Erwin

Exactly my point. Who feeds the data? That is subject to the researcher or developers. CO2 is a gas, and all gases are subject to Avogadro's Law (AL): Pressure * Volume = molarity * Temperature * Rydberg's Constant When the the temperature of CO2 or any gas rises, pressure increases. The Law of thermodynamics states that high pressure fluids move to low pressure fluids. In our atmosphere, the low pressure can be found in high altitudes, so that's where heated air moves. At low pressures, gases increase in Volume. When a gas increases in volume (aka decompression), Temperature decreases. Where the gas move up in temperature, the pressure approaches 0 kpa. That is such a low pressure that the particles never bounce off of each other to even have a measurable temperature. That's how cold the gas gets. If you still don't believe me, consider that gas decompression is a central component of your refrigerator. The cold decompressed air is run through the pipes allowing heat transfer from your food to the gas, which heats the gas and cools the food. So... Ya. It's not the CO2. The whole reason they say it's CO2 is because the experiments were run by heating air in a tank. As in, an environment where gas cannot expand, and thus, preventing the air to cool and normalize. IMO, that experiment is so stupid that only an academian would fall for it.

Based on his past behavior, I would say Kim Jung Un is profit-motive oriented and loves to stay in power. I think he is pursuing the Mad Man strategy, which has been used in the business world but not that often. ((( Carl Icahn ))) ?

I take it you haven't read The Art of The Deal? He has had fantastic negotiations, as exemplified in that book. So there is a historical precedent of very competent deal-making. Trump's every move so far has been straight out of that book.

I'm trying to compare the options available to us. If we were to be puritan about the NAP, none of us would have voted Trump because he is a statist. Most of us prefer Trump, because he was the more NAP candidate, relative to HC. The Alt Right is not an ideology. It is a racial movement. Most Alt Righters are statists, but the statism itself is not what the movement is about, but rather what most Alt Righters see as the solution. In my case, I think our free society is a racially segregated society (white society for us), since people prefer their own. So this is perfectly Alt Right, and perfectly voluntary association. I don't see how this violates the NAP.

Agreed. It's always the little guys who get bullied, because they can't fight back. There is no risk in violating someone who can't fight back and cause damage to you. This is why I wish people would stop freaking out. There is a big difference between war and the option of war. Consider the 3 possibilities, at the negotiating table / geo-political stage: 1. War is guaranteed: We will win the fight, but at what cost? 2. War is not an option: Then why should anyone negotiate with us? 3. War is an option: They now have an incentive to work towards avoiding the war. As a negotiator, I am convinced that Trump is going for option 3.

It sounds like their atheism is a bigger priority to them than you. Have you thought about getting better friends? I think it depends which religion, for who, and for what purpose. As the IQ drops I think religion becomes increasingly necessary. Low IQ limits how fast you can process information, and its complexity. Christianity is a great way to limit sex, procreation, poverty, and coercive behavior. For high IQ individuals, I think Christianity (and other Aryan religions due to their similarity in teachings) are a great source of virtues and values. Does Jesus care if you believe in him or God? Or is he more concerned with whether you are a good person...

You were talking about climate change research / predictions and its reliance on models. I can show you a simplified example of how they do it if you like. Jim was making the case that the models they use are basically crap. The financial models are just an example of that. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I are you proposing that the number factors can reverse the order of causality?

Because you can make a model do whatever you want it to do, and can easily be influenced by the developers' biases (which is very lefty). If the correlation were causal, yes. But the increasing rate of temperature increase took place a century prior to the fossil fuel industry. A can't be the cause of B if B came first.

Compared to what? The "Free Society"? What is the point of philosophy if not to apply it in the real world? In the real world, we have limited options. Right now, Free Society isn't one of them. The ethnostate is the most NAP option among all the options available to us currently, imo. Most do, yes. But so does Trump. And yet, he's more NAP that Hillary.

Tenets: - Race realism - Race is the foundation of identity / culture - People prefer their own When left to our own devices, most people tend to group with their own, like your typical cafeteria. We are asking for the freedom to do that. Being against forced diversity is quite pro-NAP the way I see it. Also, when you look at today's ethnostates, they tend to have fewer problems compared to us. Less problems, less gov spending, and therefore more NAP.

When we win an argument against ((( them ))), the response is: "well.. you know... history is written by the victors" Seriously? ((( They ))) won WWII, didn't they? So didn't ((( they ))) write the Nazi history? Not to mention, the death camps were under ((( Soviet ))) control, the camp docs were burned, and the images had starving German bodies edited out of the pictures... ((( Jews ))) would never lie about the HoloHoax would they? I mean, it's not like they have a dog in this figh--- oh, wait... never mind. ((( Their ))) theatre from 100 + years ago in Germany, is the first recorded instance of ((( them ))) challenging our norms / leftist media influence. Atheism (despite them being jewish), adultery, faggotry, transsexualism, etc. was pervasive, and portrayed in such a way that normalized and promoted non-stigmatization of degenerate behaviors. Absolutely. I don't blame them. Anything less, and they would probably be extinct right now. They have their interests, and they are not ashamed to show it proud. ((( Birthright Israel ))) ? Well, neither should we.

Actually, he was quite the capitalist within Germany. He privatized many industries. He privately made pro-private-property comments, and acted upon e.g. gradual replacement of taxes with tariffs. He even mentioned that he regretted calling his party socialist, since it was used to refer to something else by the ((( Soviets ))). Oh yes. The whole spiel about transgenderism, transracialism, trans-specie, trans whatever is fundamentally based on relativism. ((( Jews ))) have historically spent long periods of time in Goyim land. Their survival mechanism has always been to preach relativism, as a means to disarm the Goyim and prevent them for advancing their own interests. Today, the Goyim can't even admit that they even have interests out of fear of being labelled racist. "Here's the toilet paper currency you can use" - said the ((( Jew / bank ))) IMO, ((( they ))) are the same lot as the Muslims. It is a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day, they are both semites and preach very similar religions. They have very different interests from our Aryan peoples. Perhaps the wars would lead to starvation, but I think Hitler could have been glorious in his pursuits without war. In 1933, real income rose 10%. Mises must've been jealous... LOL! I think the biggest challenge is ourselves, since we receive the most resistance from our own people, not the ((( Jews ))). The Lion of Europa must awaken, once more. HAIL VICTORY

Most libertarians do not support Trump. Also, Stefan doesn't particularly care about labels. He simply applies the NAP to its logical conclusions, wherever it takes him. Trump is more in line with the NAP than any other leader. The Alt Right explicitly refer to Stefan (and similar figures) as Alt Light to differentiate. The Alt Right is not authoritarian. Most people don't know this but the Alt Right has its own left-right divide along economic issues. This is because the Alt Right has no foundation in economics or ethics. It is about identity, and pride in our heritage. It is perfectly possible to be part of the Alt Right movement and still adhere to the NAP, as is the case for many Alt Righters (like me).

ya... we're so racist and evil that everyone is risking death to come live among us. Ok!

I would highly recommend you check out this video. The parallels between then and now are freaky. Stefan has regularly said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the case of white countries, Germany is a great example. The ((( Jewish Commies / globalists ))) were winning. And then Hitler happened. Nationalism is much more in line with the NAP than Islam (which is globalist / world domination oriented). The current state (which is increasingly Weimar-like) is not static. We may very well have our own Hitler if Trump doesn't succeed. Between an Islamic State and Hitler (the smaller government of the two), I'll pick Hitler any day. Edit: Sorry for double-post, I think I did something wrong with the first post.

I would highly recommend you check out this video. The parallels between then and now are freaky. Stefan has regularly said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the case of white countries, Germany is a great example. The ((( Jewish Commies / globalists ))) were winning. And then Hitler happened. Nationalism is much more in line with the NAP than Islam (which is globalist / world domination oriented). The current state (which is increasingly Weimar-like) is not static. We may very well have our own Hitler if Trump doesn't succeed. Between an Islamic State and Hitler (the smaller government of the two), I'll pick Hitler any day.

Consider this: The source of relativism is basically some variation of "everything is an opinion". You can undermine that premise all you want, but all a relativist hears is that the premise of relativism is false "in your opinion"... This makes me think of whether I should develop a Relativism Translator: Input fact: 1 + 1 = 2 Translating... ... ... Output: 1 + 1 = 2, in your opinion.

I believe you are assuming that they will not find work. Consider this: 97% of people used to work in farms. 94% of the total has been automated away since then, so now we're down to 3% of the populations who work in farms. And yet, we do not have a 94% unemployment rate. Those people went on to develop and produce other things such as electronics, medics, services, etc. If 97% of the population was still required to work in farms, we would not have enough people to make all the things we have today. There is a difference between destroying jobs and displacing jobs. The problem is not with the job displacement itself. The problem is how fast those jobs are displaced. The regulatory climate is such that labor is VERY expensive. Companies have a HUGE incentive to invest in labor-saving R&D. Slash those regulations and I bet many engineers would have to find other projects to work on.

It seems to me that the arguments proposed here assume that the concept of self does not already exist. Perhaps we should defined what we mean by the concept of self? A programming analogy has already been provided. To follow through this analogy, the majority of large-scale applications are developed with an object-oriented paradigm (OOP). What OOP means is simply that the software relies on concepts being represented as objects of some kind. For example, assume that "Application" is an object: app = Application() app.name = 'My Application' app.description = 'Performs magic' app.price = '$50' Isn't "app" the concept of self in this case?

I will take a slightly different opinion than the other posters. This is purely based on my experience. It is impossible to have an argument with a relativist, since an argument requires making arguments. It is not impossible to have a debate. I call it engaging in logical Jiu Jitsu: it is very easy to use a relativist's arguments against the relativist. E.g. Relativist: "There is no right or wrong, so don't judge. You are a racist bigot if you judge people." You: "You are judging me a racist bigot to argue against judging?" This tactic forces the relativist to make arguments. Why? Because this puts the relativist in a position where one of the claims must be abandoned, and the other claim defended with an argument.