GregMerwe

Years ago I knew about this because I was interested in security conference videos. I will show you one hacker that is now a private investigator, he was pointing out these problems years ago and people were calling him paranoid. Here is some of his talks, they are at the HOPE conference. Steven Rambam, they are entertaining and one of them is 10 years old. and a more recent one I am not sure why the embedded videos are so large. The correct size should be 720x405

Modern women want men to put them first. They want men to chase them but not too much. They want men to have a social life and go to the gym or do sports but not too often. Being a good father I don't think is very high up on women's lists these days. I think dressing well and caring about appearance is higher up on the list for modern women.

Hi I would like to suggest two guests, hopefully they would accept an invitation but I have not communicated with them about this. 1) Neal Adams, to discuss his ideas around growing planets. You can view his videos related to this topic on a playlist on his youtube channel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams 2) Benton L. Bradberry author of The Myth of German Villainy. This would be a controversial discussion because he questions the mainstream view of the history around the second world war. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-German-Villainy-Benton-Bradberry/dp/1477231838 Thanks!

I always saw mgtow as men not wanting to get married and men not needing to live their lives focused on having a girl friend in the traditional sense. Mgtow can still have relationships with woman, even sexual relationships. I don't see why a mgtow could not even have children. There is the idea that marriage contract brings stability. This is questionable. There are many single moms and that is even encouraged these days. Yet when a man becomes a single dad he is seen as the person who abandoned the child even though he is probably having to pay for it. I always said I am mgtow until I find a woman that can put up with me and will be a good mother, then I will have too many children. You might say the MGTOW will negatively affect my chances of finding that right woman. The whole you have to be in the game to get any results. Because MGTOW promotes a negative attitude towards women, which will eventually distort the man's view point. I don't think mgtow are necessarily bitter against women. I think a lot of men in the movement have been burned from divorce and that is why there is a lot of that bitterness towards women. I do think though that the general ideas behind mgtow resonates a lot of with males from all countries and backgrounds. Japan is also facing a situation where men and women are not having children. I think this is a result of many factors not just mgtow. Technology has to play a part and that sex is easier to come by with online dating and prostitution is less taboo than it used to be. Women also played a part in driving the men away in these countries with increased standards and also they are working now, and they still require their men to earn more than them a lot of them time. Women want their men to go to the gym and have interesting hobbies. Which is perfectly reasonable. In the past men women didn't have those same expectations.

In some context being called crazy can be a positive. It is hip to be a bit crazy and come up with new ideas. In an argument to call someone crazy usually the person has nothing else to say and is just saying that because they are not wanting to hear anything else. If they keep repeating it like a crazy person, then you can see they are using it in that way. I don't think they are saying that you are actually crazy and should be admitted for your own safety.

I have worked in IT for 10 years. It depends on your current knowledge and how quickly you are able to pick things up. If you want to go down the support route which is what that other guy is doing. Most support jobs will be in an office and not from home. He probably has a job with an IT company that sells out of hours support and he potentially works on 100s of clients that only calls when they have issues, depending on the support contract of course. He is able to work from home because he does the night shift, usually the person would be placed at clients sites during the day. Although it is possible he is in a team of people that work remotely, as these days that can be more common. However a lot of issues still require hands on but not as much as the past. Even physical servers can be managed with ILO. A lot of companies are moving to datacenters with high security and permitting guests to work on issues all the time doesn't make sense. In terms of what to study. There are different routes, general support and operations, specialist, management, sales, procurement and so on. If you want to go in to general support and operations then you need to learn windows server and vmware and enterprise storage and the applications that enterprise and business use and how to deal with network printers and VC and so on. If you specialize you can then try get a job only upgrading exchange email server for example. I do know some programming however, never went in to development but have worked within development environments. I think being a developer is better than operations and support. The developers have more freedom have to deal with people less and they are better paid and more appreciated. Developers are considered closer to marketing than operations and support in terms of the value they bring to the company. Operations and support is seen as similar to facilities. In terms of the value that they bring to the company. There is a lot of resentment against ops and support in general from companies. They see it as an over priced expense and have had bad experiences in the past with poorly implemented systems. Similar to some artisan professions might experience i guess.

That is not the way homesteading works. The police station owns the toilet. The prisoner has not claim of ownership in that way. In a jail cell scenario anarcho capitalist ideals do not apply because the person is locked in a cage.

My opinion is that you should continue being a cop and put your libertarian ideals to work in the work place. Speak up when your boss demands quotas for victimless crimes. I have told police offices this who have asked this question on reddit before. I think though based on reports from libertarian police they end up hating it because they are forced to do things that they don't like to do, for whatever reason. I think there is probably only so much you could do and it will obviously shape you as well if you spend enough time doing it. I think this question would depend on what country, some regions the police are worse than others. In spite of the state control. I still think it is possible to help people and get what might be considered good results out of government jobs. I don't think that justifies the state though.

I do not entertain arguments against self ownership. I have had those discussion, fruitless to say the least. If one can not accept that they own themselves then one does not have any means to justify anything outside of slavery. To me it is beyond consideration to even contemplate anything less than self ownership. UPB makes sense because it is self evident. It basically says that certain ethical judgements are such because they are ethical judgements to begin with. This is quite a new and secular take on ethics. It does not say that you have to be ethical because of an impending sense of doom. It doesn't claim that ethics is egalitarian or that it is utilitarian. Like Rothbard on natural rights, it simply says that ethics is logical self evident in that a bad experience is a bad experience because it is a bad experience. There is nothing subjective about murder or rape or theft. It is what it is. The non aggression principle as popularly proposed by the libertarians and anarcho capitalists is not a demand or a request. It is a framework for the defense against disputes. It does not presuppose that people have to act or behave in a certain way. Only that certain actions and behaviours results in disputes that need mitigation, thus here is a framework to deal with such disputes.

I got hold of the audio book of this book and I realized while listening to it that the entire drug war might actually be the result of Harry J. Anslinger having a shitty experiences with people that had taken drugs, specifically his father figure being abusive. Millions of people lives affected in what is realy a domestic war, a war against the people of the same country. People that want to consume a substance that changes their state of mind that has not been approved by the authorities for consumption.

Affordable housing is a mistake. In terms of technological progress only the best quality and largest houses should be built. No one wants to live in a shipping container over a normal sized house. The problem the with the concept of affordable housing is that it can have negative effects on already low supply housing markets. In reality a lot of people in their 20s and 30s are living in house shares. When new houses come on to the market that are low quality and small and are given to specific people at a lower price. Those people who do no receive that house are negatively affected. The available housing stock is reduced because those houses could have gone on to the market. Houses are sold at the bottom end of the market that does not have any positive effect on reducing the price of housing outside of those programs. While if only high quality and large housing was built. People that can afford those houses will move up from already existing housing and those houses will be sold to other people moving up. When this happens enough you get social mobility in housing. The poor people then will be able to afford higher quality housing because the new low quality will be higher than affordable housing would be. Affordable housing programs help to reduce the quality of housing stock and push up prices in the non social housing sector due to reducing the supply. That was economic explanation and socially building lots of high density low quality housing has its own negative effects. Read/listen to some Thomas Sowell on that subject. Also watch Milton Friedman documentary free to choose, the episode cradle to grave about welfare and social housing.

New no planes documentary released. It is essentially a compilation of all the no planes theory related material. It still fails to point out the elephant in the room, missiles.

Of course refined carbon is going to have different chemical properties, often the fuels are made cleaner or made to appear cleaner and often made to be as efficient as possible economically. This does not necessarily mean that burning the refine fuels results in a primary by product of co2. I have seen the advanced combustion formula that some of the advanced fuel manufactures have come out with. I won't doubt that they have managed to make combustion cleaner, the point it that it is made cleaner because it is more co2 based. The common types of by products from combustion, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead and particulate matter, as well as other carcinogenic by products. CO2 in terms of its carcinogenic level is relatively low. Consider that humans exhale CO2, when thinkings about its relative carcinogenic level. The trick was to say that through the green house effect, which may still be a valid theory in of it self, the when co2 increases it leads to warming. Then equating increases in co2 with human carbon combustion as the primary source. Meanwhile volcanoes and other natural sources result in more co2 than carbon combustion of hydro carbons. I think aiming to have only co2 emitting during combustion of carbon based fuels is a good goal if your endeavour is to create cleaner air.

I do think that carbon burning activity could lead to climate changes and not necessarily warming. I think the west has already reduced pollution output or has peaked at their pollution output, although that remains to be seen, depending on population density growth. The peak was the height of the industrial revolution and the start of the synthetic industries. Looking at china now they relatively recently went through the same level of pollution that the west once went through. Although i do think because of population density china is far worse. In the west it was perfectly normal for factories to pollute in to rivers right in the heart of major cities. I have always said that if carbon burning activity has a negative effect on the planet it will come in a few ways. Affecting the earth through sink holes and earthquakes and instability and climate intensity or instability. Where the balance between the gases in the atmosphere goes out of proportion because of too much pollution leading to the climate instability and intensity. For example prolong drought, prolong cloud cover and rain and so on. I think any ice age would have to coincide with a lot of cloud cover. If the planets rotation is static as we think it is then prolong cloud cover would be the only catalyst for an ice age. Of course i stand to be corrected if anyone has any thoughts?

Well you don't burn methane in your car or your wood fire. Of course different fuels will have different by products. Even if you burn natural gas in a house the risk is carbon monoxide poisoning not co2 poisoning. That is why houses that use gas come with CO detectors. If you have a coal BBQ again it is CO that is at risk of causing death, that is why they say you should never bring a bbq inside your house after it is out or in your tent while you are sleeping. Particulate matter or smoke is essentially non reoxidised carbon molecules that did not rebound even with a single molecule of oxygen. This is why when your catalytic converter fails in your car you get a dirty smoke out the back, both CO and CO2 are invisible to humans naked eye. It is the particulate matter and CO that is cleaned by reoxidising the carbon molecules post combustion.

Did you ever watch the BBC documentary Global Dimming? In my opinion that unknowingly sets up a very valid counter theory to co2 based global warming theory. In the documentary they basically come to the conclusion that the air planes exhaust, as I call it, is creating a pollution barrier that reduces the evaporation rate. In the documentary they of course refer to the planes exhaust as contrails. Which is another questionable aspect. Do jet engines that burn petroleum based carbon fuels not have a by product of combustion. What is the by product of combustion? I learned in science class when i was 14-15 that the basic scientific equation for combustion was C+o2=CO not co2. Because combustion requires oxygen to burn and o2 (oxygen) only exists as two molecules. When combustion occurs the oxygen is used as a part of the combustion we are left with carbon monoxide, not CO2. I looked in to this further. You get two types of combustion incomplete and complete combustion. Incomplete combustion is the most common type of combustion. Complete combustion requires re-oxidising the carbon after combustion. This is why we have catalytic converters in cars. The Catalytic converter, which was an amazing invention, reoxidises the carbon monoxide and converts it to the much cleaner and invisible carbon dioxide. CO2 is not an official pollutant at the EPA and has never been classified as a pollutant. Plants use CO2 and humans exhale CO2. CO2 is used to put out fires in fire extinguishers. Co2 is used in the food industry, Every coke can has CO2 in it. If we could make CO2 a by product of combustion it would be an amazing feat because we would no longer be pumping pollutants in the atmosphere. It is very much like ancient rome, 2000 years later and we still have the same tactics. Controlling science and the population. Don't get me started on the carbon trading market and the carbon credits and carbon tax. They want you to believe that humans are a walking chimney stick. I think it is a conspiracy by the big polluters they hijacked the environmental movement thanks to AL gore and his inconvenient truth. Now everyone thinks that you get co2 from incomplete combustion and that co2 is a pollutant. They even showed that lecture to every school in the country for several years. While the environmental movement is focused on CO2 output, the big polluters can pump out real actual pollutants without much attention. That part is just my own speculation. I should add that what i have just said is not accepted by most people and that you will find a lot of incorrect and false science online regarding combustion and pollution. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/

Why did we not observe an explosion at Fukishima or Chernobyl that took out a whole city. It seemed to be refined to the location of the power plant and not even that much more reactive in terms of an explosion that i would expected from an explosion at a chemical plant. Of I am not disputing the radiation. Although I do think that the effects are exaggerated. I used to know this engineer and he would adamantly tell me that the effects of radiation was over stated in the media. Thanks for you explanation of an explosion, it was very interesting to hear. I have heard that before. I still think a distinction can be made between the type of explosive that requires pressure and one that does not. Explosives that don't require pressure are much more likely to be used end of the day. Can you imagine transporting a nuclear weapon? They would realy have to be transported carefully or built on site. This idea that they were writing words on the big bomb outter casing and joking around before they popped it to an airplane that was vibrating like crazy only to drop it on to japan. Well it all seems very unlikely.

Look at meetup.com. I have been to the atheist meetup on there in London UK. We had Aron Ra as a speaker the last time i went. It is great to speak to people offline about the ideas that we discuss online all the time. I never went to university so i missed out on a lot of debating. It is one thing to be able to type out a comment on a forum and it is completely different when you have to articulate yourself in front of a group. I also joined a libertarin meetup and i am going next week tuesday. The topic was about rothbard and property rights so i thought ill go after work and see what they are discussing. It is largely older people who used to be marxists. A lot of them have not heard anarcho capitalist ideas and are more minarchist than an cap. It still be interesting, the atheist one is better though, larger and more younger people. Next atheist meetup a bunch of Christians are showing up for an argument, haha, http://www.meetup.com/London-Atheist-Activist-Group-friendly-community/events/220384814/

I did type a whole long deep explanation but the post was remove possibly due to being off topic or crossing a line, I will try respond again in a more straight forward way, hopefully that is ok. This is a big topic. I get far more out of that lecture than just explicit whiteness. I don't think being for a cultural identity necessarily implies negativity towards other cultures and ethnicities. This is what macdonald mentions as well, that all other cultures in the world are able to celebrate their culture but white people, which is basically north western european and US Canada Australia are not permitted to do celebrate their culture. Personally I think this is a direct result of nazi'ism and the whole white nationalism concept being framed as racist against jews and basically that white are superior and all that non sense. We can observe this in the UK, a bunch of english people who all look very similar walked through the street of an english town in protest against the muslim grooming gangs in the UK. They were attacked by the left and non white as being racist and they were all framed as being like nazi. When you actually speak to a lot of those people in the protest (basically a walk through a town with signs) they are not racist people. While at the same time if muslims protest and they also all look the same in doing so, well then all of a sudden they have a right to do that. Near at the same time as the protest against the grooming gangs, there was the post democratic election protest against the conservatives from winning. I think a lot of that was just people protesting the whole system, however a lot of their sentiments was anti conservative specifically. They had no counter protest at all. I found it odd that protesting against the result of the democratic election and capitalism is perfectly acceptable but protesting against groups of foreign people methodically exploiting white underage English girls is some how racist and despicable. What does it have to do with a perceived libertarian narrative? I am only replying to this thread. I thought it was on topic. I agree that discussing race is not related to libertarianism. I did not however think that the leftist ideas about multiculturalism were related to libertarianism either.

I don't think being for white culture is racist. I don't think white people should be ashamed of being for white culture. I think that is the point of this thread and why i posted the video. It is a controversial subject in any circle/forum because in the mainstream it is racist to be for white culture. Even liking white culture or even talking about white culture is seen as racist in a lot of places. White are expected to ignore ethicnicity while respecting jewish identity, muslim identity, black identity and so on. From a anthropological and sociological and evolutionary biological perspective i find the lecture fascinating. Not everything I find interesting is specific or conducive to libertarianism. A lot of people don't get that far though, as soon as they hear white culture, they lock up and go "thats racist" and put their fingers in their ears and go "wah wah wah". If you look at how people classify white nationalism as racist without any thought. There are millions of white people that are nationalist that are not racist, well in the UK at least. Most white people that are nationalist in the UK are not actually racist or subscribe to the cliche idea of the swastika wearing white nationalist that we see in the media. Don't get me wrong, i am white and english, but I am not a nationalist or racist. Personally I don't even think that different races exist, I think that the differences in the physiological make up of the human species is solely due to the different climate and environment that humans have lived in over extended periods of time. Culturally though I can see a clear differences between the different ethnicities. This is primarily because culture is the norms and traditions that gets passed on to people over time and thus to develop requires humans stay in a region for significant amount of time. This is the only reason why ethnicity and culture go hand in hand. There is nothing inherent about being african or Chinese that leads to that culture. It is just that Chinese (for example) lived in that region for such a length of time that they developed their culture independently and at the same time developed their physiological characteristics for the same reason, remaining in the same region for extended period of time. Macdonalds has some new and interesting ideas surrounding the evolutionary biology of the human species, specifically regarding the differences in family structure and the effects that he thinks that had. A different take on it is the Book and documentary Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Diamond says that different levels of advancement has nothing to do with genetics but is solely related to the development of agriculture. My opinion is slightly different but i still think that book is worth a read. The question being, what led to different regions being more developed than others. My original thoughts on this was that it was related to genetic isolation. As genetics is affected by climate and environment, when humans were physically isolated geographically, example South Americans or Southern Africans, their culture developed independently in isolation. They were locked in time so to speak, culturally. While cultures in northern europe and eastern asia developed much more diverse genetic and culturally. This led to the advancements. So again there is nothing inherent about white ethnicity that led to them being more technologically developed than Southern Africans. It is solely down to genetic diversity and cultural diversity. This is of course not a popular theory because people don't like to say the genetics plays any part in the differences between the technological advancement between different people around the world, because they see that as racist.

Johann Hari has released a new book and has been doing some interviews available on youtube about it. This week a new TED talk from him has gone up. I think he makes some amazing points, how he ties it all together and disputes the war on drugs, the approach towards addicts, the misconceptions about addiction and what addiction is realy about. His book is titled, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1408857839 Still on my to read list. It would be great if Stef could get him on the show to discuss addiction and the war on drugs. As an addict myself (alcohol and cannabis and coffee), i think it makes perfect sense what he says about lack of connection being the root cause of addiction.

This is a very fascinating lecture on the topic of white guilt and anti-white sentiment. It also involves discussion about cultural impacts of judaism on the west. It may have already been posted, sorry if it has. This lecture could probably do with its own thread as quite deep in scope. Kevin Macdonald wrote a book, The Culture of Critique.

My sister studied psychology and now she is a manager at a social services organisation that specialises in domestic abuse. I think psychiatry probably make more money as it is a medical qualification (lol) but seriously, it is real science. Subscribing pharma drugs for your latest disorder is a great way to make a living. I think being a good psychiatrists on the other hand could be a very rewarding career. R.D. Laing as an example.

I am not in to stupid ceremonies. I have known mason. A black american from new york taught me austrian economics over IRC was an official mason. He was also a stock trader. I worked with a Mason who would go to ceremonies and he would tell me about them. They have to get dressed up and walk around and then they have a social meeting of kinds. Doesn't realy interest me that much but I am sure it can help your career as you could network with people who have good jobs and outside of golf clubs or tennis clubs there is no other way to meet those kinds of people. You don't see rich people going down the pub and socialising with much more common folk. I don't think they ever did to be honest but its probably more likely to happen these days as the middle class has grown.

This is my favourite survivalist videos, this guy lives out in the jungle and makes vieos on his channel on buildings shelters and more. https://www.youtube.com/user/junglecrafty Personally I prefer a more advanced life style with internet and other luxuries, but still find this stuff fascinating and it could save your life if you ever go out in to the wilderness.