GatoVillano

I

Oh shit, I mixed up 2 conversations =P

I'm betting on more then karma. - Canada is 80% western european decent. This means that the average IQ is around 100. When you have an average IQ over 90, you are able to create a free society. - Canada is a cold country. People who cannot heat their homes during winter usually die. When you sleep in the streets during winter, its a death sentence. - The soil in Canada is extremely fertile. And most of Canada is inhabited. Also, most of the base population living in towns have family in rural parts or even more isolated regions. - Economists have estimated that at the end of Trudeau's 1st term, the national dept will be around 1.5 trillion $ and he started at 400 billions 2 years ago. So, with all this information, you can see that Trudeau builds 1 trillion of dept per 4 years. You add to that the ever growing interest we will have to pay on that dept. The country will probably wont be able to borrow within 6 years. And I'm not even counting the Paris accord that he will probably join. So the country will be bankrupt fast. This means no more welfare state. Those who are not native born of Canada will probably die during the 1st winter. Or at lease a good portion of them. Canadians will move to rural parts where they can grow food, cut wood and return to a life on the land they left 50 years ago. It will be hard, but they will survive. once the tyrannical liberal government is gone, people will vote in conservatives and without the welfare state, we will probably have something that resembles the free market and small tight knit communities. My predictions arent based on karma, but on facts. =)

Even if you are able to build a community of libertarians, you are still within the borders of a country. That means that the state can still knock on your door and demand taxes to pay for this socialist hellhole and the state can still take your property. You would have an hard time living under the radar, as specially if members of your society decided to do trade outside of the community. To answer your other question, I would pick the country with the lowest population. That way, your community could create a libertarian lobby and force the government to lower taxes. So, I would pick NZ

I had a conversation on YouTube this morning and some interesting thoughts were exchanged. I thought I would share them in this forum. When I was younger, I studied music at the university and my teachers told me that Berkeley was the best school for musicians but it was way too expensive for most of us. It was still the dream of most musician to go and study there. Now, today we see Antifa, BLM, feminists, snowflakes who have taken over the university. Just today, we saw images of random people being beat up by mobs and had piss pored on them. Some people paid over 20 000$ per semester to study there. At the end of their studies, they will probably have a 6 figures dept. Now think for a minute when these people will look for a job and on their resume, the name Berkeley will be writen on the piece of paper. I think the employer will say ''thanks but no thanks. We are here to work and we dont want no trouble makers here''. So a diploma at Berkeley will have a negative value. I bet that in the coming years, Berkeley will have a hard time economically because no one will want to apply at that university. Berkeley will go down in history as a synonyme of failure.

Yes, you can defeat leftism, it is creep its way back in the next generation. Its a constant fight between reason and collectivism. In Canada we had a very oppressive church that ruled over everyone. It ruled over politics, your social life, education, the economy. If you went against the church you wouldnt get burned alive, but good luck finding a job, a loan, a wife, or anything for that matter. If you were pointed out by the church, you might as well run out of town during the night and start your life over under an other name on the other side of the country. I cannot stress enough how much the church had dominion in Canada. Especially in Quebec. So in 1968, when a socialist government presented himself, told everyone that they would be free of the church, open their border to the world, have sex outside of marriage, have welfare, free education, free healthcare.... People just lost their heads and fell for it hook and sinker. And this was the beginning of the downfall of Canada. Of course Canada will probably go down in 10 or 15 years, which will be about 60 years after the beginning of socialism in Canada. This is because Canada is a very rich country. But the fall is inevitable now. We can expect a breakdown of the social structure, no cops, no firemen, no heating in winter. It will be ruffer in the cities then rural Canada. The low IQ migrants will create chaos and crimes. But eventually the migrants will leave for an other welfare state. After a decade after the chaos, the economy will be rebuilt in a free market economy. And Canada will be cured from socialism. I predict that around 2050, canada will be the best place in the world to live in.

Chile should be fine. From what I heard, Milton Friedman fixed your economy and now, chile has something that resembles the free market. As long as a country is not a welfare state, migration is not an issue.

I had a debate with 2 leftists the other day that basically didn't understand what universe they were living on. But, during this debate, I had the opportunity to debate some ideas with myself. I believe that the problem with Charlottesville is that we are not calling the problems by what they really are. Please, let me explain: The first term that is misleading in this issue was to call the alt right a bunch of neo nazi. Conservatives and libertarians spent so much time debating that #notall the alt right present at the event were nazi. I will try to explain that not a single person at Charlottesville was a nazi. Lets start with the definition of nazi. It is the National Socialist German Workers' Party. In short, it is the German Marxist party. The trick is in the words ''socialist worker's party''. I do not believe that any person of the alt right were citizens of Germany (there might be one who did have the citizenship, I could be proven wrong). Therefore, they could not be part of the GERMAN Marxist party. It would make as much sense to say that some dude in Mongolia is that of the British Labor Party. To identify the problem would be to call the alt right a bunch of American Socialists. There were other American Socialists present at this event. The members of Antifa were American Socialists. The members of BLM are American Socialists. The black block are American socialists. The liberals and democrats present at this event were American socialists. Basically, this event was nothing more then a bunch of American Socialists attacking each other. I believe there was a pole recently that showed that most socialists live in their mom's basements and are unemployed. If these idiots had any pressure from the free market, they wouldn't have time to waste doing stupid shit like this. They would be too busy trying to find a job. Once again, the free market is the solution to these stupid problems we have to face in the western world. To be honest, I dont care if they all decide to break each other's skulls with bricks. The result would be less people on welfare =P. But to be serious, the solution is still the same. We need to promote the free market, dispel the blur of identity prolitic and promote libertarian values. =)

OFD, I dont want to disappoint you, but the white shamming disease is making its way to Quebec. Just last semester, the new rector at the university said that we should focus on fixing injustices. Every teacher started almost every class with a leftist speech. And during the jazz festival downtown, BLM climbed on stage unchallenged, and made hate speeches against whites. At a 5 minutes walk of my apartment, there is the Olympic stadium. And everyday, over 200 illegal migrants are being stuffed into it. The Maire of our city called the city a sanctuary city. And the government is not telling us how many migrants are in the stadium. I'm worried that at some point, they will flood out of this stadium and raid the neighborhood. When I'm home, I'm always carrying a hunting knife on me. This is incredibly stressful.

Richard, I grew up in Brossard, in Quebec. It was the city that had the 2nd biggest Asian migration after Vancouver. It was a migration that we hardly noticed. We did not feel like we lost any freedom, we did not feel less safe. There was resentment between the races, but no real physical dispute. The Asians kept to themselves and for the most part refused to integrate when they were young. However, in college, they integrated just fine. They are very productive and a real driving force of the economy. Lets compare this with the massive migration from Haiti last decade. The black community settled in a worker's neighborhood of Montreal. They did not integrate the work force. The mostly became dependent on welfare and criminality. They formed gangs, sold drugs, kidnapped women and forced them in prostitution. The committed horrible acts of violence, murder, riots, rapes. There are some streets where you will be attacked at night just for being white. They are incredibly racist and resentful of whites. French Canadians have showed them nothing but generosity and they spat in our faces. They never integrated our society nor our work force. This dichotomy is a perfect example between high and low IQ migration. Migration from the 3rd world is completely worthless. Why anyone would want 3rd world migrants is beyond me except to influence elections. If a nation as gone this far to the left, then it deserves to fall, and by that I mean economically. In Quebec and most of Canada, politic is one sided. There is no real opposition to the leftist narrative. And this is one reason I feel I should migrate to the US after university.

Sir Richard the V, your argument reminded me of a video I saw about WW1. To be more precise, the video talked about a mental illness we discovered during WW1 that is shell shock. WW1 was one of the most brutal war the world has ever know (if you want you can read about the conditions in the trenches from Churchill. He spent years in those trenches and you can read about it in ''the power of words''. These soldiers spend years being buried like rats, bombed by artillery, they even used chemical warfare. Some soldiers just lost it. They became incoherent. They laugh for no reason. They would leave everything and start walking away from the battlefield. and of course they were treated like deserters. To think that these young men were kidnapped by force by the state, forced to fight in a war that meant nothing for them. And when this hell broke them and drove them mad, the state decided that they had to be executed. Because we dont want any disobedient rats in this mouse utopea. We need to remember that we are nothing but cogs in this hellish machine we call the state. This thought turned my stomach. These men died for nothing. And it reminds me of something that Bill Whittle said in his show ''the right angle''. It was about this kid in Europe that was going to die of some disease. The only chance the kid had was an experimental treatment in america. The family raised 1 million dollars through a go fund me to treat the kid. But the courts in Europe decided that the kid couldnt go to america. That he was to stay in the hospital and die. The court didnt even allow the kid to die at home. Bill said that this is what he finds disgusting about statism. That when the state decides its your time to die, then it is your time to die. This is just like the soldier in WW1 that is shell shock. The state decided to grab this man. to take him away from his family and his life. And then to die running to the enemy lines or to die by an execution squad. The state decided that it was his time to die. I swear, I'm becoming more and more anarcho-capitalist by the day. =P

Ok I just wrote down some ideas I had this morning about culture: an individualist culture that is based on positive reinforcements and a collectivist culture based on negative reinforcements. You can go read it, the title is ''culture and migration''. And I do believe that what we were talking about is related. As you know, white people are mostly individualist, well at lease those with an IQ 100 and up. This is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. We all agree that we want to live in a free and peaceful society where people are free from coercion. But constant vigilance is the cost of freedom. If an other group invades your group, hangs the men, rapes the women and enslaves the kids... well, there goes your free society. So it is preferable for the group to be able to defend itself. There is the option of hiring an armed group to protect you, but then you are at the mercy of their good will. So lets agree that it is preferable for the protection of our liberties that every men in our society to be armed, proficient with that weapon and able to function in a group. Now here is the problem. If you are in an individualistic culture, you will prefer positive reinforcement. This means that if the group is attacked by barbarians, can I could on Bob to back me up. If we do positive reinforcement, I will thank Bob for helping me out fighting back the barbarians. But if he refused to fight, then I must respect his freedom to refuse to fight. If we are in a collective culture, Bob is required to step up and join the group to fight the barbarians. If he pussied out, he will be ostracised from the group and probably exiled or some shit. Yes, Bob's freedoms flew out the window when shit hit the fan and that it was time to fight. But at lease we aren't dead, raped and/or enslaved. This is basically the reasoning behind the army. We give up our freedom of movement, of speech for a while and maybe even give up our lives. But we do this to defend our free society. And this is why, in the anarcho-capitalist society I created, I said that we need to have a militia.

This morning I was challenging in my mind Stefan's definition of culture, which is to have a group of people that have the same definition of what is right and what is wrong. For example, in my culture, the waste majority of people agree that it is wrong for an adult to marry a 8 yo child, yet in Asia, in countries like India and many Muslims country, it is not considered wrong. I was trying to make a parallel between this definition of what culture is and the dichotomy between collectivist culture and individualistic culture. I came to the conclusion (and I know that many people will challenge this affirmation) that individualist culture do positive reinforcements and collectivist culture do negative reinforcements. Lets try a few examples. Where I live, it is good to like poutine, it is good to like traditional music, it is good to be frank and overly honest. But it is not necessary. No one is going to come and kick my ass and I wont be publicly ostracised if I dont like poutine. They wont force spoon it down my throat. Now, lets take a tribe in Africa. In this tribes, people do dances collectively. When it is the time to hunt, it is wrong if you do not join the group in the dance of ... the lion... or some shit like that. The group will be upset if you stay in your corner. They might wonder what is wrong for a while, but they will eventually give up and reject you from the group. When you are in Pakistan and you scream out loud ''this woman just burned a Qur'an''. People will lose their shit, beat the woman to death and burn her alive. If you do not join into the frenzy, you might be considered as an accomplice and burned to death as well. This is an other example where it is considered wrong, by the group, to not join in the collective activity. Notice that when you are in a collective culture, you do not get a reward for conforming to the collective. You only get punished when you dont join in. This is why it is negative reinforcement. In an individualist community, if I am open minded and welcoming to stranger, people will say ''wow, what a great guy''. I might get a few smiles and even a pat on the back if I'm lucky. But I will not get punished if I am not welcoming. Positive reinforcement. I often hear people coming from collectivist culture saying that my country doesn't have a culture. I believe that they say this because they have a difficulty understanding what an individualist culture is. And if Stefan is right, that people who have an IQ under 90 cannot function in a free society, this means that these people will never be able to function outside of a collective. Knowing this, does this help us deal with low IQ migration. I believe it does. We could create fake collectives inside of our borders in which the ''rights and wrongs'' do not infringe upon our liberties. This would provide the migrants with the group think they desperately need to function and ensure the liberties and freedom of the host population. I'm really interested in hearing you guys thoughts on the subject =)

It is true that you cannot force anyone to do anything. If you do force someone to join an army, to fight and to die and if by some chance you dont want to we'll kill you anyway. Yes this is coercion. You are right. But this is a good way to bring up the next subject I was thinking of this morning, which is culture, using Stefan's definition of culture.

We have seen the result of mass migration of low IQ demographic in Europe and the chaos that followed. But it seems that Canada doesn't learn from the mistakes of others or from its passed mistakes. In 2010, Quebec received a massif migration from Haiti. Harper didn't like Quebeckers and he tried to replace the demographic. These low IQ, no skills, migrants did not integrate well in our society. Very soon, some neighbourhoods lived in fear from hostile black gangs. They used intimidation on the population, sold drugs, brutalised people, forced women in prostitution and commited murders. This was in the northern part of Montreal, a place where honest labourers with little money lived. People that didn't have the money to move. At the end of his term, Harper decided to prosecute and deport some migrants, but the damage to our society was done. Now Trudeau is calling for all of the illegal migrants in the USA to come to Canada. And what do you know, the people from Haiti are coming to Montreal where the Maire Codere said it was a sanctuary city. They stuffed all these people in the stadium, which is a 5 minutes walk from where I live. We know very well that criminality will explode in the neighbourhood very soon. Seriously, I'm starting to fucking lose it. Everyone in this province has had a piece of their brain removed at birth or something. Everyone in this province is a lefty. Everyone is a fucking socialist. No one sees the shit storm around the corner. They see the shit going on in Europe and they put their blindfold on. They reject reality and substitute their own. I regularly hear people say that it is not so bad if new laws are imposed on us that restrict speech. They dont care, they just dont care. I swear, when I'm finished with university, I'm moving south of the border, I'm purchasing the biggest riffle I can find and I'm dip my bullets in pork fat. There is an epic shit storm that is going to fall on Canada and these r type morons wont know what hit them.

This is interesting. I have been thinking more and more about how and if anarchy could actually work. Most of my life I had rejected the concept, thinking that there is no possible way it could work. I mean, who would honour their contracts if there is no courts to enforce them. But, I've been reading more and more about freedom, and the concept of some level of anarchy in a society could work. Lets say, for shits and giggles, that the economy would collapse and that we have to start fresh without a government to rule over us. Would it be possible to have a series of private entities that would provide the services needed to run a civil society? We know that we can trade for food and water. We can have private companies upkeep the roads for a small fee. We could have insurance companies provide a police for to protect private property. We could elect a judge and a jury to settle legal affairs. Of course, people can own guns for protection and every grown men is required to join and train in the militia. Poor people could receive voluntary donations and if we start living in communities, people could even find labour for them until they get back on their feet. I know, this looks like colonial USA. But it works. No where in this community was a government needed. Not even for currency, because we could go back to the gold standard.

Why do you need a goddam government to build roads. Private companies do a better job building them and maintaining them. They just charge people a small tarif to use them. Also, when government build roads, there is often a huge amount of corruption, the road takes years to make, it cost like 10x the original estimate. And you realise down the road (no pun intended) that the government official received bribes by a company so that this company would obtain the contract. If you want a good example of shit like this, look at the olympic stadium in Montreal. They could have build a simple stadium, it wouldnt have cost them much and would take little time to make it. No, they had to hire some super star architect, that made some crazy ass over complicated design. The construction was managed like fucking shit. employees went on strike. It cost a fortune and wasnt done on time. It was unfinished during the olympics and showed the world that the people of Quebec are a complete failure. It cost so much that 40 years later, they still havent made a profit on this dam project. I'm sorry, but the government sucks at building stuff.

Well then, lets try to make some examples. Lets take JFK as an example. He tried to end the Vietnam war, he tried to audit the fed and he tried to dismantle the CIA. I believe that JFK was a good president. He tried to shrink the power of the government on the people and increase their freedoms. Obama dropped over 100 000 bombs on the middle east, he tippled the national dept, he gave up Icann to the UN, He sold weapons to our enemies all around the world, he created an internet spy grid to spy on everyone in the world, he forced people to have a single payer healthcare, he increased racial tensions in the country.... I could go on. He was a bad president. He took away countless freedoms to the people and trapped them in poverty. What I consider a good government is one that respects the natural rights of individuals. A president that doesnt impose its ideology on people. A government that doesnt create problems to later take away people's freedoms in order to ''fix the problem''. Technically, the only task a government should have is to protect people from coercion. If the government is the source of coercion, then it has failed. It should then be altered or replaced.

As you know, democracy works until the people that have less realise that they can vote to redistribute the wealth of those who have more. This is theft and inevitably leads to the collapse of the economy. However, you dont want an oligarchy either. We dont want a ruling class of elites that treat the poor as pawns. Therefore you want a system where rational people with an understanding of economy and who work and contributes to society to have the right to vote. You want this criteria to be accessible to all with a reasonable amount of work. This is why I believe that the system where only property owners had the right to vote, was the best system. This system does not discriminate on race or gender and it has the benefit of allowing only those who contribute financially to society to decide how it should be administrated. The funding fathers really got it right the first time.

Washington could have stayed into office. He was even asked to become some sort of monarch of the US. But he knew that power corrupts, so he decided to step down voluntarily. He is the one that set the rule that a president can only do 2 terms. If you ask me, my favourite president was Thomas Jefferson. He took the natural rights very seriously. The declaration of independence is an amazing document. This guy was a libertarian to the core. Imagion, a nation funded on the none aggression principal. Man... Just think how amazing that is and how we take it for granted. Sure, you can find dirt on every president. But those that I consider the worsts are the ones that increased the size of the government, striped away natural rights of the people and used coercion for their own self interests.

I was thinking of what I wrote this week and I believe that I've found the answer to that question. The country I live in has a false abundance of resources caused by a terrible socialist government that is building a huge dept to the unborn. In that environment, the r selection is favoured and this promotes a high level of promiscuity. Basically, everyone in my home town fucked like bunnies every occasion they got. It was easy to see that the kids in that environment were sexually active at a very young age. Many of us had a developed artistic side, and for the first part of my life, I spent it on music. So I went to get a BA in music. Later in life I had a lot of hardships and had to work hard to make my way in life and now I'm getting a BA in biochemistry. According to Stefan's presentation ''genes war''. Because of the abundance of resources and an uncertain future the level of cortisol of my mother while I was in the womb must have been high. This led to me having a very high level of testosterone, which pushed me to take risks and to reach puberty probably younger then normal kids. The level of testosterone diminishes with time, and the realities of life hits you in the face. The fact that you have to work hard for what you want to obtain in life promotes the K behaviour. I believe that today I'm half way between r and K. Anyways, thats the conclusion I reached. =)

I was looking at the riots in Venezuela. There was a police truck that rammed a group of protesters and when it backed off, there were people stuck under the truck. I was talking about these events with my family and my father said something that made no sense whatsoever. To make a short summery of the conversation, I was telling him that people are oppressed and starving and that they are trying to leave the country to find shelter in Colombia, but that the Venezuela government is not allowing them. My father said that the government doesn't have a choice. My answer was that these people have nothing to loose. They are desperate. The Venezuela government is tyrannical because he is denying them their natural rights (in this case, the right to seek refuge in order to preserve their life) and that this government is doing it through coercion using the police and army to oppress the people. This brings me back to the words of John Locke. That every men possesses natural rights. These rights are to have freedom, to own property and the ability to pursuit happiness. If a government uses coercion to deny an individual these rights, then the government must be altered or replaced. There are some parallels to be made with the presidency of Ab Lincoln. Lincoln took control of the state for his own self interest. He had all the senators that opposed him arrested. He arrested the journalists that denounced his tyranny. And through Lincoln's madness 800 000 Americans died. It can also be debated that he was going to restart the war in order to stay into office. One man took the principals of John Locke to the letter and blew the brains out of this tyrant, thus saving what was left of the country. John Wilkes Booth took it upon himself to replace a government that used the coercion of the army on it's own people. BTW, nice shot John =) So, to the people of Venezuela. If I was to give you an advice concerning your situation, I would quote the words: ''Sic Semper Tyrannis''

A complete democracy would never work. I cant remember who said this, but it sounded a bit like this: democracy works until people realise they can vote themselves subsidies. If you read John Locke, Frederic Bastiat and David Boaz, the state and religion are things that must always be feared. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why the US government is fragmented. So that power can never be centralised. The funding fathers followed John Locke's advice. Locke said that every men has natural rights. But if a state becomes so corrupt as to take away a man's natural right. Then it is his duty to alter the state or to replace it. Thus, the US declared their independence from a tyrannical monarchy. Not all US presidents were good. Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt, LBG, Lincoln, Clinton, Bush, Obama. These bastards used the power of the state has a force to coerce. This is where everything went wrong. When the state grew in size, and took away more and more freedom by force. Sending men to die in wars that have nothing to do with america because the industrial military complex are mercenaries that companies can buy. Sending young men to die so companies can make a buck. The level of power and corruption has gotten out of hand. Thomas Jefferson must be turning in his grave.

Very true. You make a good point. It did have a double effect. If we were to apply this to the current year. The west is going to shit because of left indoctrination. In the end, we might have repeat history. If conservative libertarian want to avoid the fall of the west, they can migrate somewhere else and create a new country based on libertarian values. For example, we could buy land in Brazil and build a new civilisation. It is not outside of the realm of the possible.

Hi Stefan, Let me start by saying that I love your podcasts and that I find them absolutely necessary to cure this world from madness and to bring back reason and evidence. These past few years I have tried to turn back the tide that is threatening the west by debating and having discussions with people online and in my everyday life. I have observed that when I argue with them, even the strongest leftist or the most stuck up conservative can accept their share of truth until you reach a wall of what they are no longer able to accept. I am still convinced that we can heal this world in a none violent way with the weight of good ideas. Like they say, the truth will set us free. At the same time, I have unsubscribed to some channels that fear monger everyday about urgent news that we are under attack from the deep state that we need to pray and be ready to fight for our freedom. It might be true, but it is not in my power to go stand next to Trump with a shotgun to protect him and he is able to hire more qualified people to protect him. This fear baiting that Alex Jones does paints a very negative view of the world and I believe that it is only draining the energy of the conservatives. We also have to understand that if we live in a constant state of fear, like we have known during the cold war, that this creates more r selection type individuals. No, I believe that change is done in the way we live our lives every day. It could be argued that by being an example that seeking truth, to coexist peacefully with your neighbours, to be fair and just, and basically to be a pillar of your society, by doing that you become the evidence that libertarianism and conservatism is a successful way of life and you have a greater impact on the future of your civilisation that some nut that runs to the enemy with his rifle in hands screaming ‘’GOD WILLS IT’’. Through my debates and discussions I came to the conclusion that, even if you debunk the idiotic ideas of the left, you are only holding back the tide and not pushing it back. I came to the conclusion that we are either missing something in our argumentation or we are doing something wrong. So this summer I have focused on the topic of freedom. I have read the ‘’treaty of the second government’’ by John Locke, ‘’The Law’’ by Frederic Bastiat, I’m currently going through ‘’the liberal mind’’ by David Boaz, and through ‘’the universal preferable behaviour’’. I have notice a reoccurring libertarian concept that is not regularly touched on that might be more essential then we think. This concept is that in a free market economy, the market auto regulates itself. This concept is often called spontaneous order. This idea that the consumer and the producer have a constant exchange in which one adjust its prices to what the other consider a reasonable price for the item and the service and adjust their prices to the cost of production and to generate a profit. This spontaneous order can also be applied to ethics. If a company produces cheap good, but have a terrible work ethic, abuses children, or destroys the environment, then the consumer might decide to pay more for the same good provided by a company with more ethics. I believe that the concept of spontaneous order is essential to debunking the left, because the argument they regularly hide behind is that ‘’the right doesn’t care for the poor; the right doesn’t care about the environment; if there was a free market, you wouldn’t have welfare for the poor’’. All these assumptions are false. In a free market economy, the market more quickly to the needs of the consumers and, with fewer regulations, it generates more wealth, thus less poor people. As a scientist (I’m a student in biochemistry) I understand that, for the left, spontaneous order seems as magical as the concept of spontaneous generation. I believe that historical facts about the free market need to be brought back to the light of day as evidence of the existence of the spontaneous order. I have watched your presentations called ‘’the genes war’’ and ‘’the fall of Rome’’. They were both brilliantly presented. And the message is clear. The welfare state produces a false sense of abundance that triggers an epigenetic mechanism that favours the r selection type organism. These organisms are unable to identify threats and have no in-group preferences necessary to combat these threats. So before we become the next Rome, we must increase the number of K selection types in our population. With enough K types in our population we will be able to vote sensible laws that will fix our borders and return to a free market economy. Then the hostile migrants will have no choice but to return to the 3rd world being unable to earn a living in a competitive economy. I believe that libertarian ideas are the only way we can affect the r/K balance in our society.