lorry

Politico: Breitbart Bangs the Drum in Alabama Senate Showdown!

But what causes homosexuality? http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf *edit I just found a paste bin linking a link to this on another board.

They need permission, but I don't know that it has to come from the government.

Sorry OP, I feel as though I must. That said, I'll put forward my interpretation of the Alt-Right position, as I consider myself to be Alt-Right. Can you define your terms? Beginning with the title: optimal for whom, optimal for what?

No worries. YouTubers often talk of the need to communicate / argue / debate / free speech after spats of political violence, viz. Charlottesville. Said YouTubers don't use their platforms for said communication / argument / debate / free speech. So said YouTubers say we need to do something, and then don't do it. If they don't do what they say needs to be done, it can be assumed their is some negative consequence which outweighs that which they say needs to be done, ie, being called a Nazi or hassled by YouTube, whatever. So it is a virtue signal. No different from JK Rowling banging on about housing refugees, but not in her house! We need to communicate and debate, but not on my channel! And so it just an empty sentiment that means nothing and will achieve nothing, just like tweeting #PrayForXYZ, where XYZ is the location of the latest Islamic terrorist event. I was venting, but I hope that is more clear.

Any golden nuggets anyone would like to share? I ordered in paperback but it doesn't arrive for days.

Could totally be overestimating him. That said I don't think you need to seize 60% of the seats, I think you just need to take out a few key people and watch everyone else's heads go down. To use an analogy, you don't need to kill all the Trojans, but make damn sure you kill Hector!

I mean, it is total supposition, but "Bannon is going to war" and he must know, by virtue of him time in office, who needs to get, metaphorically, taken into a field and shot in the back of the head. This is off topic, but I think (feel?) as though Scaramouchi being fired was the plan to. Like, he (Trump) needed someone to come in, get something done, but that someone was going to get wrecked for it. Someone needed to take one for the team. I get that, I've done that, and I'd do that for someone who has or would do it for me. As Stefan pointed out many times, Trump is being attacked all day every day and he doesn't need to do it, he is taking one for the team. It light of that I don't see how Scaramouchi could say no, even if it means getting wrecked, assuming a similar mind set. Hell, Scaramouchi had to do it (would feel as though he had to do it) if he has the same mind set.

You're not being dense, I was wrong, or I was being a pedant (and I was wrong).

So the trend in this case is that increased diversity has a negative impact upon a variety of social factors as per the Putman study. People act differently, implying people care about increased diversity. Stefan has, I think, indicated that under certain criteria, viz. homogeneous values, he doesn't care about diversity. He doesn't care about diversity, under such conditions, and so won't act differently. So Stefan in the above case would be the tall Chinese man, he is the example that doesn't follow the trend. As Stefan knows of the Putman study, it follows that he knows he is a tall Chinese man, so... virtue signalling. edit. Don't get me wrong, it is probably a good idea, pragmatically speaking, but we are not Deweyites. thb I'm probably mischaracterising the position, I'll listen to the pod-cast again. Struck out because I'm being a pedant, or wrong.

I can recall Stefan saying, to paraphrase, if immigrants had great values and a genuine love of freedom he would not care where they were from or what ethnicity they were. The most recent pod-cast that comes to mind is the interview with Peter Brimelow. Given the results of the Putman study, does this not make Stefan a tall Chinese man? If so, does it follow that Stefan's comments could be considered virtue signalling?

Well, no. Communicating information does not have to be verbal only, it could also be non-verbal in the form of action, cleanliness, fashion choice, etc.. all of which you could say revealed preferences about the subject (at that point in time and space) and could be used to update your beliefs about the subject (Bayes Rule). An example could be the clothing worn to an interview communicating a persons professionalism, their cleanliness communicating their empathy (do people with dandruff not understand how disgusting it is for some other people? empathy!). We then use that information to update out belief about the interviewee. In the case of Charlottesville you might say you have two groups working so as to update, or maintain, observers belief's. The left have worked so as to inculcate a belief that white identify is evil and so you could assume they would wish to maintain this belief, the right wish to update it. What would it say if the rally was peaceful? How is the belief updated? What would it say if the rally was violent? How is the belief updated? Who benefits in each case? And now we know why it ended like it did. (Which, btw, was a function of police action, following state orders, so as to initiate conflict, by funnelling the right directly into the left as they left Lee Park).

On November 6th, 2018, 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 seats in the Senate are up for election. It would be a shame if someone organised the base and made sure key people in opposition to Trump's agenda didn't get re-elected.

I think because have multiple units allows us to conceptualise what is occurring in a manner familiar to out embodied experience of reality. Like, why do me use a measure of a meter instead of cm, or mm, or nano m or pico m etc? What happens if you consider a fall from a height of 6m, does it feel like it would hurt as much as a fall from 20ft? With regards to the rest of your question, check out this video...

This is not directed at FDR, which I consider to be doing a great job (Taylor, Brimelow, etc. al.), but towards Alt-Media in general. How many times does one hear of the requirement for the free exchange of ideas, of the flow of information, so as to stem the drive towards violent conflict? From the Alt-Media, the Rubins, the Sargons, the Rebels, etc, I believe I hear it often (do I need a citation?). Yet, how often do these very same people use their platforms for that which they advocate? I understand there will be negative consequences, and for me to say Alt-Media must pay those consequences would be hypocritical, for the rebuttal would be why have not I created my own platform (which would entail paying in negative consequence as I would have to then not achieve that which I am working to bring about). But then why espouse this as a value? As required action? Who exactly do they think is going to do it? It has become, I think, the equivalent of #PrayForXYZ and when I think about it I experience a similar disgust.

If I was Sam, inconsistent as I am, I would never debate Stefan.

Wow man, that is a great question. An idea. LGB have higher ACE scores then do heterosexuals, as can be seen from this study. The study found that, on average, LGB ACE score is almost double that of heterosexuals. The normalisation of homosexual behaviour could be viewed, perhaps, as the normalisation of the behaviour resulting from child abuse. That would fit with Stefan's model of the socialist as the neglected child (higher ACE scoring child) projecting their unfulfilled need upon the state. *edit I have implicitly assumed that a large component of LGB behaviour is a function of ACE, I think that is a reasonable assumption given the correlation between ACE and socially destructive behaviour (drugs, promiscuity, criminality) and the study linked shows mental distress in LGB, when normalised for ACE, is accounted for.

They didn't get to speak.

The implicit assumption is that people going to college, people around 18 years old, have an understanding of these concepts and an evaluation of them as bad. Else, why should such people care about the output of his website? I don't know how Jordan came to the conclusion that anyone with an understanding of these concepts and an evaluation of them as bad, who is not also possessed of intelligence such that they are able discern which programs promote such concepts and are thus bad, should even go to college. I don't think his market exists.

Online trainer, Udacity, has a a guarantee, a job in 6 months of finishing or all your money back, on some of their courses. https://www.udacity.com/nanodegree/plus I did the Full-Stack option, but not the job guarantee version, AMA.

I dunno man, I haven't thought about breathing in a while.

Listening on and off now on audio-book. Wanna know something weird? Heard Adolf describe Austrian politicians as "zeros and ones", like, in the Randian sense of a zero and a one. I've never heard anyone else ever use this phrase before, but perhaps it is common among German 20th century literature? I know Rand read German, so she could of picked it up from somewhere else, hard to tell because she doesn't reference her works.

I think we have already seen PNN, well, sort of. News isn't just information about what happened (or fake information (anti-information?) or the spinning or suppression of information), it is said information in addition to cues as to what the reader/viewer is supposed to feel about what happened. Pewds has already waded straight into this area. Take for example the series of videos that the WSJ freaked out about. On one level its just a prank bro, on another he is presenting you information, be it partial, and conditioning your emotional response. PNN! On a side note, viewership activation is, I think, why the forum is empty.

Eli the Computer Guy has a few good videos on the topic. He has changed the name of his "Eli the Computer Guy Live" channel to "Failed Normal Redux". Attached is one such video, but he has many such videos should you care to browse his back catalogue.