left is going nuts shouting racist, sexist etc. is because they need the threat of such things to round up voting blocks and justify social and governmental structures to create the society they desire. It is a society in which people like themselves who don't want to or can't survive in a free market get to live in a bubble of other people's labour and resources. Of all theories I have heard on what drives society, the most compelling is the r/K selection theory. There are people who make long-term decisions, conserve, build the blocks of civilisation (k-selective); and there are people who do the opposite of that, but see the wealth produced as a result of k-selective people and have evolved strategies to give themselves the fruits of the k-selective people. Some of the strategies are: outright theft, social democracy and Marxism. In short, the reason why people on the Sam Harris forum will refuse to look at your evidence and hear your arguments is because you are threatening the method through which they (want to) obtain their resources: subsidised or debt-powered universities, academic funding, quangos, government jobs - anything that doesn't face the market. Of course, they are not consciously aware of this. Its reactionary behaviour, like a moth flying into a lamp. This is why they get so angry with people like Milo. He is literally taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of their resource gathering strategy.

If you are looking for an opening, there are plenty of openings right now in the new media for people on the progressive's victim hierarchy rebutting the victim hierarchy, e.g. Milo, Dave Rubin, C Hoff Summers, Raheem Kassam etc. I've never observed a Latino criticise immigration before. Your experience on the Sam Harris forum is interesting. My current analysis of this phenomena is linked to your list of 'liberal' values: Equality Fairness Protection from harm Tolerance Diversity Multiculturalism These values give strong leanings to supporting certain groups that can be wrapped into the 'liberal' side. Here are some groups that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' typically side with: You will no doubt have observed leftists side with unflinching loyalty to the groups in the left column. They may tend to ignore their groups' wrongs because they see them as being on their side. Just in the way you might take the side of a relative, even when they are in the wrong. Or at least treat them less harshly than you would have otherwise. If you flip this on its head and think of white farmers in Zimbabwe, this minority group does not get wrapped in the protective values of the left, even though the group is a victim of people who abuse 'liberal' values. I have seen, in many cases, leftists say that these Zimbabwean farmers have got what they deserve, despite being victims of genocide and racially targeted property confiscation, which are against their values, allegedly. The white Zimbabwean farmers are not seen as part of their tribe and thus do not get the protection of its values. They have nothing to gain and something to loose by supporting them. In short, the tribe is stronger than values. I would argue that the values are to a great extent a mirage used to leverage society into their desired path. The tribe, in this case, is people who demand resources be diverted to them as their strategy for survival; whether they be academics who want to cream government funding or single mothers who want their entire life fully subsidised. And they will take into their fold people they see as making their world more viable, even if they don't agree with some/all of their values. For example, a poor, low-IQ single mother probably won't have any real societal philosophy as to why she should get money for nothing, it works for her and as a result she may vote for those she sees as protecting her survival strategy - the left. One of the reasons I think that the left is going nuts shouting racist, sexist etc. is because they need the threat of such things to round up voting blocks and justify social and governmental structures to create the society they desire. It is a society in which people like themselves who don't want to or can't survive in a free market get to live in a bubble of other people's labour and resources. Of all theories I have heard on what drives society, the most compelling is the r/K selection theory. There are people who make long-term decisions, conserve, build the blocks of civilisation (k-selective); and there are people who do the opposite of that, but see the wealth produced as a result of k-selective people and have evolved strategies to give themselves the fruits of the k-selective people. Some of the strategies are: outright theft, social democracy and Marxism. In short, the reason why people on the Sam Harris forum will refuse to look at your evidence and hear your arguments is because you are threatening the method through which they (want to) obtain their resources: subsidised or debt-powered universities, academic funding, quangos, government jobs - anything that doesn't face the market. Of course, they are not consciously aware of this. Its reactionary behaviour, like a moth flying into a lamp. This is why they get so angry with people like Milo. He is literally taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of their resource gathering strategy.

Are you from France?

I finally went with the domain: http://MarketSafe.Space/ Because I like the tagline: Because you can't see your stock price in your market safe space. Will take a little while to get round to making this.

And what is the definition of virtue here?

Go ahead. I forgot this one: Age: 37 Position: Environmental-Corbynista-remaniac Net worth: ? No children, was married to a chef, but got rid of him because he was too low status, never really had a job other than intermittently working as a cashier for their mother. So depressed that sometimes they don't leave bed for days.

Gs (g-force) - as in gravitational force, often used to describe gravitational force on aircraft. Things could change quite a lot for your friends in the next few years. Half of my friends from school have changed a lot over the last few years (27-30) and this seems to be a common occurrence. One who was essentially a SJW is now more like a liberal-mild-conservative. I've just made a post titled The Libs We Know, which is under moderation at the moment. In this, I've described people I know and all the ones who wrap themselves in the sort of ideas your friends probably do are in a serious mess post 30. There is an alarm clock seemingly everyone gets around the age of 30, where they reflect on where they are and when they want to go. At this point a lot of people stop floating around and start making decisions with more foresight and get better jobs, but plenty of people don't and most of them become life-long losers whose attachment to grievance culture is a good excuse for their failure. As for vegetarianism. Most of my friends were vegetarians, but its only the two and myself who listen to FDR that have stuck with it, while the others who have more attachment to government have giggled as they cast it away. One joked that he is a 'lazy vegetarian'. Ten years ago these were the people who were signalling all their virtues. Now they slouch about eating crisps regurgitating snippets of bird-brain columns about how we need more stimulus to get the economy going that they are a leach upon. They don't have a moral compass. They just use emotions to try and manipulate (or as you put it - shame) people to do what they want and to manipulate society into a channel that favours their civilisation ending predilections - something for nothing. The good news is though - these people have virtually no children. The best approach is to be strong and unabashedly unrepentant. When you do that, you can quite often get ascent, particularly from feminine types. And its that sort of attitude that powered Donald Trump to force a camel through the eye of the needle to get to the presidency. Nigel Farage is another good example: Can you even buy guns in Chicago?

I'd be interested to hear about the circumstances of libs, or regressives, people know, as compared to their conservo/libertarian/anarcho counterparts. Here's my lot: Age: 34 & 35 Position: Corbynista-remainiacs Net worth: over $1,000,000 (from inheritance) This 'couple' lived in the capital, where the girl racked up chronic debts, had to get a parental bail-out and move home. At the same time, the girl became pregnant. The man's parents, who are leaders in the town's invasive liberal set, were both adamant that the child must be aborted. The man agreed, but the girl went through with the child. Their relationship has been tumultuous and for the last few years has consisted of them being 'together', but living in different houses. Their child, a boy, regularly dresses up as a girl, which the mother thinks his great. He is also an interminal spoiled brat who goes for the waterworks at every opportunity. Both parents are depressed and at least one has been in therapy for a long time. The male is an artist, but doesn't have to work owing to a huge inheritance. He suffers from bursts of outrage. Since Brexit they have gone hard left and can't form arguments. Age: 47 & 50 Position: tabloid socialist-remaniacs Net worth: in debt This couple have no kids and despite being near-communists now live in a house that they used to rent out to 'friends' at exorbitant rates. One of the friends was kicked out of the house because he was too depressed. The male had an affair with a woman who wanted to run away with hi, near ruining a family. The woman has spread herself all over town. She arrived her quite a long time ago, having left an alcoholic rehab center. She brought some completely destroyed mess with her, who drinks all day, has and will for ever be on benefits, who serves as her butler. Chronically depressed. Depraved. Age: 31 Position: communitarian-remaniac Net worth: -$25,000 Splurged his entire student loan on booze and drugs in one month - for an art degree. Is a state subsidised artist, but now wants to leave the very dishonest art world. Has cheated on his girlfriend of cira 10 years countless times. Highly depressed and suffers from anxiety disorders. No children. Age: 40 Position: lefty Net worth: $0 Aggressive woman who has had ten abortions. Blames everything on whatever is available. Attracts men who just want one thing and hates the world because of it. Sister has had three abortions and is a milder model. Age: 45 Position: spirtualised lefty Net worth: ~unlimited via family Engaged in chronic promiscuity and drug use for entire adult life, only abated recently. Was known as 'falps', because of wearing short skirts through which much could be seen. Has sever problems with reading emotion, sleeping and paranoia. Is now allegedly celibate. HEr entire life has been bankrolled by her grandparents. Age: 55 Position: social democrat Net worth: lives in a house worth about $170,000 Unmarried, obese, no children, lives alone. He was a local politician, but got ejected. Sits around in pubs all day, reading newspapers and coming on to any young boy in his vicinity. I would presume he is depressed. Age: 37 Position: lefty Net worth: ? Lives in a camper van in London. Age: 37 Position: lefty Net worth: in debt Plans on moving into a camper van in London. ---- Moderates I know are fairly grounded. ---- FDR listeners I know. Age: 30 / 31 Position: anarcho-capitalist Net worth: more than $1,000,000 Three smart children who are privately educated and get a lot of parental attention owing to father being a trader and mother having her own business. Resilient, not depressed, outright property owners, no debt, brutal and remorseless cruncher of libs. Age: 30 Position: Anarcho-idealist, opportunistic-realist Net worth: $1,000,000 Never had any debt, remorseless cruncher of libs, business owner, plough though a lot of tough times, resilient. Never been depressed. Age: 30 Position: Anarcho-idealist, opportunistic-realist Net worth: $5,000 Small business owner, remorseless cruncher of libs, not depressed, comes from a wealthy family but has chosen to reject support.

Brace for the Gs. Myself, I enjoy the uncomfortable silences. What sort of views do these libs have?

I don't particularly trust Ted Cruz, but I hoped he would continue his record of opposing big government. Gary Johnson is a left-libertarian. I am somewhat in the libertarian for everything except immigration camp and Johnson doesn't fit in that camp.

I am not an American, but if I was, I would have gone for one of the following: Ted Cruz (97), Ben Carson, Rand Paul (92).

Seems quite a number of people are setting up on http://gab.ai/

I was born in '86 and don't really remember her until years later. My first introduction to politics was voting for John Major (Conservative) in 1990 in a mock election at school. He won followed by the Greens, despite being a very working-class school. Things became mild during Major, Blair and Brown, but have headed backtowards the vitriol of the 80s under Cameron. Despite being little more than a new Blair, a perception of his as a toff was enough to unleash the emotionally unbalenced, incoherant equalitarians again. At least when you are up against people like this: its not hard to win.

Some videos, some of which include sourced charts: There is another one, but I can't remember the title. I don't have time to pull out a lot of stats, but see if you can pull up stats for welfare usage by ethnicity in Europe. You'll find a lot of immigrants from places like Somalia are welfare at a rate of about 75%. That's why there is essentially no civilisation in Somalia. They don't have the faculties to maintain a society that can include generous welfare states. Take Niger as an example: - half of the population are under the age of 15 - population has increase by almost 1,000% in 65 years - projected to increase to 210 million by 2100 (8,400% increase over 150 years) - 28% literacy rate (only about 10% among women) - sub-70 average IQ among adults - 1:200 have AIDS or HIV - Gender Inequality Index Rank :151 (out of 152) - child marriage rate: 76% - 28% of women report being raped - 43% of women report recurring domestic violence If you took the 20M people in Niger and dropped them into The Netherlands, beyond the upheaval this would cause, for any semblance of normality to be achieved would require massive redistribution of wealth with vast swathes of the population requiring life-long welfare; the inevitable complaints of the immigrants that they are discriminated against and economically disadvantaged. The nature of Dutch society would also be irrevocably changed forever and I'd imagine the country would slide into a Venezuela situation of endemic corruption and a population who want something for nothing.

I thought the hysteria from outlets like The Guardian and their US cousins, which increasingly consists of their emotionally-charged, apocalyptic projections based on imaginings and them not getting thing their way. They have now truly mastered the art of creative writing. The main story of wild hysteria of the moment is Steve Bannon's appointment, covered in Media Matters with the title: Major Outlets Downplay The Fact That Trump’s New Chief Strategist Ran An Anti-Semitic White Nationalist Website I was wondering what this website could possibly be - the one conceived of in Israel, based in part in Israel, staunchly pro-Israel, founded by a Jew, run by a Jew and heavily staffed by a Jews. The few articles that even touch on this brush it away by saying things like, "many antisemites like some Jews". On top of the hysteria there is the bile, laced with calls for violence and assassination. As, I think, Stefan has been saying recently, words to the affect of, "The left cry sexist up until the magic line of women they don't agree with, at which point they unveil the most hate-filled, shrill cries available." You still see this today in the utter revelry in projecting the painful death and then reveling in the death of Margaret Thatcher. This is been revived once more with new UK PM, Theresa May, even though she hasn't done anything yet, the hate is fueled by apocalyptic projections. So I am left wondering: What was it like to be around in the early days of Thatcher-Reagan? And where is this going? We have seen both feminism and the media loose credibility through Orwellian standards, non sequiturs, ad homonym etc. Is this another rattle in the death of the media? Or are we going somewhere insane? From analysis of the comments in The Guardian, it seems their hysteria and push towards Marxism is increasingly falling on dead ears.

You may know already, but I will add a few more points: - Slavery has been the norm all throughout history. Early societies consisted of a leader (alpha), henchmen (betas) and slaves (omegas); and women were often typically slaves. There is a timeline on abolition here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#Ancient_times Note that the early mentions are almost exclusively European and many areas had abolition forced on them by Britain and France. I've read a number of early 'anthropological' books (17th century-) on contact with people in Africa and Australia. From these, you will find descriptions of the above alpha systems in which women were virtually all slaves and passed around like money. There is no specific mention of slavery in Australia, but it was clearly there. There are accounts of women being drug about and raped, used as possessions etc. - I can't remember specific sources, but academics estimate that about 30% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa were slaves before contact with Europe. I'd say that was 30% of men and virtually all women - Slaves were sold to Europeans by Africans - There are still many slaves, particularly in Africa and Muslim countries; notably Maurritiana, where ~20% of people are said to be slaves (http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) - The largest study of slave manifests for Atlantic voyages, which consulted an estimated 85% of manifests and used census data to adjust to find total numbers, found that only 2.4% of transported slaves landed in the US; though many seem to think the US was the only country ever involved in the practice. See: http://slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates And where it reads Great Britain, read mostly Scotland - Indigenous Americans owned slaves, both before colonisation, and after, example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bowlegs - The nature of the lives slaves was often quite different from the now popularised Django Unchanined story. Treatment of slaves varied massively. Some had a lot of possessions and even guns. A more accurate picture can be obtained from this large series of narratives: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21508/21508-h/21508-h.htm - Henry Louis Gates Jr is a good source for a more accurate representation of slavery in the US. Starer:

According to Alex Jones' 'conservative' estimates he's reaching about 30 million people a month. Or at least that's what I heard about a year ago. Then I wouldn't say that it was that accurate, but now it could be an understatement. I saw them post a Google Analytics traffic report at some point not long ago and they only had about 6.7 million (unique?) visitors a month. But now if you look at their traffic rank on Alexa.com you will see traffic has gone up a lot. I'd estimate for September-October they had 12.5 million unique visitors / month. oh, I see they have verified stats on Alexa and it says 8.4 million uniques in the last week; 10.7 million for Oct. I'm not sure how you can find out how much the radio show gets, but recently he's been saying about 3 million / day and that was before another 70 stations picked him up. If you add in all the Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. they are probably reached, in some capacity, 30 million people in October, which is close to what Breitbart probably got though their narrower band of just their site. How many of these are real engagement though is questionable. But I think its fair to say Alex has the ear of about 5-6 million Americans right now, or about 3% of the electorate and a demographic that will include a lot of people who have never voted. Breitbart and Infowars could easily be responsible for the win between them. I'd imagine Stefan is responsible for a five-figure number of voters turning out. Maybe next time round. Plenty of room for growth right now. From Alexa it also appears that Stefan has a much more globally distributed audience. Everyone seems to know who Alex Jones is. When I arrived in Serbia this year, the first familiar face I saw was Donald Trump on t-shirts worn by members of the Serbian Radical Party and within about four hours I heard the name Aleks Džouns. And in the UK, the people I know who have gone over to libertarianism/anarchism have found it via Jones. He's definitely the major force behind spreading limits of governments and personal freedoms here.

I've seen articles about this. Sometimes what is being pushed is so pathetically damp that I adopt the liberal policy of not listening. Sometimes you'll be dumber just for trying to find out what the bizarre baubles of this failing religion are. These Trump riots are another one. I've heard about them and caught bits and bobs, but I won't read about them. I've got work to do. Sometimes the child needs to be left to cry.

I think yes. One observation I have made is that many kingmaker-types, like David Rockefeller, both in Europe and the US, are now either dead or very old. It doesn't appear that anyone has come in to fill this gap. It appears the same happened, as the likes of Rockefeller came into fill a gap left by the likes of the Dulles brothers. Or rather, one person has stepped into this void and is causing havoc - George Soros. In that gap, around 1960, another wealthy, enigmatic man was able to force his way to the presidency, John FitzGerald Kennedy. There is the potential to resurrect the aims of Kennedy now, but also for a further slip into the mire of assassination and the deep state. As for Europe, we will hopefully have Brexit; a new government has been elected in Moldova, which will probably put an end to their EU ascension; a Eurosceptic, non-aligned-style government has been elected in Bulgaria. For next year Geert Wilders is set to become the majority leader in The Netherlands and offer a referendum on the EU; the Freedom Party of Austria is also poised to become the largest party in Austria in 2018; and there is an outside chance of a Marie La Penn win in France. Also the pro-EU Progressive (read regressive) Party was just hammered in Iceland. Switzerland also withdrew its EU application. In Australia there is a rising movement against globalism. In Italy, there is a referendum which is said the result of which we cause a lot of trouble for the EU and in 2017 the largest party may be Eurosceptic. In Serbia, in 2008, a government poll said 74% of Serbs wanted to join the EU; in 2015 that fell to 48%, at which point the government stopped conducting the poll. I have never encountered a Serb who want to join the EU. And there is the rise in disobedience from Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Rep. In Lithuania an anti-emigration party has been elected. Dis-satisfaction with the EU is yuge. The response to all this in the UK has been disastrous. They haven't got a clue what to do. Labour and the Illiberal Autocrats may destroy themselves in an attempt to keep the UK in. Also see this: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48536-the-return-to-k/ Its typically R people who side with globalisation. The only way for the march of globalisation to continue is via mass immigration. The populations of Europe etc. are aging, resources are becoming more scarce and we are on the precipice of multiple deflationary cycles. This is all forcing the population K, which will become increasingly hostile to mass immigration.

I don't think there is much point in speculating - that's the realm of the dream-makers at the Washington Post, NYT etc. But this is the transition team. Some of the names Corbett mentions are not included in that. Only one member of Obama's transition team went straight into the cabinet, although a few others went in at a later data and a few other had at some point cabinet-level or under-secretary positions. So far we have Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor and Priebus as Chief of Staff. The latter is little more than a glorified secretary. The former is not much different. I seem to remember Trump saying that Ivanka will take control of The Trump Org., so I doubt she will have a role. If Obama is anything to go by, we should have a good idea of what the cabinet may look like at the end of the month.

Just have to see how it pans out.

I've been thinking and am going to set up a site that will list companies that are promoting social justice for the purpose of shorting them. Anyone care to suggest names? Some ideas: SJW.rehab short.democrat justice.fund [taken] justice.forsale [taken] justice.trading [taken] my.shorts.eat skrillex.hiv [social]justice.market(s) socialjustice.solutions snowflake fund trigger [warning] fund market appropriation

There were some articles that were not of the above vein, but about 90% were of the above vein. The most clueless of the lot is called Chris Cillizza, whose column is aptly called The Fix. Seems like the foundations of this tub is shifting beneath his feet: Last one is fake. Like the industrial revolution, there will be a lot of jobs lost in the media revolution. Not efficient enough: