deadflagblues

I think people would take anarchism even less seriously if it claimed that government was necessary.

Assuming that virtue is more likely to be present in white people, virtue is still not inherent in whiteness of skin. A preference of whiteness over non-whiteness in every circumstance is the replacement of virtue with a poor estimator of virtue. Stefan takes adherence to western culture as a stronger indicator of virtue than he does whiteness, As for the nationalist part, Stefan is an anarcho-capitalist. Believing that a nation which gives out resources to invaders needs strong borders does not mean that you desire a nation.

Welcome. I hope that the forum meets your expectations and that its members may help you to find what you seek.

Perhaps a scenario of birth was inadequate. A better scenario would be one in which there are two equally developed, potentially independent conjoined twins, where one must be killed in a separation process or one will die. Any of the three actions has an immoral component (as if they were both to survive this would be more moral than any of the three listed possibilities), but one action must be taken as the best and most moral action, ergo immoral action 1 can be more moral than immoral action 2 and thus immoral action 1 is a moral action in this constrained scenario. It follows that voting for one candidate rather than another (qualitatively different) candidate is, even if immoral, more moral than voting for another candidate. So how immoral can a voter be? The limit of the immorality would be a measure of the limited amount of information available to them concerning the probable actions of each candidate would suggest, relative to the other outcomes. If it is reasonable to expect a certain candidate to act more in the interests of the populace, then a vote for this candidate is more moral than a vote for the compared candidate. Probability and likely outcome are both important when discussing moral dilemma. A doctor has three dying patients, who will all be dead in an hour. He can save just one with a probability of 90%, or he can attempt to save two with a success probability of 30% (if he fails, both die). He can attempt to save all three - 0% chance. A person who, understanding the act and its consequences, acts in a way that would further the chances of an immoral outcome is committing more of an immoral act that a person who does so unknowingly. Ergo, the doctor who attempts to save three lives, understanding that he will fail to save any if he does so and forgo the opportunity to almost certainly save one life, is committing an immoral act almost akin to murder. In voting, if there are two candidates, there are three options that an individual can make - vote for A, vote for B, abstain from voting. If a person sees that it is likely that A will be far better for the people than B, but still refuses to vote, then the individual is choosing a scenario in which his actions have only served to increase the probability of an immoral outcome. Claiming to know the outcome of a scenario in which a majority of people refuse to vote does not help here. You do not know what will happen. Legislation that forces a vote (see Belgium) does not seem less likely than the sudden absolution of government. It cannot be accounted for in ones decisions.

Can actions be made up of more than one moral component? That is, is the murder of a particular 8 month old fetus immoral itself qua murder, but permissible in as far as it also has the moral component of saving the life of the mother in a particular instance? From the other perspective, is allowing the death of the mother immoral qua allowing a wholly preventable and non-suicidal death to occur, but permissible in as far as it also has the moral component of saving the life of the fetus in a particular instance? If there is no immoral component to allowing the mother to die, is it also moral to allow people to die even when there is no greater moral action foregone? If there is no immoral component to killing the fetus qua murder, then what possible immorality can there be to mass infanticide? One of these options has to be chosen, but if actions causing either murder or a preventable death are always immoral does it not follow that all avenues of action are immoral? If so, then how do we decide which option we ought to take? Why should we not take the path of comparing the relative moralities of each whole package of mixed moralities and immoralities? In the realm of moralities and immoralities, are magnitudes at all relevant? If we assume that it is immoral to kill a man, is it not more immoral to kill ten men? If we assume that it is immoral to tax each man a dollar, is it not more immoral to tax each man ten thousand dollars? If a one dollar tax is preferable and more moral than a ten thousand dollar tax, is voting for a one dollar tax preferable to voting for a ten thousand dollar tax? If not, is it equally as immoral to vote for a one hundred percent tax as it is to vote for a 0.01% tax? Is it equally as immoral to vote for the genocide of a major demographic of voters as it is to vote for an increase in border security? If all voting is immoral, is it equally as immoral to vote for a candidate who pledges to use his power solely to repeal laws that initiate force upon other people, in addition taking one dollar of income from the people as salary, is it equally as immoral to vote for the aforementioned candidate as it is to vote for a candidate who will use his power solely to create laws that initiate force upon other people, in addition taking a million dollars of income from the people as a salary?

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48496-youtube-the-truth-about-americas-survival-demographics-and-the-2016-election/

Your analysis is correct, and given the space you had to write, you did a good job. You missed out how slavery was an institution that was only allowed to succeed by government itself. To name a few such causes: Humans were allowed to be legal property, just as the walls of your house are - if you're renting your house, you are not allowed to destroy the walls of your house. The same applied to slaves - if you were renting a house that came with slaves attached, you were not allowed to free the slaves. The U.S. Government conscripted citizens (usually non-slave-owners) to spend hours each week patrolling an area and searching for any run-away slaves. This was not voluntary, and there was minimal if any pay. I recently read a book that I'm sure you would be extremely interested in: Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks & White Liberals". It's fantastic.

Every election campaign can be called a campaign of hate by sophists who have no arguments and do not like what is being campaigned for or against. A campaign for coffee is a campaign of hate to tea justice warriors.

Trump paid for a newspaper ad two weeks after this occurred, stating that we should bring back the death penalty: “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence.” Homicides had reached a high of a massive 2,000 per year in New York alone - they rose about sixfold since 1960 (the introduction of the expansion of "insanity" as a defence in court and the denunciation of the death penalty). What this means is that in the two weeks that passed since the incident, ~84 more murders occurred, and likely countless more muggers. Trump made no direct mention of this one assault and rape. The axe once again falls on Trump's head for something entirely unrelated to him because of a statement he made condemning the fact that those previously found guilty had their cases settled for $40 million. All evidence is taken from this source. Trump is clearly not frustrated that non-white men were released from prison and found innocent. He is frustrated at the fact that they were done so after so many years, and that this sheer incompetence cost the taxpayers of New York a fair amount of their local budget. He correctly brings up attacks on people other than the initial in the trial, and questions whether or not these five men would be found guilty of charges against these victims, instead. As always, charges of Trump being a racially charged bigot fall flat on their face. At most, this shows us that Trump does not trust the decisions of settlement cases which occur long after the crime had been initially enacted.

This year has marked the first year of the real challenge against globalism. They've barely even understood that it's time for them to go on the defensive and react to what has happened. They'll react, they're extremely powerful people. They still control all important governments, they still control all international bureaucratic agencies, they still control all central banks. There will be a recession within Trump's presidency, a big one. It will be blamed on a deviation from the status-quo of globalism. If the people remain steadfast to anti-globalism when the globalists respond, then peak globalism is already behind us. If not, then it will get much, much worse.

What Trump says between now and his inauguration is a pretty poor estimator of what his intentions are. He has the votes, he ran his campaign, but as of right now he cannot act. It's in his best interest to calm nerves and appear to be a man of the middle ground, and also to placate the elites until he has the power to drain the swamp.

So how long should we continue to protect and expand socialist big government policies so that the socialist big government party cannot make socialist big government policies?

Are you sure about this one? I keep finding conflicting statistics on male homosexual promiscuity. Even if this is true and male homosexuality is extremely unsafe, I don't really see how this is a libertarian issue unless forcible subversion into homosexuality is a thing. If these stats are true, I do see an issue in countries in which healthcare is owned and distributed by the state, though that's more of a gripe with government healthcare than homosexuality. Also, it seems likely that homosexual promiscuity isn't a problem with homosexuality qua homosexuality, but of homosexuality qua it does away with the need for a highly selective person in the pairing, that is, the woman.

Perhaps try to figure out what issues are most important to them and then try to market Trump to them in a way which focuses on the issues that you think are important to them. If family is important to them, perhaps mention Trump's childcare tax breaks. Also try asking them seemingly neutral questions: "America should stop being a warmongering nation, right?". Surely they'll agree. Show them the wars that Hillary voted for, the destruction that she created in Libya, the tensions she wanted to create in Syria through the same actions as used in Libya, and show them Hillary's aggression against Russia. "You want wages to go back up, right?". Show them this page. "You want money and foreign interests out of politics, right? And don't you think it would be good if we could have real change, not just of president, but a guaranteed change of all of congress?" Show them the same page. Next refer to this page. Contrast this with what Trump plans to do in the previous page. This is a good time to mention funding from governments that legislate the stoning of gays, witches and atheists - Trump doesn't want these people pushing policy in the US. After this, they'll hopefully be more in favour of Trump and less in favour of Clinton - you can now probably ask them things like "How exactly is Trump a [racist/sexist/bigot]? I showed you some stuff against Hillary, so can you get some stuff on Trump for me to look at?". If they bring up Trump's decade old comments on that bus, link them to this video. Ask them: "What's more likely to be legislated? A law which allows men to "grab women by the pussy", or a law which subtly rigs the system against a group of people who are irredeemable "super predators". If they say that she didn't mean "all blacks", you can now use this against them by saying that Trump didn't mean all Mexicans when he spoke out against illegal Mexican immigrants. Mention how Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013 - just after it was signed into law and became a major issue. On the issue that "the media would never lie!", go to 35 on the wikileaks page that I already linked. Ask them how they can believe that a group of businesses which both fund Clinton and attend dinners with her campaign can possibly be unbiased and bipartisan.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47719 You can see this if you download the PDF attached. Sanders fans still overwhelmingly vote Hillary, of course.

https://puu.sh/s0QGb/e6d501ec2b.jpg https://puu.sh/s0QFc/2a7cf1efde.jpg https://puu.sh/s0QFR/5eb9a4fd3b.jpg Start with this and look into the specific laws to dig out what she did to break them.

Accidentally double-posted. See below.

This video manages to be even more potent than 'the truth about gun control'. So many not-not arguments packed into a single hour. Perhaps the definitive video in support of the idea that current immigration plans are an absolute catastrophe.

While the polls are almost definitely biased in favour of Hillary, don't you think that these are even less likely to be an accurate representation of voting trends? Hillary's voter base are primarily people who don't actually know what Trump's proposed policies are, and every single person who took this test now has at least a minor understanding of how closely they agree with Trump. Perhaps it's a good representation of how many people agree with Trump, but it's not a good representation of how many people think that they agree with Trump.

Arabic editions of non-Islamic literature are also notable for changing the source material of the text so it fits Islamic dogma and widely held Islamic belief, so that any one of those books that is originally anti-Islamic in ideology or consequence becomes a propaganda piece for Mohammad (peas be upon him) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf_in_Arabic

Yes, this helps. I was under the impression that banks were almost universally pushing the limits of what is allowed by the current fractional reserve ratio, and so was assuming that any money added to the bank's banks when debt is paid off by the government would almost immediately result in this money being multiplied by the inverse of the current reserve ratio and increasing the money supply. Thanks.

So when this new money is injected into banks, what's actually stopping it from entering the wider money supply? Is there really an ad infinitum back and forth between banks to settle checks? I feel like I understand the reason why money is given to banks to settle taxpayer payments, but how does the money supply not eventually grow because of need (a) that you listed? Thanks for your work.

Why exactly don't the banks circulate the money that is injected into them by the Fed in order to pay off debts? If they are bound to not circulate it then what value does this money actually hold for them and why do they accept it as a form of payment on a debt?

Prove that rationality is not the best method to approach reality and do so without using this system that you deem to be inferior to the task.

If we accept that the function of being able to distinguish between attractive and unattractive people is to find the best mate which would result in the strongest generation of offspring, then there should be an objective standard that the faculty of discerning looks should aim towards and be measured by. The objective best mate for this purpose varies per person, so there doesn't appear to be an individual that is objectively the most attractive human, though for each individual there is an objectively most attractive mate and the quality of each person's faculty of discerning attractiveness should be measured relative to this potential mate.