aviet

What's the answer?

As you allude to art can be anything someone wants to say is art. Whether you want to agree with their definition is down to you. I chose to reject the classification for modern art as I have seen it. For me, a general bar to entry would be something that I could not create myself. One of my friends is a professional, state-subsidised artist (for now). Everything I've ever seen him create has been something I could do - consisting of large but simple sculptures that are constructed in a warehouse and then after a month or so are dismantled and probably bundled into a hole in the ground. These pieces of art have meaning, but you'd probably not be able to guess them. One of my long-standing criticisms of art is the pomposity and ivory tower retreating magnanimity that both modern artists and its appreciaters subsume themselves in. They seem to think they have ascended to a higher plane by means of encoding or decoding obscure meanings from or into art. There seems to be a notion that something expressed through art takes on a higher meaning. I'd much rather people communicate these meanings via philosophical arguments, rather than this pomposity wrapped in probably misinterpreting the obscure meanings botched into such monstrosities as a figure of Jesus covered in male reproductive fluids or a twat being forced through an archway in the basement of the Tate Modern. Personally I like traditional art and have never seen any modern art that I like. A favorite is: I bought this earlier this year: PJW:

Do you mean fall? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp China and India have juiced on insane debt bubbles: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/India_Money_Supply_Components--Larger_Label_Fonts.png http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/chart-day-how-chinas-stunning-15-trillion-new-liquidity-blew-bernankes-qe-out-water

In a world where most trends are looking negative, choppy and fatalistic, I was wondering what positive trends may be at play. The thought dawned on me that those who believe there should be equality of outcome and if there isn't it is because of the 1%, racism, sexism, etc. (also known as Marxists) don't appear to have many children. So I pulled up UK birth-rates by region and in general the working class areas have the highest birth rates, followed by conservative areas, then regressive areas. However, the most conservative areas tend to trump the working-class mean, with birth rates over 2.0. Looking at the areas with the lowest birth-rates, you find Islington, which is known as the epicenter of of insane Marxism and virtue signaling in the UK - the seat of Jeremy Corbyn, collapsing leader of Labour. The fertility rate in Islington in just 1.29. At a glance it appears that all the bottom 25 areas are regressive areas that voted to stay in the EU. The data shows that about hard-conservative areas have about 20% more children than hard-regressive areas. The trends is roughly identical in the United States. My town is a mix of working-class and middle-class conservatives, which has meant the area has been successively conservative for almost two-hundred years, when political parties were formed, bar a two year blip. There is however a very annoying group of activist communitarians, most of whom have no children and those that do will almost certainly have no grand-children. What are others' experiences of Marxists, social justice warriors and other manipulative grievance mongers and their family status? From what I have seen, these traits tend to run in the family and I think with the hard resource squeeze we are going into, I can't see them passing on their bird-brain ideas.

I'll wait until this crash before I think about buying anything. I'm just not sure where. Australia has a lot of good qualities and at a glance I saw some decent houses with XX acres for $100,000 (US). No chance of that where I live. Looking at charts it seems the end in the increase of household income coincided with a halt to escalating household debt. I don't know how people can live like that. I've never been in debt.

Since you didn't make any mention of it, Stefan's main argument, and mine, and others' is demographics. And this is not an argument I just adopted, I came to this conclusion while living in Serbia, with no internet, watching 'refugees' 'flee' through up to about 12 safe countries before they sought refugee. See: Specifically consider: If all the illegals are given citizenship and if the borders are thrown open, as Hillary has suggested and is the plan of globalism, the number of people who will support government that is increasingly further away from anything economically libertarian will be so high as to make movement towards more limited government over - period. You can't really import conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists in any considerable number. America is one of the few countries where such people are found in considerable numbers. Here in Europe, many of our 'conservative' politicians are more big government than many of your Democrats. The creation of conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists will typically require considerable input in terms of physical and intellectual resources. On the other hand, you can import un- or low-educated poor people from most of the world and use them as the democratic mandate to fuel your power-base. Thus, once you go through this giant ethno-big-government shift, you will have no chance to breed or import your way out of it. It will be permanent. It will be a spiral down towards Venezuela. The model you find in most countries is a bunch of crooks who would rather have a giant slice of a rigged game than have to survive in some sort of free market. These systems are propped up by a dummed down mass of dependents who continually vote for a few promises of scraps in exchange for handing vast controls over to crooks. Consider Brexit, in Britain. This was supported by a margin of 1.X million people with a 7X% turnout. Exit polling showed that bar Sikhs (who have a strong leaning to Britishness) that immigrant groups voted in favour of staying in the EU at a rate of 66%. Areas, such as London, which is 55%+ foreign voted to stay in the EU quite overwhelmingly. If another ten years had passed before we got a referendum on the EU, the increased foreign population would make it likely that there would have been a narrow vote to stay in the EU. If you take immigrants and people of foreign ancestry out of the Brexit vote, the vote to leave would have been more like 56-7%. And if you are not familiar, the EU is a practically un-removable, un-elected, un-accountable, corporate-Socialist dictatorship, which has taken control Europe's economy and uses the fear of the economic uncertainty of leaving to keep nations in it and keep its widely unpopular policies in place. This is what you are going to get if you allow masses of poor dependents into the US who have no alligence to its people who will pay their welfare or knowledge of its constitutional origins. You are at the same cross-roads now in America. You can either vote for the hope of continued somewhat limited government OR you can vote for guaranteed open borders, mass immigration of welfare dependents, globalism, Marx... There is no prospect of libertatianism in this election and there won't be ever again with Hillary. You mentioned you see little point in voting for Trump in California. That was not the case before mass immigration into California. If Hillary is elected in three days, it won't be long until every libertarian and conservative in every state is saying the same thing, as the general sentiment of the country will shift so far towards Marx that the Republican party will have the choice of either becoming the Democrat party or becoming eternally unelectable. I'd also recommend Stefan's video on the fall of the Roman Empire. The main factor in this was deliberately encouraged immigration of culturally incompatible people to prop up the overstretched power structure of a decadent and corrupt elite. Sound familiar? My last point is: consider you had an anarcho-capitalist jurisdiction in which 100% of the population agreed with its principles. If you allowed anyone to move to this jurisdiction, you would likely get a build up of people who don't agree with it until they eventually overthrow it and replace it with a coercive system based around the gripes of the people who cannot thrive in a free market. As the world is now, such a position is a fancy luxury - that you might be able to have a genuinely free society that is at risk of regressing into coercion. Right now you are in the situation of having a somewhat free society - freer than most current and past in comparison - that is at risk of regressing into a Venezuela-style failed state.

I'd been somewhat put off the country for a few reasons, one of them which seems to have either been a mistake or has changed drastically. I was under the impression that government spending as a percentage of GDP was about 40% and some experiences led me to believe that it was liberal with red tape. However, I increasingly heard of Australia as a good place for free markets (relatively) and knew it was #5 in Heritage Foundations' economic freedom index. Then over the last year or so, I heard it was restrictive to low-skilled migrants. But today I noticed that Australia is towards the bottom of government spending as a percentage of GDP, in the developed world. It's also less gripped by globalist sentiments, collectivism, political correctness and so on. Are there any people here from Australia? What are your thoughts on the country as a Libertarian (relatively speaking) destination of residence? What are your thoughts on the limits of the quality of people immigrating to Australia?

We can achieve more freedom by voting and right now in Northern Europe and the US we have good options to do this. Yes, it goes against anarcho-principles, but anarcho-principles are essentially based on ideal societies and situations; and we do not live in an ideal society or are subject to ideal situations. The argument has been made here that voting can be an act of self defense in the same way that an act of physical aggression is seen as negating the non-aggression principle. I think one of the best arguments for voting is Singapore. The country went from a shaky, insecure, post-colonial blip to the second/third richest country in the world in about a generation. In the 80s there was a considerable agitation from a Bernie Sanders-like man who wanted to represent the people who were towards the bottom of Singapore society, i.e. people that had benefited massively from the past 25 years' leadership and lived much better than their various neighbours, but wanted a Sanders free lunch system. If large numbers of the Singapore electorate had decided they were going to fly anarcho- colours by not voting, to the extent that this insurgent Marxist party took power, then the country would have become less free and gone down the same route as India etc. For me it is about separating ideals and what is practically make my life freer and what is going to improve other people around me to the extend that they will also want a freer society. Ideally I'd like there to be no nuclear weapons, but the US + UK disposing of all of theirs could be one of the simplest plays to bring about a less free world.

A few more notes on the movement back to peak-K: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48536-the-return-to-k/

Substitution for arguments. A week ago I would have gone for Hillary +1 or +2; but would now go for Donald. It appears that 'sleeper patriots' may be coming out of the woodwork to push it back: Would be good to see him on FDR. My worry is voter fraud though.

When resources become abundant and situations arise in which people can indulge, laze, sponge and manipulate their way through life, the production of resources per capita will reach such levels as to make such behaviour financially unfeasible and socially unacceptable. This is a cycle outlined here. If you were to mark on a graph the movement between R and K, I would estimate that we are now more or less half-way between peak-R and peak-K. What is changing is the distribution between people who will conserve and people who will splurge. We are in a very similar position to where we were last time there was an R to K corssover, which was in the window of 1830 in England and Wales. Some charts: 1a) Poor Law relief in England and Wales - this was money collected by force by the Church of England for paupers Poor law for one parish: 1b) UK total benefit spending, including the welfare budget and the total spending on pensions (almost all unfunded) 2a) Illegitimate births in England From one parish: 2b) Percentage of live births outside marriage in the UK: This statistic is now in decline in the US. 3) UK debt to GDP 4) US private debt (could not find UK) Observation: last time round (in England and Wales) I would say the peak of K-selective leaning was reached in ~1875, but this time round I think the peak of Y-selective leaning was in ~2010. A possible explanation is that the restraint that created The vast wealth of The British Empire took a long time to spendthrift away; while the peak Y in around 2010 will quickly follow a crossover as access to resources has been so reduced to mean that there is no option but to go K. Another explanation is that the peak Y would have occurred earlier if it had not been for the welfare state. I think both are/were at play. 5) 1830-: Movement against aristocrat landlordism 2016-: Movement against globalism 6) 1830-: Movement for individualism: Edward Miall, Samuel Roberts, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Edward Baines, Thoreau... 2016-: Movement for individualism: Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Ron Paul, James Woods, Ben Shapiro 7) 1830-: Movement against elite newspaper oligarchy (see) 2016-: Movement against elite media conglomerate oligarchy 8) Political landscape The liberal party was originally laissez-faire - libertarian; and the Conservatives in a similar vein to how they are today. Marxist leanings only came on the scene in the 1890s and rapidly shifted to big government and welfare. The crossover to Y voting happened in the 1920s and eventually led to a top income tax rate of 99.25% in WWII, which continued at 90% until 1971, when it was dropped to 75%. In 1988 it was reduced to 40%. In 2016, polling has about 60% favouring 'right' parties and 40% favouring 'left' parties.

It doesn't sound like this guy has the intellectual capacity to understand what AnCap is. Still, if being AnCap was the next mindless trend people got into I'd be quite happy.

Struggling to see how you can't find leaders among Bernie's people: Trump: "We're going to talk through these people like they aren't even there."

Is the partner an invrovert? Invroerts are hard-wired to like their own time. Do you know any reason that the partner wants to travel alone for?

K-selective behaviours and sentiments are increasing, at least in Northern Europe. See: And that is only the first leg down. Next year we're almost guaranteed to have anti-immigration, libertarian, European cultural, right-wing populist parties elected in Austria and The Netherlands, see: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47892-polling-the-rise-of-western-european-anti-establishment-parties/ The US and Canada are probably lagging, in part due to mass-immigration. Due to cultural and economic factors and cycles, it will not be possible for globalism and Marxism to grow in Northern Eurpoe for the rest of this century without mass-immigration. However, the US definitely still has the best concentration of people who practice restraint and want limited government. Some suggestions: - join the libertarian party - join a conservative club - join a tax payer's alliance - involve yourself in farmers' activities - join a capitalist-oriented society

Thanks. This is an interesting avenue for thought. Thanks this is useful, as I am not sure where we are standing and going. From what I've heard, the analysis that seems most correct to me is that of Harry Dent. I'm generally wanting to avoid stocks as I think there will be big losses in the near-term. I am waiting for a crash to buy. I am also wary of bonds and gold. Does anyone have any tips of stocks that will likely do well in a recession or depression? And is there somewhere I can look at stocks that have low RSIs? I was told you can do it on this site: http://finviz.com/ But can't see where.

I have no idea. This site also has some interesting statistics on affirmative action, showing blacks are as opposed to it almost as much as whites and other ethnicities: http://www.isidewith.com/poll/3507504/290416960 I guess being called idiots in public is not that popular.

Trump winning virtually everything, from a 500k sample: http://www.isidewith.com/map/rxnM/2016-presidential-election-donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton#z5 6.75 million sample: http://www.isidewith.com/poll/801555698/290416960 Trump ahead with blacks and all income brackets, except $200k+/year. Socialists, SJWs, The Guardian now fused themselves with corporatism, globalism and Goldman Sachs.

I'm a few emails away from ex-communication from someone who has spent the last 13 years coming up with a cornucopia of disparately-inspired regulations to slap on me. #diversity It doesn't matter what you say, Trump speaks in a loud voice.

Best Speech of the Year Award: Stupid White Man (@MMFlint) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoKHeto2Z3Q

It's so interesting to see how as the likes of Donald Trump adopt these policies, the likes of The Guardian and Chomsky-ites, are relinquishing them after holding them for so long. I now regularly see/hear regressives making arguements for Goldman Sachs, Amazon, bringing in foreigners to work for sub-minimum wage. I thought these were meant to be our arguments?

What are people's investment recommendations for the coming years? I'd like to buy gold, but I think if we go into another financial crash that it will be sold hard for dollars. Currently I am almost completely holding currency as I am expecting a financial crash and that will be an opportunity to shift to assets. I've just bought a lot of investment whiskey as charts show it did well in the Great Recession:

I've read a couple of his books and my conclusion is they are inventions, which has been confirmed by those who have researched his degenerate life and inconsistencies in his book. He was also a Manson-like figure: http://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/ The Philosophy of corn witchcraft: "“What power objects did you have?” “Maiz-pinto, crystals and feathers.” “What is maiz-pinto, Don Juan?” “It is a small kernel of corn which has a streak of red colour in its middle.” “It is a single kernel?” “No. A brujo owns forty-eight kernels.” “What do the kernels do, Don Juan?” “Each one of them can kill a man by entering into his body.” “How does a kernel enter into a human body?” “It is a power object and its power consists, among other things, in entering into the body.” “What does it do when it enters into the body?” “It immerses itself in the body; it settles on the chest, or on the intestines. The man becomes ill, and unless the brujo who is tending him is stronger than the bewitcher, he will die within three months from the moment the kernel entered into his body.” “Is there any way of curing him?” “The only way is to suck the kernel out, but very few brujos would dare to do that. A brujo may succeed in sucking the kernel out, but unless he is powerful enough to repel it, it will get inside him and will kill him instead.” “But how does a kernel manage to enter into someone’s body?” “To explain that I must tell you about corn witchcraft, which is one of the most powerful witchcrafts I know. The witchcraft is done by two kernels. One of them is put inside a fresh bud of a yellow flower. The flower is then set on a spot where it will come into contact with the victim: the road on which he walks every day, or any place where he is habitually present. As soon as the victim steps on the kernel, or touches it in any way, the witchcraft is done. The kernel immerses itself in the body.” I know one person who read all these books and the fantasy-junk inside them were a big part of him wasting fourteen years of his life.

The second one has a real odor of the fall of Rome about it. It's not possible to have a civilization when these people are becoming more prevalent. I don't think they will need to send whites to the back of the bus. There are plenty who would willingly throw themselves under or have themselves drug behind the bus. * Keep the daily crazies coming.