Rventurelli

That is my main problem with Libertarianism: too many things are taken for granted, too many assumptions. People that get sucked into this intellectual dark hole tend to confuse theory with reality. Theory, like universal preferable behaviour, supply and demand and whatever, are simplifications of reality. They are not reality per se. The reason being that what is logic and what is right not necessarily will always produce the same results. Also, we communicate through language and language is imperfect, we lack the words and concepts to explain many things and sentiments. The best quote about this subject (theory not being the same as reality), come in my opinion from Napoléon Bonaparte: "There is no perfect battle -- the theory is only a line in which we trace curves." A theory is almost always better than no theory, because having no theory, or assumptions, we have chaos and cannot engage in a debate, make plans or understand to a certain extent our own actions and thoughts. In poetry, there are fixed formats and rules to write it well, there are rules to play chess well, there are principles and suggestions in the art of war -- guess what? You can write poetry without rhyming, without fixed formats and can still be pretty and have music to it. You can ignore rules like developing your pieces and making a castle as quick as you can in chess if you are good enough and still be a great chess player. You can ignore the rational rules of tactics and strategy in war and that can make you unpredictable and therefore can be used as an advantage. Have you ever see the drunk style of fighting? If you have not been drunk many times before it is devastating being unable to predict it. A good example for me of a theory that most Libertarians take for granted but is not necessarily true is the idea that if you practice 100 thousand hours of something you are better than 90 percent of the people doing that activity. While it does make sense, and it might apply to a big number of people, perhaps the majority of them if they have enough IQ, it is a theory, so it is imperfect, it can help us understand things but is not an absolute truth: my mother drives for longer than that and still sucks at driving to the point that it is scary being in a car with her driving and a mystery how she has not totaled more cars than she actually did. It is possible to multiply this examples ad infinitum, and I bet anyone reading this can think of examples in their own personal lives about things that they tried for many, many, many hours to learn, have done consistently throughout their lives and are still average or less than average doing it.

In my humble opinion that is a biased statement. I am much better in communicating over writing than over spoken words. I am a visual learner and my personality type (INTJ-A) is better in writing than speaking. Introvert people in general prefer written forms of communication over talking over the phone or over strangers in person. While it is very interesting to listen to the call in shows and I entertain the idea of calling Mr. Molyneux one day, I have difficulty remembering lectures, speeches and other things over spoken word (I lose about 80 percent of the content, so I have to constantly be watching/listening the same video to remember its contents), while I can remember so well things I read (around 80 percent) that I can often remember the font used, page format, pictures and graphs of it. When someone calls me, unless I am expecting the call and/or am doing some repetitive task like doing dishes, my first reaction if it is a saved number is to immediately hang up the call and if in good mood or getting repeated calls, text the person asking what is it about.

In the realm of relationships, it is much better to be alone than ill accompanied. Otherwise you get a lot of heartaches, stress and an empty bank account -- to say the least...

It certainly is the right time to do it. Donald Trump could never have been elected just merely fifteen years ago, when the gatekeepers still had much power.

I would say that if God exists (something I believe, but for which I cannot prove), it does not mean that any religion or group of religions is correct in the way that they depict Him. My belief is that if there is a God we cannot judge Him because he simply has powers and knowledge beyond our comprehension and we cannot understand what is his objective or desire for His creation (us). It is kind of a crappy comparison, but it could be that he is just playing The Sims with us. When you are playing Sims or house, it is not like you are really controlling living and breathing people. If you see an ant in the bathroom and you are naked you do not get the urge of rushing to put your clothes back on because you do not equate the importance of an ant to that of a human being. I know this can sound (look) really crazy, however, if Sims can play The Sims in The Sims, how do you know that we are not like chess pieces in some higher power chessboard? (Please do not take it too seriously)

I know this is kind of off topic, but: I think the only just wars are the ones fought over land. Land produces wealth and opportunities, not talking about farms only, you can build anything over land. It is the only thing that is worth fight and dying for other than self-defense, of course. People who say religion is the cause of all wars clearly do not know what they are talking about.

As Richard Spencer said in the NPI Conference of 2015 -- we won the "troll wars". My explanation for that is a generational divide and balkanization of the media: let us think a little bit of the readers of the Guardian and break them down by generations: The Silent Generation and few from the Greatest Generation that are still alive most likely read the Guardian in printed format[1] and will probably be old left types, the old left is class based more than anything else, remember, Karl Marx said the weaker races would perish in the revolutionary holocaust. Baby Boomers read newspapers and also look at the news online, usually only big, mainstream ones, but they are much less likely to look at the commentary sections and even less likely to reply to them. They do not like texting, preferring to call people, texting only became a thing when they were already over 35. They tend to be a mix of new left and old left, did not grow up experiencing "diversity" and got it very easy as far as economics go. They have the highest incomes of any generations and were not drafted to any major wars, at most the tail end of Vietnam, and for that only the older boomers. They have the arrogance of not needing to prove anything to anyone and also this thing about being much less likely to read comment sections and being very unlikely to respond. Millennials and Generation Xers in America (Generation Xers in Western Europe got their infancy at least without diversity) were the ones to experience "diversity", to be bullied and attacked at school, to see how on average the non-whites are simply not as bright. They were also the first ones to inherit a wrecked economy. Generation Xers, usually the most forgotten generation (those born between 1966 and 1983) were already in a situation where industry was moving very rapidly to Third World countries and getting a good paying job without going to college was hard. Gen Xers might have been able to land at good jobs with college degrees, because those were not as common at the time and the student debts were much lower, however, they still earn significantly less than boomers did at their age when you take inflation in consideration. Millennials on the other hand, they inherited the full mess. They earn much less and got harvested the fruits of "diversity" ever since they were born. Both of these generations are angry for getting the short end of the stick and are the ones who consume most of their news online and comment on those. Almost none of them read newspapers and many do not have cable news. They might not be proportionally the biggest readers of The Guardian or whatever, but they are the ones who comment, and the ones who experience the reality of today. We Millennials and Generation Xers (I am a Millennial) are used to the internet since early, and how fragmented it is. We get our news from many different sources and are not as susceptible to mainstream media because they already had lost the monopoly by the time we came of age and what they said already did not reflect what our eyes saw. Also, many of us grew up immersed in video games and/or watching watching the movies we wanted and looking at very specific TV series that could never have the same cultural impact that early ones had due to the enormous number of options. Let us take an example of how things used to be: Silents and Boomers grew up in a time that television had three or four channels at most. When the Beatles appeared in the Ed Sullivan show for the first time, almost 50 percent of the American televisions were tuned watching them. That is a cultural phenomena that the damn Super Bowl cannot even dream of accomplish, in comparison. There was only one time in television history that the audience was higher than the Beatles afterwards, in 1983[2]. Television, that used to be a unifier, now is so fragmented, that people cannot get the references that other people say and when we do find someone that watches the same shows as us we feel so euphoric that we want to be friends/lovers almost immediately. Sorry for the rambling. [1] http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/newspapers-daily-readership-by-age/ [2] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-reveals-beatles-are-all-time-tv-ratings-champs-58762347.html

I would say that the mainstream media is dying, because its audience is literally dying. The proportion of Millennials and Generation Xers that do not even have cable television is ever increasing. The only people who still seen to trust what they see on television are Baby Boomers and Silents, simply because they are at the age where people really do not care much what happens to the world -- they feel their time has passed already and there is no reason to adapt to the changing reality. Let me give you a comparison to make it a little bit easier to understand. I have read in a magazine many years ago (unfortunately do not remember the name), that on average, when someone hits 40 years of age, they stop consuming new music and just looks for things he knows already, for example, daddy grew up with 1960s and 1970s rock and hard rock bands. Instead of looking up for contemporary rock bands, he will only look forward to bands still surviving from the time or look at other bands from the time that he missed when he was growing up. Same thing seems to happen for technology -- my mother (56 years old), never truly learned how to use computers, anything more than absolute basic she needs my little brother to show her how to do. She only consumes (fake) news over Facebook and television. My father (53) came from a well off family so he had access to computers early on, but he really grew up reading printed newspapers. Unless it is the online version of the printed newspapers he believes to be reputable, he does not even bother reading it. Take a look at the demographics of newspapers readers: http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/newspapers-daily-readership-by-age/

I started reading his book about relationships and then stopped around half way through because I simply prefer so much physical copies of books. Speaking of that, will purchase a physical copy of it so I can finish it. Well, the biggest problem for internet dating is that it is a numbers or resume game. And the pre-selected crowd of women is the one I mentioned before. So... Not a lot of virtue there. Would recommend to try sites that are not mainly fort dating, but that you can meet people with similar interests/tastes.

I totally agree with you. My point is that after all is said and done, if it reaches that point we still have this new hope.

I am afraid that you are making too many assumptions here and also a false dichotomy. Please be sure that I am not accusing the honourable gentleman of doing the false dichotomy on purpose. Also I totally agree with stop invading other countries to impose Democracies on them. It is not because we have protectionist policies, in the sense of imposing tariffs, that those need to be "high tariffs" in "all of the imports". When the United States and Britain were heavily industrializing, they had the highest tariffs in the world, it was only when they already had a sizable industry and were at or near the technological frontier of the day that they cut down on tariffs[1]. Those tariffs averaged 45 percent. What would be the tariffs like? They do not need to be that high to start having a positive effect and they do not need to be imposed in all countries and all products in an uniformed manner, unless you are playing Victoria 2. It would be absurd to tariff raw materials or agricultural products that the United States does not produce, or absolutely cannot produce in sufficient quantities (like coffee). Tariffs could be directed only at manufactured goods, they could be directed to all of them, to specific countries or to particular companies. Let us say a more realistic scenario, probably like what Donald Trump could actually try to do: Mr. Trump is aiming to reduce the corporate tax from 35 percent to 15 percent, that is a 20 percent of tax revenue that the government is not taking anymore and is already helping to boost the productivity of our industry. That, however, increases the hole in the budget. So how about a 25 percent tariff in manufactured goods that we still produce in America, including, but not limited to cars? That is a historically moderate to low tariff and is not high enough that would make it impossible to sell products here. If the companies wanted to avoid those taxes, they could just open factories here and would not need to pay the tariffs! Oh, that would increase the overall price of goods by a significant margin! True. But the American worker would also have more money to spend due to the job preservation and creation here, cancelling that effect and, there is no better social program than a job: people would feel less alienated and would have more proud in themselves, being able to have good paying jobs without the need to go to college and get a huge student loan with no guarantee of a decent paying job afterwards. About preferring to have cheap Chinese goods so those people at least have jobs, again the 25 percent tariff would still have the Chinese products on the lower end of prices. If a country economy can only survive by child porn or by selling opium (Afghanistan before Taliban) would you purchase drugs or child pornography to support the country? Not only it would not be moral, it would give incentives for those countries to keep doing it. My opinion is that we should look to our own group first, as everyone else does. The reason we have the internet is the Cold War, nothing to do with the freedom of movement of people. In my opinion Libertarianism does not work because it takes for granted the idea that people are rational, when most people are not rational and cannot understand, even if we explain to them, why the Welfare State does more harm than good by rewarding vice and punishing success and virtue. [1] Kicking Away the Ladder - Ha-Joon Chang

It will, as long as there are enough young whites to revolt in pockets along those countries there is hope. The Iberian Peninsula was almost entirely conquered by the Muslims and Europeans were still able to reconquer it. And mind you, Portugal and Spain became the great powers soon afterwards, which lasted for some centuries, before England and France arrived with strength in the scene. Proud of my Portuguese heritage here, although I am mostly Italian.

An immigration policy should serve its people. What are the benefits of massive Muslim immigration? My opinion is that of course there are high IQ Muslims that are mostly secular, but so what? The average IQ of the Arab countries are below 85[1] and many sub-Saharan African countries are also majority Muslim. IQ is mostly genetic (around 80 percent in adulthood)[2], which means that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are going to be significantly duller than the ethnic majority of the country, and since IQ correlates very strongly with income[3], this will create resentment towards the host nation, as Muslims will have menial jobs, much lower income, most unemployment and will tend to cluster together with others in the same situation. This creates very easy targets for both radicalization and New Left politicians. Even for the intelligent Muslims, there is the factor know as "regression to the mean". Which means that the next generation tends to be less intelligent than the parents. Assuming the average Muslim is Arab (which is not necessarily true) and therefore has an average IQ of 85, a couple with an IQ of 115, two standard deviations above their racial group, will have kids that resemble more the average of their racial group (Arabs, 85)[4], resulting in kids in the range of 100-115, third generation they will very likely be below 100 again. That is one of the main reasons why as generations go by, Muslim immigrants get less adapted instead of more adapted[5]. [1] https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [3] IQ & Global Inequality, Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhannen [4] The Bell Curve, Richard J. Herrnstein & Charles Murray [5] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/15/myth-integration-muslims-europe-getting-radical-time-not-less/

Pardon me. The reason I did not provide any sources is because other than the average ages, which are easily found over the internet, the rest I did not claim to be true, I said it was my opinion. Nevertheless, here are my clarifications for the parts you highlighted in red and your questions. Why I believe it is inevitable: even if we completely stop immigration of non-Europeans to European countries, blacks and Arabs already have a bigger fertility rate than us whites and will eventually out-breed us, even though it will take longer than if mass immigration happened at the same time. The median age of whites in the United States is 42[1], of other European or European offshoots it is already worse than that, like Germany being 46.5[2] and that is including immigrants! The Gaza Strip is not even the most extreme example! 5 other African countries have an average age that is below 17![2] I know anecdotes serve only to illustrate things, but here it goes: I live in the United States of America, pretty much everywhere I go people are much, much older than me. It can be a coffee shop. It can be a video game store, it can be freaking anywhere except the NPI Conference, I either find a minority of people even younger than me or, most more likely, people average at the very least ten years more than me. I am in my early 20s by the way. About terminology: The term Caucasian of European Descent excludes Indians, Semites and the like. Hungary and Poland were only examples of countries that yet do not have the problem of mass immigration, but are aging fast and slowly dying. Poland for example, has significant emigration, with its population going either staying the same or decreasing every year since 1996, even though they fertility rate is ridiculous, they are 96.5 percent Polish and their economy is growing at a decent level. They have a median age of 40 now, compared to just 32 in 1990 and 29 in 1985![3] Regardless, thank you Mishi2 for your interest in the topic and for calling my attention to the lack of sources. [1] http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/04/19/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states/ph_2015-03_statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-2013_current-09/ [2] http://world.bymap.org/MedianAge.html [3]http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/poland-population/

Obama speaks with both sides of his mouth as usual.

To be honest, I do think sometimes that the best scenario for Western Europe is a near death one that does not totally debilitates it. Let me explain: Unless there is both an end to immigration and, even more importantly a very strong white baby boom, to the point fertility rates go above 2.5 children per women, it is simply inevitable that Europe as a whole can avoid Islamification, and that goes even for Eastern Europe. The reason is simple: the average Caucasian of European descent in the world is already 42 years old, when the average age in the Gaza Strip is 17. No matter if Poland and Hungary are keeping migrants out for now... Just you wait some two more decades, when the average Pole and Hungarian will be over 50 years old and the marauding Third Worlders will take it by force without much resistance possible. So if Islam does take over -- which is very possible, it will be terrible, BUT, after some two generations of ethnic Europeans being raised as men and in healthy numbers under Islamic rule, they will revolt and expel the invader. The price in blood, sweat and tears in this new reconquista will result in us not falling for the same error again for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Looks like this thread became off topic, so this will be my humble attempt to try to respond the original question. I have used many different dating websites, and it is my belief that they are a complete waste of time for men. The reason being, that it pre-selects the wrong type of people while making it an extremely frustrating near impossible experience for average men. Most of the women you will find in a dating website will fall under these four categories or a mix of them: I- Narcissist: pretty much any women who is alive and does not have a big toxic spreading mushroom growing out of her nose will certainly get likes and messages -- so the ones who are decent looking and above will be absolutely bombarded. Many women are on those sites just to prove to themselves they can get attention or because they already know that and want that attention. They will never go on a date with you or even reply, unless you are very attractive, looks popular or have lots of money. Intelligence means absolutely nothing in these other than a scare factor. II- Desperate: those are usually ugly as can be, mentally impaired or have some reason to want to rush to commit, like being pregnant, having just came out of a relationship, single moms that cannot manage their money. III- Panic Syndrome: they are afraid of meeting anyone, especially someone from the internet. They want to have someone but they are scared everyone will remove their masks and reveal themselves to be Jack the Ripper. If they schedule a date with you they won't show up. IV- Prostitutes/Scammers: they will send you a link to see them naked and if you click you will catch a virus. Alternatively, they will charge you for sex. --- What I would suggest, and it actually kind of worked for me twice, is to go to a website which is not about dating per se but can be used for it. Sites about shared interests that you feel passionate about and can organically get to know someone. If you are into music, you can look at websites like Tastebuds.fm, try this or other forums... Otherwise go to political conferences. I am sorry I cannot be of more help Jimmo100, however, that website mentioned Tastebuds.fm actually got me some dates, same with political conferences and other social events. Proper dating websites I tried for five years or so and never got a single date.

While this might not actually help you with making a project like the next Angry Birds for Smart Phones... Have you ever tried to use programs to create levels for existing games (like DooM Builder to create DooM levels) or programs to create specific types of games, like RPG Maker? You first need to learn how to walk before running or dancing. Not only can you have a creative outlet and have fun by messing around with those two, if you get good at those (making levels for existing games and making games with user friendly type specific games) you can build a lot of confidence by getting positive feedback on those. Better yet, you can do all by yourself at the beginning and then experiment doing small projects with one or two friends. I am sorry, but will have to disagree here. Playing video games was what made me learn English, never had a single day of an English course and it was good enough for me. If it was not for video games (and the Beatles to a certain extent), I would have never been able to live in the United States with just a minimum accent as I have been doing for years now. Other important factor was that video games shielded me from television, one of the main sources of degeneracy and manipulation.