Search the Community

I wrote an article for steemit on why I think the blockchain will end the world as we know it. I would greatly appreciate any feedback that you guys have to give. Here's a link to part 1 and part 2, I didn't realize they had a character limit so I had to make the conclusion it's own post.

Please make a video on this worthless shit stain. The videos speak for themselves

Hi all I've become a big fan of Stefan's podcasts over the past 6-12 months. He, along with other prominent thinkers, has opened my eyes to powerful ways of viewing the world. I've attempting to start contributing some ideas of my own. I feel like I am merely pulling ideas of intellectual 'giants', but it has been fun nonetheless. I've been doing this primarily on the blockchain blogging site steemit.com. It's a great concept and I recommend supporting the platform. My latest piece on there is titled 'The Case for Freedom - Welfare Edition' Feel free to check it out Cheers Ryan

The odds of there ever being an interview with the Martin and Illie Anderson senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson. His newest book "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict was fought and Won" is a definite get for anyone interested in a fresh look at the events that unfolded during WW2. I have definitely enjoyed his lectures on politics an the issues going on in California. An interview between Stefan and Victor I believe would be quite intriguing. Your thoughts?

In arguments, I have noticed a sort of algorithmic pattern of behavior from leftists. We've been analyzing the ideas and environmental factors associated with the modern left, but we need a deeper understanding. It has been one of my greatest intellectual challenges to unravel the most fundamental emotions and motivations of their ideology. Disclaimer: I will be broadly generalizing in my descriptions. 'Leftist' is a broad term with variability in its definitions which is used to describe millions of people who are all different. Existential Anxiety and Fear: There are a great many threats in the world, and most people are aware of more than a few of these threats. Our fear and anxiety comes from an ancient part of our mind, one equipped for immediate threats and unfamiliar situations. Human beings are in a unique position of feeling our 'primitive' fear and anxiety in response to every threat imaginable. And, we can imagine so many existential threats to our lives, and to our well-being. We can also imagine threats to our ideology and mental continuity, which is an important element in this description. You may have observed someone become absurdly upset in response to an idea. New ideas can be perceived as an existential threat; a threat that was not anticipated and is not fully understood. The idea is not just a group of words, it is a gateway to an abyss. It is an implication that one is misguided, ignorant, stupid, poorly equipped for life, and/or doomed to suffer and die. The Abdication of Personal Responsibility: It can be a great relief to reject personal responsibility. It dispels anxiety, guilt, and shame. It means not having to work harder or to improve oneself. It means not having to change or to annihilate parts of oneself in order to become better. Determinism: Perhaps determinism is rational, even scientific, but that is not the main reason the modern left favors it. The modern left favors determinism because it allows them to abdicate personal responsibility, something they value far more than scientific rationality. Scientific rationality could not be their highest value because they reject the scientific claims that conflict with their ideology. Unhappiness: Let's face it: most people are unhappy most of the time. Happiness is not a common or sustainable state. "Life is suffering." We live in an era of unprecedented affluence and luxury, but people are still unhappy. The modern left has a specific response to suffering in life. Because they abdicate personal responsibility, the modern left must blame environmental factors for their suffering. Therefore, to diminish suffering, the environment must be altered. It is the only real conclusion that can be drawn from these elements. Of course, altering the environment usually means using state power. Faith in Government: It is a common response to fear and anxiety to put faith in a 'higher power' in hopes of receiving some protection from the existential threats. Just considering potential corruption in the government is frightening. Not only that, the idea of government corruption could return the onus of responsibility to the individual. To them, government is the most powerful tool we have to alter society in order to reduce suffering and make people happier. Faith in government reduces fear and anxiety, relieves personal responsibility, and it can be used to alter society and environmental factors. Idealizing Society: Instead of idealizing potential characteristics of individuals, the modern left must idealize potential characteristics of society. This too, is caused by the abdication of personal responsibility. Because suffering and inequality cannot be the result of individual inadequacy, suffering and inequality must be caused by environmental factors. Therefore, environmental factors must be changed. They pursue utopia. With these elements in mind, the political beliefs of the modern left don't just make sense. These factors make their political beliefs inevitable.

Since Syria, we have been talking about how Trump is either being pressured or converted by ((( Jared Kushner ))) and his ((( Neo-Cuck ))) friends. Since North Korea, we have been completely perplexed as to why Trump is playing with fire. I (and many others, e.g. Bill Mitchell) have pointed out that Trump has a history of being cold and calculating, during his negotiations. During his campaign, he often did jaw-dropping things. Many reacted by calling him a mad-man, only to find out weeks later what the original plan was. I think that today, we may have some insight as to what the geo-political chess was about. By agitating North Korea, Trump has created a situation where South Korea really needs the US military. CNBC just announced that Trump is now threatening to terminate the free trade deal with South Korea if Seoul doesn't pay for US defense. BOOM. Art of The Deal, baby! So do you guys still think Trump is a mad-man? Or can we finally admit that Trump is a methodical strategic genius?

To all who support returning to a gold standard for our currency (Libertarians mostly) or who want the market to determine the currency everyone uses, I would put forward this argument for your consideration. Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will never lose its value. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. You have let people like Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and other conspiracy theorists trick you into wasting large amounts of money on gold as "protection" from "confiscation" of wealth. I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize. Whenever these fear mongers and snake oil salesmen are proven wrong they merely revise their timelines outwards to scare people into doing even more irrational things like dropping everything and going to buy property and be socially isolated. Nothing against people who choose to not live in a city, but these fears of economic collapse are unfounded and you are intentionally misleading young and impressionable minds. Why is it exactly the economy has not completely collapsed though these people are absolutely convinced it will? Well I would say it hasn't happened because millions of people have a vested interest in not living in a complete Mad Max style war zone where tribal chieftains and warriors are the ruling class. People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does toady? Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far, but that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms and customs and systems we have developed over the millennia. Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results has it? Unless you use gold for every transaction, this is irresponsible Libertarian scare mongering and propaganda. Gold is an archaic and regressive standard to try and return to. Just because it was valued by humans in the past does not mean it will be valued today. Values are subjective and are always changing apart from the most fundamental. There is no fixed state of mankind, no ideal that we can look at and replicate at any point in time nor should we try to. My advice would be to stop attempting to scare people about debt based fiat currency so that they will use your services. This is a dishonest and unethical business model and you will defraud misinformed individuals. For example, the mortgage that people sign to their house is a debt that you voluntarily agree to as a condition for owning a home. Each month you pay interest on a maturing principal until you eventually have it payed off. Libertarians need to calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS. If anything we may experience a depression or recession because, ironically, businessmen on Wall Street and in the financial sector are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. This is also why we have governments, to ensure that Capitalism is kept in check with regulations and a court system to punish offenders. I get the feeling that all of the people calling for public schools to be dismantled have never once taken a basic Civics class from the "indoctrination" camps. It's no wonder America is last in education around the world, people hate public schools, are tragically ill informed, and favor private Christian schools where they are never taught our country's founding. I wonder if there is any connection between a misanthropic attitude towards public schools and ignorance on the history of our country? In conclusion, I would urge any Libertarians out there to seriously critically analyze the ramifications and reasoning behind the positions that you take. I can already see the response to this essay so I imagine most of you will not listen, but for those who do read authors like Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin etc. and think about what all of these men have in common. Thank you for reading.

People of the Conservative or Libertarian persuasion are being persecuted for tweeting and updating our Facebook statues from our bedrooms and other areas of our homes. Helloooooo! Leftists! Marginalized African American over here. Don't make me use the race card. I swear it's like you try to debate with Leftists and the SJW trifecta talking points come out immediately: Racist, Misogynist/Sexist, Homophobic. Or some other variant of that. RMH. From now on the moment I see the RMH I'm done. Nothing of value can be had by trying to engage with these people. At one time these terms may have held some weight but now they are as empty and meaningless as the KKK or Nazi's whom are also not prevalent whatsoever in modern society. Ironically by forcing Milo to cancel his event, the Leftists are giving him the platform and press they so badly want to deny him. If people's lives weren't in jeopardy this would be comical. Do these people even have brains to think? Trying to reveal hypocrisy to an SJW is like trying to push two magnets together. You think you've got it and then they deflect and bounce off of your points. So I have to wonder, are all of these students going to be held liable for the damage they caused to a university campus? After all they did voluntarily agree to thousands of dollars of debt to receive their "education." Or are mommy and daddy going to be picking up the tab in this instance? Is anyone really shocked at this point though? I mean honestly let's be real here, they're a whole bunch of Regressives. Why this is continuing to be tolerated on the campuses of reputable and elite schools I have no idea but I would hope that it comes to a decisive end post haste. I should not be in fear for my life simply because I am a Conservative or Libertarian. Personally I am a Libertarian and currently a college student in Alaska so it is nowhere near this level of insanity and hysteria on my campus. However, the rest of my peers in my generation and for generations to come who happen to find themselves not agreeing with the Left on some or everything they stand for should not fear for their lives every time they step foot on campus. There is only so much time before there is a major backlash that could potentially be violent. Please, Leftists let's keep it civil. So in conclusion, Progressives are continuing to show their unwavering dedication to diversity and inclusion by setting fires at a Milo Yiannopoulos talk. I wonder if the Left is even redeemable at this point. It's going to take a hell of a lot more Dave Rubin's in this world before I begin taking the Left seriously again. #UCBerkeleyRiots

Throughout the Trump campaign and leading up the the election I have spoken with many people online and some in person about Trump's Nationalist platform and his ideas for economic protectionist oriented policy. I certainly do empathize with where most if not all of the people who supported Trump in the US and in Europe are coming from in terms of cultural deterioration and wanting jobs to come back to the US but there are some flaws with protectionism as economic policy. Allow me to explain: The problem with protectionism remains the same as it has always been. If we decide to impose high tariffs onto all of the imports from China or Korea or Mexico or wherever those foreigners will just stop sending their much less expensive products to the US or decide to impose tariffs on our exports thus canceling out the effect and intention of the policy. This would be fine I suppose if you are able to afford the premium that would be charged for "Made in America" products. The reason prices will go up is because Americans will not accept "slave wages" that are often associated with sweat shops and factories over seas. However, the problem is millions of people will not be able to afford it or just will not buy the products or services for the sake of keeping costs down if it is possible to find these things elsewhere for cheaper. You cannot have high wages and low costs at the same time. You have to pick one or the other. Personally, I would much rather have my cheap Chinese products because it is employing people there and in other countries thus allowing them to get out of poverty.The lifting off people out of poverty is a result of globalization and not Nationalism. Also if you want to stop the migrant crises in the future, one good first step would probably be to stop blowing shit up in those countries and attempting to nation build. After all if YOU had your home blown to bits you would be pretty pissed off at whomever had done it and would then need somewhere to live. The foreign policy of the United States has to be dramatically changed so that we stop having all of these crises and so that Globalization can finally stop being so vilified. The free movement of people and ideas is the reason we even have the Internet. If people will not accept curtailing of freedom in this regard then how can you reject it when it comes to borders? I get that you have to keep troublesome people who are not looking to improve their lives or contribute to society out of your countries, but you can do that without punishing the people who want genuinely want to contribute. The big issue is that a whole bunch of Statists are not interested in peace. The US always has to go in and invade some random country because of an evil dictatorship. Instead of allowing the country to settle its own disputes and perhaps intervene in a diplomatic way, we have to start 15 year wars that cost trillions of dollars and leave us with wounded veterans who will never be the same. I find it very difficult to see any reason or benefit to continuing on into the future with this type of foreign policy. Libertarian philosophy and economic models never work because people in this country worship at the altar of a proactive, aggressive military and Crony Statism is most other areas. I am not condemning the military or anything our service men and women do per se. I would just like for the Department of Defense to maybe actually focus on defense. Invading sovereign nations may satiate your bloodlust in the short term but it's the economic prosperity of future generations that suffers as they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences financial or otherwise. I think a lot of Nationalists have never been to those foreign countries to see the working conditions and how they have improved. Granted at first they were bad, but we do not live in a vacuum. Working conditions can always change and do. So when people describe sweat shops as "slave labor" I have to ask them "As compared to what?" Working in fields without, as of yet, the benefit of modern agricultural technology? Prostituting themselves in order to put food on the table? You have to consider what will happen in these other countries as a result of companies like Apple or Nike or whomever coming back to the US. Now all of those Vietnamese, Chinese, African, and South Americans of all walks of life have nothing and have to resort to perhaps in less dignifying means of survival. Again, I see where most of you are coming from with the Nationalism and the cultural aspect in both the US and in Europe, but it is still economic suicide. Unless the wages of every single person in the country go up and up significantly how are we going to pay for the "Made in America" premium price? Feedback as always is greatly appreciated.

Here's something that has fascinated me for quite a while now. I speak for myself when I say this. It's interesting that people on both the Left and the Right can be opposed to and decry monopolies in the private sector but at the same time support the government. If anything, the government is the largest monopoly ever to exist in human history. Take a moment and think about why that is. Here are a few reasons why the government is the single largest monopoly: 1. Control of Money: National governments in most countries have the authority, indirectly through the proxy of their central banks, to issue currency and determine its value. When governments control the printing of money they also have to control the interest rates. Interest is referred to as the "time cost of money." For example, whenever somebody takes out a loan from a bank the borrower is expected to pay back principal plus extra money accrued over the life of the loan which is the interest. Depending on the interest rate a central banks decides to set, borrowing money can either be very costly or very cheap. This give governments pretty much an exclusive monopoly over all economic activity within a country. Those who control the money supply ultimately determine the economic decisions of the citizens. 2.The Rules of the Game: The legislative branch of the federal government has the prerogative to draft rules and regulations that govern the activities of the general population. I would urge people to not take me out of context here: I do not believe there should be NO rules whatsoever. I do believe, however, that bureaucrats and politicians within government are just as ill equipped to write rules as Joey the plumber who lives down the street. Politicians are not autonomous, artificial intelligence robots that can plan for decades into the future for what a modern economy will look like. For crying out loud we can barely predict what the stock price of Apple will be in 10 minutes. Never mind planning for the intricacies and complexities of a 21st Century economy, that is just ridiculous. Often I get accused of not knowing everything. Exactly! That's the point, I don't know the best way to run society. But if I don't know then neither do these sleazy, corrupt politicians being voted into office year after year. You cannot just say that I don't know everything and then say "But yeah man those politicians they know everything, we just have to get the right guy/women into office." To do so would be to set up an arbitrary category of people in society, call it government, and the acquiesce all of our rights to this entity. If we wish to remain morally/philosophical consistent and universal, this contradiction cannot be allowed to stand. This notion is simply delusory as there is no "anointed" man or women or group of men or women. There are simply human beings trying to make the best decisions on how to efficiently distribute resources in society. The idea that any one person would be able to know exactly what everyone in a country wants done and then be able to deliver on that promise would be to pretend that we have infinite resources on a finite planet like money, natural resources, time etc. it's just we aren't trying hard enough. Is it any wonder then that despite all of the new regulations being imposed on say the financial sector the lobbyists and special interest groups continue to find ways around it? As a learned man once said and I paraphrase here: "If you make corruption the source of someone's income, don't be surprised when they become really good at being corrupt." 3. Declaration of War: At the drop of a hat, at any moment, governments can commit citizens to war that can last 15 years. These protracted wars of attrition accomplish nothing and only lead to continued feelings of resentment between countries. The idea that we can solve violence with more violence is one thing that baffles me about discourse in this country. Make no mistake, I am grateful for American veterans who have themselves. What I question is why the strategy of preemptively initiating force and aggression in countries that pose no threat needs to continue? We've tried that regime replacing method for the last 15 years, basically for as long as I have been alive, and the Middle East is not a shinning beacon of Western ideals yet. How many more Hellfire missiles and drone strikes is it going to take before Iran or Afghanistan is a Constitutional Republic? Is there really no other way? Also it's quite easy for politicians to sign off other people's lives to war they are too old to participate and their children are exempt from the Draft. Similar to the moral hazard that happened in 2008 with the housing crisis, it is very easy to make decisions that do not appear to directly affect you. It is other people who must pay for the consequences of your actions whether you are the person voting for the war or the politician who sponsored the legislation. It's all immoral and just plain misanthropic. To conclude, these are just three reasons why governments are not fit to literally shape the course of human history. Perhaps I have proselytized a few of you out there in the inter-web. If I have, feel free to share this essay with as many people as possible. The truth must be spoken at all costs. If you don't see me posting within the next couple of days, I have probably been arrested and sent to room 101 for my re-education. Live long and prosper my fellow human beings. May the light of philosophy finally shine bright in this age of delusion and darkness.

This is the response from President Obama to an email I sent a few weeks back detailing my concerns on big government and our country beginning to lean more towards Socialism. I am aware of the general sentiment of Obama at this point in time in the U.S., and I may lose some friends for this, but you have to hand it to the man, he handles criticism of his administration tactfully and diplomatically. This is a valuable character trait and debate/discussion habit that I hope to emulate whenever anyone offers critiques of my work in the future. As we look forward to a Trump presidency, just remember that Obama is human as well and has his good qualities like anybody else. At this point, dehumanizing his administration will not do anything to change what happened. All we can do is look back, reflect, and attempt to do better in the future. If this makes me a crazy leftist Statist in some peoples eyes, so bet it. The ability to recognize valauble traits in others despite disagreements over philosophy is the foundation for building a more peaceful society in my humble opinion. The White House, Washington Thank you for writing. After recovering from the worst economic crisis in generations, our Nation has had the longest streak of private-sector job growth in our history. We are less reliant on foreign oil, and over 20 million people have gained health insurance since the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act took effect. With an unemployment rate cut in half, deficits cut by almost three-quarters, and an auto industry that has roared back to life, America now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. However, many feel anxious about the profound economic changes that started long before the Great Recession—from technology that can replace jobs on the assembly line and companies that can relocate anywhere on the planet to workers having less leverage for a raise and more wealth concentrated at the top. These changes are squeezing the middle class and making it harder for working Americans to start a career, a family, or a business and save for retirement. They also threaten the fundamental American promise that if you work hard, you can get ahead. My Administration has made progress in building an economy that provides security and opportunity for all, but there’s still more work to do. Real opportunity in the 21st-century global economy requires access to the education and training needed to land a good-paying job, which is why we must continue investing in early childhood education, working to ensure our students graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers, and making college and technical schools more affordable. We also need to expand benefits and protections for hardworking Americans and strengthen our healthcare system, Social Security, and Medicare so more of our people can have a basic measure of security throughout their career and when they retire. And when someone falls on hard times, we should support them as they retrain and retool for a new job. A thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy, and in this fast‑changing world, small businesses, startups, and workers need more of a voice—not less. And we need to use American innovations to solve our biggest problems. That’s why my Administration has called for all students to have access to high-quality computer science education, and why we have invested in clean energy technology and next-generation manufacturing hubs so the products of tomorrow can be designed and built right here in America. Thank you, again, for writing. For information on what my Administration has done to build an innovation economy that works for everyone, visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/The-Record/Economy. Sincerely, Barack Obama

There's a link to his questionnaire from the page below: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/trump-is-asking-for-your-suggestions-interesting-lets-see/

LONDON (AP) -- Corruption will never be eradicated from soccer and officials in the English-speaking world should try to be humble rather than pompous when they talk about ethics, a FIFA vice president said Tuesday. http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/04/fifa-fines-canadian-soccer-association-for-insulting-chants-from-supporters http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fifa-vp-english-speaking-soccer-officials-pompous-ethics-220235948--sow.html http://vancouversun.com/sports/soccer/international-soccer/fifa-fines-canada-soccer-for-fans-boorish-behaviour-at-b-c-place Upcoming World Cup location: Russia, Qatar

Stefan, I suggest that this subject cries for a video. Alex Jones and others recently published videos of Johnson that are, shall we say, compromising. He objects to the term 'illegal alien' and defends dreamers. His VP pick has called for strict gun control. One of my grabber friends now supports Johnson. This is a Libertarian ticket? Help us out here, Stef. WTF happened to Gary when he dropped trow? Did Shrillary clamp a remote control device onto his gonads, or what?

A documentary film about the Clintons based on the book of the same name, by Peter Schweizer. It reminds me very much of the stories told by John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Just follow the money.

Abortion This topic is important for at least two reasons: one, if we are wrong about our thinking here we are possibly endangering many lives and two, we may be assigning blame wrongfully, in a very destructive manner. Many years ago I took a class called “Contemporary Moral and Social Issues.” In that class we discussed personally identity and specifically we did an overview of the views expressed in the following academic paper (you don’t have to read it, but I will reference it): http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Animalism-and-the-Varieties-of-Conjoined-Twinning.pdf The bottom line being that because of conjoined twins and the possibility of body transplants, our identity is no more than a brain or, so that we can avoid a lengthy philosophical tangent, consciousness which supervenes on that brain. Further, that brain is simply one part of a larger organism that is the culmination of all our organs. If this is true, then before certain parts of the brain form, which are necessary conditions for consciousness, we simply do not exist (and under these conditions abortion is morally neutral). The Conjoined Twin Argument Animalists are those who say we are identical with the whole of our body, that is we are the entire organism composed of both a mind and body. Dicephalus is a variety of conjoined twin where two heads share one body. This presents an interesting question for animalists: are dicephalus one person because there appears to be one organism? Or is it that there are two people sharing one organism? If this is the case, then who we are is not identical with the whole of the biological organism that gets called by our name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo Are there two people here, or is it one person? Do the parents have daughters, or a daughter? Now while it is true that there are two tracheas and other various organs, it would be strange to say that this is why there are two organisms. Mainly because there is a variety of conjoined twin that is two bodies, with one head. Is this two people? This seems implausible. The Transplant Argument If we are the sum of all our organs, then when a full body transplant occurs (a head is removed from one body and kept alive until it is attached to another) another problem occurs. Did that person die when their head was removed? Was a new person “born” when the head was attached to the new body? It appears that we survive a body transplant, especially if, throughout the procedure, we are kept conscious via some artificial blood supply. Such a transplant has been done on a monkey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwkkmsoo4a4 Also this surgery may be done to a human soon: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php If we survive such an operation, clearly we are reducible to something less than the whole of our body. Resisting the Conclusion I’ve forwarded this thesis before, if not with these exact words. When I did so, there was one objection (or an unconvinced objector perhaps) who argued that my mistake was assuming it possible to separate the mind and the body. He went on to emphasize the close relationship between the mind and the body: the fact that chemical processes in the latter drastically effect the former. Without any advanced knowledge of human neurophysiology, it can still be asserted that such a relationship is irrelevant. The ongoing stimuli from the body is not different in substance from normal external stimuli such as those that activate our sensory organs. The origin of the stimuli is simply closer to home (about as close to home as you can get). Additionally, the above form of argument sidesteps the “future like ours” argument against abortion put forward by Don Marquis because cells don’t have a future like anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml Conscious entities may have a future like ours, but before those conscious entities exist, they cannot be harmed. In the same way, posthumous harm is incoherent. To truly resist the conclusion that we are identical with our minds, which are themselves a part of the body, you would do well to say that murdering the twins above is simply killing one person and that we do not survive the head transplant. Short of this, it seems we are stuck. Last Word The real problem then, if we are our minds/brains, is that saying abortion is wrong before there is a thalamus or amygdala, is itself wrong. After all, what would be harmed in such a procedure simply wouldn’t be a person. I therefore hold that abortion before those structures develop is morally neutral.

For years I have been posting my own commentary on current events on my personal FB wall. I used to share memes and links and videos and spam my own damn page. lol I stopped posting articles and links a few years ago and noticed something interesting. I would go to source pages like the FBI criminal stats and such and instead of linking the page, I would simply type out the data on my wall and add my own commentary my own words. Some of my posts are long or I post them as 'notes'. There are times I will even quote Stefan directly, especially if I know the person doesn't like him or think FDR is a cult. Then many times (it's amazing this has happened quite often), people will say, 'wow...that was well stated...where did you get that?" Then I will reveal that it's from FDR, Stefan, etc. They usually make some grieveance as to why they don't like FDR or whatever and then within a week or sometimes a month after I earned credibility with them I see them sharing Stefan's podcasts and Youtube videos! lol On my wall posts I sort of break the ice by titling my posts with things such as Warning: hug room not included or Popcorn Time... another long-winded rant by ***** (my name), etc. I noticed after I stopped posting links and articles (unless it's REALLY REALLY worthy and even then I add my own commentary), that people would start to engage...but not much. However I would get MUCH more response offline in private messages. People 'following' me who aren't necessarily my FB friends. people who are my friends but still afraid to go public with what they support etc. I can't tell you how many people thank me offline for simply providing additional information they otherwise would not have gotten through conventional sources. This past year I added another approach.... even though I get private messages of encouragement, it's not like a HUGE following so I sort of make myself appear bigger than I am (and mind you, this is my personal FB page...not a special interests page or politlical page). So, when a huge current event occurs (France attack, Orlando attack, etc) I typically wait a few days to respond....I do this anyway because I do get emotional about these things and I like to have facts before I post ANYTHING. Then, after the buzz online dies down and I have gathered my thoughts I write something like: "my heart goes out to...... I have a lot to say about this but need some time to get my emotions out of the way to share my logical assessment of the situation..." after a few days I will write something like: "Thanks for all the private messages from friends/family and followers who have been asking me my take on xyz event...." ".....I always like to take my time before posting my thoughts and usually do so in doses over the course of new information coming out...." "...so for now my thought is......xyz" etc I do this even if NO ONE private messaged me to ask for my thoughts. lol I tell you what, since I've been doing this I get FAR more engagement on my wall AND a ton more people are even sharing my posts of my 'long rants'., I don't curse or use hyperbole on my posts. I just make argument and list facts and site the source such as 'fbi crime stats' rather than link it. If it's politcally or current event related, I will set the post to 'public'. If it's my personal life and photos, I keep that only for friends, of course. That way it reaches more people who aren't your friends without revealing your entire personal life. This has also increased 'shares' and likes and that's the name of the game to get our arguments out there. I like the element that I'm just a regular gal...i'ts not a political or 'official' page of any special interest. It has provided many fruitful conversations than before when my page was simply tumbleweed and crickets but filled with links and media and memes! lol I like the 'notes' approach since they are archived and easily. I'm just sick of people being too damn scared to say things outloud and engage online for goodness sakes and I realized that if they feel like there are more people as afraid as them but at least admitting it offline (whether true in a given particular moment or not)....it brings them forward to engage, which is quite incredible and interesting. I rarely get people who attack me...even if they disagree I have had only one person in like 4 years get hostile and I simply wrote on the wall 'Can you tell me how many people you have convinced to your viewpoint by calling them a Nazi?" and after that they left my wall and deleted their comments. lol SATISFACTION!! BWHAA!! Occassionally I post my wall is a Freedom-of Speech friendly wall. I will never censor or delete comments or people. If you do not want to see my posts, either hide or select me off of your feed or block me. I ask that everyone keep it clean and civil but if you do not, your posts will only show as an example of your method and whether or not it's effective as I am not here to spend time deleting offensive material on my wall unless it's gory/bloody or pornographic. Make your arguments in words...not photos. This seems to disarm the trolls before they even consider engaging on my page, which saves time and frustration. If anyone tries this approach, do you mind reporting back to let us know if it works for you or not or share your experience? I hope it works for you!!

It is common knowledge that many people in America are dissatisfied with the candidates nominated by our two-party system. The rift between the two sides, Republican, and Democrat has grown in recent years and divides us still. I look abroad at Germany and the United Kingdom at their Multi-Party systems and speculate on what that would look like here. For instance, Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic Nomination, but because of the rigged system of the Democratic Primary, Super Delegates are chosen to ensure the nomination of the powerful, not of the people. If we were a nation of reason then the Independent voters who are the majority of them as it happens, would have their own candidate Mr. Sanders, and the Libertarians would have theirs, and so fourth. Is this concept unfair? I merely suggest that as a Republic our two-party system is failing to bring fourth a acceptable candidate for the seat of ultimate power in our country. If we were truly to embrace the mantle of a Global power, then we would accept a Multi-Party system to show tolerance and evolution in our political structure. Our states would grow stronger and more independent, and our country would strengthen beside them. If we claim to be a bastion of Democracy than we should listen closely to the majority, whether we agree is not the issue. It is upon the mantle of the elected to be voices for the people they represent, personal agendas are in themselves corruption.

Found this blog post online and wanted to ask American FDR listeners what they thought of it (I'm in Australia); the author claims that predictions of a close election are groundless and we are about to witness a pro-Trump landslide. Are his facts accurate, his reasoning plausible? The original blog post is here: https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/destruction-of-nate-silver/ Destruction of Nate Silver Why aren’t you guys quoting Nate Silver anymore? Because he’s a crock. He hasn’t been ‘mistakenly’ wrong. He has been wrong again, and again, and again.Check it out. Everyone is going to be looking at the Trump vs. Clinton general election from the prism of 2000 battleground. “First, let us give these states to Clinton, those states to Trump, and focus on the one or few battleground states.” 2000 was close because both candidates sucked. Gore? Bush Jr.? 2004 was also close because both candidates sucked. Bush Jr.? Kerry? 2008 was completely misread by people since 2006 was misread by people. Democrats won control of the House in 2006 due to conservative districts punishing Republican GW Bush Administration by voting for the Democrat. After all, Obama campaigned on lower taxes, stronger military, etc. Carville hilariously wrote a book saying that there would be 40 more years of Democratic control. 2012, you have Obama vs Romney, a terribel(sic.) candidate. Here is why 2016 won’t be ‘close’ in the perspective of 2000 type ‘battleground’ scenarios and ‘ground game’ crap. First, I think we are in a Re-Alignment. I know this is said every election, but we are due for one. Liberal and Conservative alignment is dead. What is happening is a Globalist vs Nationalist alignment. Republicans would be very smart to have Trump help undergo the alignment of Republicans into Nationalists. The Democrats, especially with their super-delegate bullshit, are delaying their inevitable re-alignment into a Globalist Party. They will get there, but it may be a shellacking for a general election or two in order to get it. Second, most people reading this site have never seen a true landslide election. The strangest general election ever was Carter’s. Reagan and Nixon won 49 states in two of their elections. The point is that the 2000-ish ‘this is going to be CLOSE and battleground states OMG’ type thinking may not apply here. It could very well be a blowout. Trump, like Reagan and Nixon, will get Democrat votes. Laffer, from the infamous Laffer’s Curve, predicts Republican candidate to win 47 states. He predicts this because he has seen Nixon and Reagan elections because in those cases the Democratic Party put up a ‘machine candidate’ who just royally sucked. Hillary Clinton royally sucks. I think she is the worst (electoral wise) candidate the Democrats could have chosen. They could have put in anyone else. Third, Hillary Clinton will be the first time we have ever had a female Presidential candidate. How will people respond? I do not think they will respond well. So many women do not want a female president. We have had two instances of female VP picks. Mondale in 1984 (lost 49 states) and McCain in 2008 (big loss). Cruz had Fiorina as a VP pick before Indiana primary and Cruz got blown out. Inside the beltway thinking says it is good to put up female VP candidates, but the public doesn’t seem to agree. Based on this, a main female presidential candidate will likely be blown out. Fourth, Hillary Clinton has the most baggage I’ve ever seen a political candidate have. It goes beyond the emails and money cheating. I am talking Monica Lewinsky and all the other bimbo eruptions. Many young people did not live through that. They will be shocked that Hillary Clinton stuck by and allowed Bill Clinton to humiliate her again and again. I expect young feminists to vote against Hillary Clinton because of that. Fifth, Hillary Clinton is seen as ‘status quo’. With so many Americans upset at the direction the country is going (polling wise), I think this will be an anti-status quo election. Sixth, this is extremely important and will not be mentioned anywhere. Pundits think Hillary Clinton is ‘popular’ because Bill Clinton was ‘popular’. The truth was that Bill Clinton was never popular. Did you know that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote in either the 1992 or 1996 elections? He won majority of electoral college votes, but he couldn’t get the majority of the popular vote. In 1996, he got 49% of the vote. In 1992, he got 42% of the vote. This happened because of a third party candidate called Perot who got, astonishingly, 20% of the vote in 1992. Seventh, the pundits will have tunnel vision because they believe that unfavorable ratings are equal. They are not. Most presidential candidates try to appear as the hero. Trump, in a most brilliant move, is trying to appear as the villain. This is why the media cannot stop reporting on what he says. It is why he loves being the ‘great villain’ with GOP against him, conservative pundits against him, Democrats against him, etc. The more Trump is attacked, the stronger he gets. Trump isn’t running as a hero or as a moral saint. This is why his unfavorables are so high but he keeps winning elections. In other words, I think Hillary’s unfavorable numbers doom her but Trump’s unfavorable numbers boost him. Trump isn’t seen by his supporters as a candidate, he is seen as a murder weapon. The supporters wish to use Trump to murder the political class and destroy them as they believe they have been destroyed by their policies. In 2020, when Trump runs for re-election, Trump will reverse this and run as the hero which will leave the 2020 candidate in the dust acting like he (and it will be a male Democratic candidate in 2020) prepared to go ‘more villain’ to answer 2016’s surprising Trump win. Trump will play the devil in 2016, the angel in 2020.

I worked for a highly competitive private business in the food service industry for 35 years in California. We did a great job keeping the customers happy. The competition was tough but so were we. However, our biggest customers like Safeway, Vons, Kroger, Albertsons, Walgreens, Smart n Final, Whole Foods, etc. could have cared less about the service we provided because they knew they would be the priority over all others due to the shear volume of their account and they were right. The problem was that when ever a new company came to town, they would threaten to switch for price alone. We got to where the price was so low we could barely compete against these multinational corporations. I'm not complaining about this in regards to why capitalism works so well, but more how I always felt like I could loose my job at any moment. After time that really does take it's toll. Yes, that constant fear does motivate you to do what ever it takes to survive thus it keeps prices low and service high, always tweaking your business model and service tactics and that is good, to a point. What I found was It started affecting everything in my life. I was always working and spending less time at home with my kids. It made me less empathetic to everyone around me so I not only had the battle at work but it became a battle to be at home. My wife and kids were endlessly supportive but I became more and more frustrated, depressed and disengaged at home. What I was experiencing is not only common throughout the US, it has become pathological. Some people do better than others in that environment (young single males) but look at the corporate/political/Geopolitical condition of the world today, it's ruthless and highly unstable. It made me start to think that there just has to be a better way. It doesn't look like anything will change now since multinational corporations and international banks are running the world corrupting the body politic and most everything else in their path. However, this problem certainly explains why so many people are trending towards socialism / communism as a way to relax the constant fear thus creating more and more susceptibility to the "languasites' Stefan described in podcast FDR3263. I am aware that as long as the current economic structure (fiat money, Keynesian economics and "languasites') are dominant, there is little to no chance of this changing any time soon so my timing on this subject is no doubt out of sync, but I think it is relevant to a bigger picture. Ruthless business models are a big cause of destructive family environments in so many ways it's too much to go into here. People equate this false capitalism as actual capitalism, the cause of their constant anxiety, thus we see the popularity of Bernie Sanders types, along with more and more talk of resurrecting so many historically destructive political systems. The near total loss of freedom seems to be more acceptable than the current work environment and social instability. Capitalism did give rise to this phenomenon even in it's infancy and in it's purest form. I think the purest capitalistic system is susceptible to this regardless of how 'pure' it is. Money corrupts even the most ethical of humans so governmental systems will always have to exist until either the average IQ gets over 110 or the population decreases below levels that existed before Kings, Queens and religion. I have often thought that the only viable government would have be an AI programed in such a way that it's primary objective is for humans to eventually no longer need it, thus no longer needing government to force cooperation. This is based on the idea that it's impossible to bribe a machine but then there is always the programmer. There could be something like a medical cure for low IQ across ethnic lines (as Stefan described in a recent podcast) or a medical cure to the 'virus' of sociopathic and psychopathic disorders though the odds of something like that happening is at best unlikely any time soon. The peaceful parenting model is a necessary imperative but I fear a mufti-generational approach will not be enough to fix anything before we destroy ourselves or render the world uninhabitable. The current social and political situation is dire -- I am not hopeful. (Comments Welcome) Dusty Wiggins 'What this world needs are massive and spontaneous outbreaks of positive creativity.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/politics/ted-cruz.html So it appears that Cruz has ended his bid for for the 2016 Republican Nomination. I guess this means we're gonna see Trump vs Hilary as many had been predicting.

Man is this election cycle interesting and sort of exciting. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm an anarcho capitalist so this changes none of that but I enjoy observing and interacting with the statist to try to get them to think amongst the chaos. I have actually succeeded in not only getting through to some to get them to actually listen (maybe not agree but have a pleasant convo) but I had a few of them actually step out of the statist indulegence of political advocacy and at least peak behind the door of anarcho-capitalism. I rarely reveal my 'persuasion' unless they ask me directly. I keep it ambiguous and simply stick to the mental exercises to snap them out of the rhetoric. I will share some of my tactics. And I go in with low or reasonable expectations. I don't expect them to go from statist to non statist by the end of the conversation. I go in hoping to give them pause, thought and insight that will hopefully carry with them and be a beacon in their brain even after the fuss of elections that will draw them towards their path to find their answers....which of course I hope will be anarcho-caplitalism or 'worst case' libertariansim. And this was mostly with Bernie supporters! Here's how I did it, this is my general forumula: Bernie supporter: I don't support him because of the free stuff.... (we've all heard this one) Me: So you voted for Ron Paul in 2012? Bernie Supporter: No, why? Me: He was basically Bernie without free stuff.. Bernie Supporter: ..... oh Me: Yeah, it's best to not look at which party line these people choose to run on because of the Commission of Presidential Debates. BS: the what? Me: The Commision of Presidential Debates, it's common knowledge for those who follow actual anti-establishment candidates as they have been known to expose this outright or at least the symptoms of it. Look it up and make your own judgment but it's the reason why Donald Trump, or your guy Bernie Sanders is even running on main party tickets and don't really have the 'freedom' to run as a third party, so it's odd that Bernie doesn't point that out and Trump actually has, Ron Paul has, Ralph Nader has. You can see how they treat people who expose this and Trump is actually getting further than any of the others, which is incredible and will expose the level to which the establishment will go to try to shut him down or steer people away from him. BS: I'll look into it. Me: yes. Look...I don't agree with B.S. but I wish he could run in whatever party he seems fits his platform the best. I loath the 2 party monopoly and I would rather work together with all the voters on this issue than bet on the horse-race. Exposing this would liberate voters from the 2 party monopoly and liberate future candidates so they can run on any party ticket they want without being blocked from media and getting their message out and they can speak as frankly and be their genuine selves without having to be P.C. all the time. BS: Makes sense. Another approach: BS: Free college....help the poor....bla bla bla...I'm donating to BS Now! Let's do this! Activate your friends...get them to donate, buy merch.! Me: Wow, that's incredible how much effort, time and resource such as your money or expertise and energy to rally people to voluntarily give their money to a man for a cause you believe in. BS: Yes....we really believe he's the one to finally...bla bla bla Me: Great. Tell me, have you ever put this much effort in actually helping a poor person or the poor or needy in general? BS: ............avoids question completely. Me: I mean I look at Bernie. He has a lot of interesting things to say, he's seems like a nice and likable guy, he knows how to rally young people, he cares about the disenfranchised and you guys are willing to help him in this cause and you work together, voluntarily to raise him hundreds of millions of dollars! That's incredible! BS: It really is. I mean when you care about these issues you do whatever.... bla bla bla Me: I get it. I guess my only question is, how many poor people could this effort to raise his hundreds of millions actually help if it was given to them or given to the proper organizations directly? How many studen loans could this campaign money pay off? How many private school tuitions for poor kids could this pay for? How many medical bills could this pay off for people? BS: ..........How much time do you put in to help the poor? Me: (gives list of my effots) BS: Well...there aren't many people like you and why we need....bla bla bla Me: But wait...there are. I mean Bernie's campaign proves how many there are and there are MORE because I don't support BS and do my share and know many others, that's the point. BS:...... Me: I just find it to be a charity with high overhead BS: what do you mean? Me: Well you put in all this time and effort and get everyone involved to raise a LOAD of cash for the guy you want to solve the inequality problem. Then you hope he wins the nomination and dump more money into his campaign. Then you hope he wins the election and dump more money into the campaign. Then once he's president you hope Congress will pass his policies and if he does, it's been several hundreds of millions and then they need to tax everyone to make this plan work when he had people willing to VOLUNTARILY work and donate to help poor people but refused to open a charity with the guy or use this momentum to actually go out and do it. Every month that he brings in tens of millions and it doesn't go to poor people or uneducated people is another day of hypocricy. BS: I..... I mean.... yeah but.... I don't even know what to say. Me: Me neither. Ther eis no reason you and all of his supporters can't do this as an actual charity rather than (and this applies to all campaigns) go out and use the same effort and cooperation and volunterrism to solve the issues you find most important. But you are rallying for political power and force to help when you already prove the voluntarism WORKS, otherwise the guy wouldn't have a dime to his campaign. BS: ......... stunned silent. Me: If you have more to respond later once this sinks in, i'm available to listen but never forget how well voluntarism has helped you help him to help the poor...but it's a WHOLE lot of overhad and risk that has no or little guarantee when you could just simply....help the poor. And another one: Me: How will we pay for all of Bernie's plans? BS: Wallstreet, taxes and future generations. Me: Having the future pay for it doesn't bother you? BS: No, why should it. that's very common thing and guarantees we can get what we need and what' sbest...bla bla bla Me: Well, then you are simply enslaving the children. Could you look a child in the eye and at least explain to them the implications and ask their permission before you sell their future wealth? BS: oh that's ridiculous. Me: I know, so you are taking without asking or you couldn't live with yourself to have to face them in the eye while you take their future wealth knowing they have no idea what's going on or the implications. Me: tell me, do you enjoy now having to pay for past decisions that use your tax dollars today but you receive no benefits for? BS: Huh? ME: Well, most of the income tax goes to interest on borrowed money and this is for things that were voted on when you and I were too young or not even born yet and certainly couldn't vote on. Those benefits have been used up, are not available for you and me and we are still paying for them. And you are sitting here complaining that our generation is out of money or it's unevenly distributed and we have no benefits or not enough. Don't you see the problem you are repeating? BS: yea but the money is spent anyway so what does it matter ME: that we can have some moral, ethical integrity and disciple to at least be the generation that stopped this cycle. Our elders sold our future and we feel now what that is like and you have no problem doing the same to the future? Are you giving any guarantee that they future who will be held to pay for this will have anything left for them or how long do you want this cycle to go on? BS: I guess I can see how paying for the past decisions I wasn't a part of didn't work well for this generation. Me: Exactly and if you have kids or think of having kids, this is the exact posiiton or feeling you will be heiring to them. Now you call yourself moral and good and altruistic. Do you think our elders were moral and good and altruisitc when they made these decisions for you to pay for? BS: absolutely not. Me: ok. so you can feel moral and good now but when your children grow up, they will see you as freeloading jerks as we see our elders. Bs: yea...I guess that's true. Sometimes I ask if they think money is private property. Typically...as leftists do...they ask me WHY I'm asking. That is so they can scan and try to sniff out any advantage and wiggle and move the goal posts. But I just ask them again until they leave the conversation or answer me. of course it always ends with them realizing that taxation is theft. Doesn't mean they will instantly switch to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism but at least they have come to terms with taxation is theft. ...always a good start.

Anybody out there seen or heard this interview? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0plhCBVJlm8"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

My post on Donald Trump's position on eminent domain and the Kelo v The City of New London case started a dialog on voting for the lesser of two evils. I thought I'd start a thread here to continue that discussion. On one hand, the act of casting a vote for the politician you believe will do the least harm helps insure that the least harm will be done. On the other hand, low voter turnout demonstrates a lack of faith in the system and could be used in arguments for reform -- hopefully towards a more libertarian system -- or as a welcoming signal for new ideas. As far as presidential elections go, I've usually chosen the second option, except when Ron Paul or Gary Johnson were candidates. But in current events, I'm leaning more towards the first because the United States is drifting closer towards socialism. Do either of these positions have merit? What are their flaws? What's your position on voting and why?

Full disclaimer: I am not an American citizen, thus I have no right to vote. If I had, I'd most likely vote for Trump now even as a third party candidate. I have put together this very lengthy article which I am linking below trying to explain my convictions. I would absolutely welcome feedback from anyone who disagrees with any of my reasons. I especially encourage undecided voters and people who don't vote on principle to give it a read. https://bukman.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/20160313-i-want-donald-trump-to-win-the-presidency-and-heres-why/