I'm glad Trump won

[powder]

Not because I think he will save western civilization or that he can fix the economy.  In fact, I think that getting elected to the throne at this point in history is like being appointed captain of the Titanic after it has already hit the iceberg.  

 

That said, perhaps now that he has won we can get on with this 'experiment' to see if an 'unprecedented' candidate can justify anarchists trading in their principles for practicalities.  Had the D's won with Hillary it would certainly have bee at least another 4 years of infowars instead of philosophy to continue to fight and 'push back' against the left and the media.  

 

Now that the ruling class has successfully created this division in this community, perhaps it will just be a lot of people clinging to their investments and saying:  'yeah, but imagine how worse it would have been under Hillary?"  when things get bad with Trump.  Just like everyone else in the political forum does.  

 

As for FDR, perhaps they have realized a bigger network and viewership in the political right is a more sustainable business model.  

 

I am interested to see how it plays out and how people respond.  

[Kestrelraptorial]

So, you think that America is going to sink no matter what? Sad to say, that is still possible. I hope his business leadership will be enough to begin to turn us away from the dark hole of debt and war we were spiraling into, but we may have already crossed the event horizon. It's hard to tell right now. 

 

These rioters and protestors against Donald Trump's victory, they're still just screaming about how hateful he is, how racist and sexist and they don't have a leg of a real argument to stand on. Last night, my own mother and sisters came to family dinner saying they had been literally shaking, sobbing, and couldn't sleep because they think the country is falling into a kind of hatred that isn't there, and I ask them why they think that. They only focus on the video of Trump's comment from eleven years ago, and the claim that he hates Mexicans because he claims that they are allowing rapists to cross the border. 

 

Well, that is happening. They are so intolerant of one comment from long ago and so blind to real issues, and this ignoring of real border security, real national safety, and although this topic didn't come up in our talk, of real debt is exactly why so many of us voted for Trump and why he won. I even have my own video called "The Truth About Trump's Victory" on YouTube explaining this and I don't think there is any motivation of hatred in it. I even offered to explain to them why the situation isn't as bad as they fear, and they snapped back at me with, "There is NOTHING you (I) can say that will help me now". 

 

I mean, really, I try to use reason and calm explanations to reassure them, and I'm treated like the scum of the Earth for it . . . and this is exactly what the left and media have been doing to their own people. They pushed their own hate on us too far, and that is why we elected Trump.

 

I can't say, of course, that the road will be easy for America now. It won't, and I think we were ready to accept and face that, and we wanted to pull America back from the brink before it was too late. I hope it's still not too late.

[dsayers]

perhaps it will just be a lot of people clinging to their investments and saying:  'yeah, but imagine how worse it would have been under Hillary?"  when things get bad with Trump.

This is why I find it to be problematic that they put forth no null hypotheses. It means they will never have any reason to admit they were wrong, not even to themselves. AND they will experience no cognitive dissonance either.

 

So, you think that America is going to sink no matter what? Sad to say, that is still possible.

Why is it sad to say that slavery might finally be ended? It's progress. It's evolution. In business terms, it's creative destruction.

 

THIS is why I've been pushing so hard for people who would otherwise be liberated within their own minds to act like it. The sentiment you shared, you are not alone for experiencing. It is a product of being raised in government schools, being force fed repeatedly rhetorical narratives such as nationalism, supporting our troops, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your inquiry is essentially saying that you cannot image humans in a world where there was no nation (America). Or that somehow, it should persist. How did you arrive at these conclusions? I'm not asking because I'm curious. I'm asking because this is something every rational thinker should be asking everybody about every conclusion they put forth. If you cannot come up with a methodology rooted in logic, reason, and evidence, then you need to revisit the conclusion.

[Mister Mister]

This is why I find it to be problematic that they put forth no null hypotheses. It means they will never have any reason to admit they were wrong, not even to themselves. AND they will experience no cognitive dissonance either.

 

Why is it sad to say that slavery might finally be ended? It's progress. It's evolution. In business terms, it's creative destruction.

 

THIS is why I've been pushing so hard for people who would otherwise be liberated within their own minds to act like it. The sentiment you shared, you are not alone for experiencing. It is a product of being raised in government schools, being force fed repeatedly rhetorical narratives such as nationalism, supporting our troops, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your inquiry is essentially saying that you cannot image humans in a world where there was no nation (America). Or that somehow, it should persist. How did you arrive at these conclusions? I'm not asking because I'm curious. I'm asking because this is something every rational thinker should be asking everybody about every conclusion they put forth. If you cannot come up with a methodology rooted in logic, reason, and evidence, then you need to revisit the conclusion.

How are you so certain that it would be positive for America to end?  Can you empathize with people who have families and careers who might not be so eager to see economic and political collapse?

[Donnadogsoth]

Not because I think he will save western civilization or that he can fix the economy.  In fact, I think that getting elected to the throne at this point in history is like being appointed captain of the Titanic after it has already hit the iceberg.    

 

His being elected was one Black Swan.  Why can't there be another that would allow the Titanic to avoid sinking?  Think positive, dude!

[Kestrelraptorial]

Why is it sad to say that slavery might finally be ended? It's progress. It's evolution. In business terms, it's creative destruction.

 

THIS is why I've been pushing so hard for people who would otherwise be liberated within their own minds to act like it. The sentiment you shared, you are not alone for experiencing. It is a product of being raised in government schools, being force fed repeatedly rhetorical narratives such as nationalism, supporting our troops, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your inquiry is essentially saying that you cannot image humans in a world where there was no nation (America). Or that somehow, it should persist. How did you arrive at these conclusions? I'm not asking because I'm curious. I'm asking because this is something every rational thinker should be asking everybody about every conclusion they put forth. If you cannot come up with a methodology rooted in logic, reason, and evidence, then you need to revisit the conclusion.

 

I never mentioned slavery once in my argument. I said "Sad to say, that (meaning, America could sink/fall apart) is still possible." I was talking about the exhausting uncontrolled debt, failing wars being waged, racebaiting from the left, and gaping holes in our borders. I said I think we have a chance to regain some control of these issues addressing America, but it will be difficult. That's what my post was about. I also said nothing about 'not being able to imagine a world without America', and I think I did explain myself in my post. 

[dsayers]

How are you so certain that it would be positive for America to end?

 

I never mentioned slavery once in my argument. I said "Sad to say, that (meaning, America could sink/fall apart) is still possible."

"America" does not exist. It is a concept that describes a geographical region in which a select minority (ruler/enforcer class and their agents) get to, with perceived legitimacy, initiate the use of force against everybody else. It is slavery and for it to end would be a requisite of freedom and one step closer to living in reality, as humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

Can you empathize with people who have families and careers who might not be so eager to see economic and political collapse?

This is an appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and poisoning the well. It and its implications have no bearing on whether on not humans exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

Of course I don't want to see the addict suffer. But the only way to get from addict to healthy is to suffer. That's not something that I am responsible for. Can you empathize with the children who are going to have to shoulder all of this because some people who otherwise know better are engaging in appeals to emotion in an attempt to draw out the inevitable for their perceived comfort in the present?

 

That which is unsustainable cannot be sustained. The collapse was coming BY DESIGN the moment control over money was seized by the violent, who used that violence to steal from the future to get over like fat rats in the present. You can't stop it. Nobody can. History tells us so. Rational thought tells us so. You've been a member of FDR long enough to have been exposed to these ideas. I don't recall you pushing back against them at any point in time.

[Tyler H]

How are you so certain that it would be positive for America to end?  Can you empathize with people who have families and careers who might not be so eager to see economic and political collapse?

Could we empathize with a family who put bread on the table through the slave trade? Maybe, but slavery is still an evil institution that cannot exist in a free world.  I don't think dsayers, and certainly not myself, is suggesting that we are cold and uncaring towards those that will suffer, but the suffering is necessary.  The pain of the withdrawal is one of the motivators for the addict to stay away from the drug.  There's no soft landing from our current state to a free society.

[Spenc]

 

 

As for FDR, perhaps they have realized a bigger network and viewership in the political right is a more sustainable business model.  

My position has been all along that while I agree that Trump was the best alternative of the available candidates, there was no need for FDR to get involved with it.  Even if we accept that western civilization was on the line, and the word needed to get out, the level of interest this show gave to Trump was silly.

 

Stefan has a unique set of skills for helping people achieve personal freedom, and when he strayed from that role in his shows, it left a void that nobody else was able to fill.  On the other hand, in achieving a political goal, Stefan generally offered better analogies and more interesting analysis than the typical alt-right hosts, but his talents were generally not needed to this capacity.

 

But let's assume that I'm wrong and Stef literally helped tip the balance toward a Trump presidency.  In which case, this show has a powerful reach!  Which would indicate to me that in the next 12 months, these callers to the shows who were talking about their religion, their conservatism, their Republicanism, their statism, their nationalism, etc. etc. etc. will mostly all be drawn toward anarchism and atheism, and pursuit of personal freedom.  After all the reach of this show is so powerful, the strength of Stef's arguments are so powerful, the cause of preserving western civilization in order that we could reach out to these people was worthwhile.  RIght?

 

If not, I wonder how many parents spanked and circumsized their children in the past year who could have otherwise been reached through FDR had the show not strayed into the political realm full-force.

[Donnadogsoth]

Could we empathize with a family who put bread on the table through the slave trade? Maybe, but slavery is still an evil institution that cannot exist in a free world.  I don't think dsayers, and certainly not myself, is suggesting that we are cold and uncaring towards those that will suffer, but the suffering is necessary.  The pain of the withdrawal is one of the motivators for the addict to stay away from the drug.  There's no soft landing from our current state to a free society.

 

A goodly percentage of narcotics addicts can be treated successfully through the administering of ibogaine, as one example out of several psychedelic drugs that can have similar effect.  There can be a "soft landing" to drug addiction, for some.  There's no principled reason why there might not be an analogous "soft landing" for society in moving from hegemony to liberty.

[Frosty]

I think in the case where significant damage is done and where there's heavy reliance on the government by many, simply kicking the crutch away would be an enormously bad idea, we're talking about the likely deaths of many people as they fail to be able to support themselves, a power vacuum that would almost certainly be filled by something undesirable.

 

If I got to personally pick a future for America, and really the world, it's that we'd gradually lessen government and wean people off and gradually lower the amount of violence and coercion in the process. I've discussed this before on this board with libertarians or anarchists who are so principled that they'd prefer to just snap their fingers and end government.

That's why if I was a US citizen I'd vote Trump, not because his policies are best or align with my own beliefs, but because they're CLOSER to what I believe than any other party/candidate who actually stands a chance of winning. With the hope that if people see the benefits of less tax and smaller government, then people will change the way they vote to reflect that, for more freedom, and keep repeating this process until government is negligibly small.

 

Many drug addicts are successfully weaned off drugs by continuing to administer smaller and smaller doses of either the drug or some chemical equivalent, and that typically causes less pain and discomfort to the drug user and has less chance of a relapse that comes with people who go cold turkey.

[Tyler H]

A goodly percentage of narcotics addicts can be treated successfully through the administering of ibogaine, as one example out of several psychedelic drugs that can have similar effect. There can be a "soft landing" to drug addiction, for some. There's no principled reason why there might not be an analogous "soft landing" for society in moving from hegemony to liberty.

I didn't see any studies linked in the article. I would be interested in any that addressed the recidivism rate after treatment. My point was that even if there is a soft landing available it may not be preferable vis-a-vis long term success as it removes a key deterrent from the addict possibly increasing the risk of relapse and revealing the "soft landing" as illusory. I would also express my skepticism for any cure to addiction that excluded the psychoanalysis of relevant trauma which led to the substance abuse in the first place.

 

I think the pain of withdrawal is more salient in the abolition of the state than in the relinquishing of a drug habit, but that is just my opinion.

[Donnadogsoth]

I didn't see any studies linked in the article. I would be interested in any that addressed the recidivism rate after treatment. My point was that even if there is a soft landing available it may not be preferable vis-a-vis long term success as it removes a key deterrent from the addict possibly increasing the risk of relapse and revealing the "soft landing" as illusory. I would also express my skepticism for any cure to addiction that excluded the psychoanalysis of relevant trauma which led to the substance abuse in the first place.

 

I think the pain of withdrawal is more salient in the abolition of the state than in the relinquishing of a drug habit, but that is just my opinion.

 

There was an article in this month's Scientific American:

 

"...In 2006 there were a handful of ibogaine clinics operating worldwide; today, by some estimates, there are around 40.  Clinic operators claim that a dose can curb addictive behavior, as well as depression, in about 70 percent of patients."

 

"...Overall, in 2014 7.1 million Americans had some kind of serious drug problem, according to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health.  Many seek help but do so in vain.  For example, 40 to 60 percent of treated substance-abuse patients will relapse.  About 80 percent do so if they stop taking methadone, the most common opiate replacement therapy."

 

"...Published medical reports tie ibogaine to 19 fatalities in 3,500 treatments between 1990 and 2008.  Because informal clinics such as the one in Guatemala may not track all adverse events, the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the U.K. estimates that the fatality rate may be even higher, reaching one in every 300 treatments.  Animal studies suggest that the substance, when it does not kill, produces lasting brain damage..."

 

"[ibogaine treatment clinic] Envision has treated more than 1,000 addicts during the past five years, Kogan says. . Just like Mallek [addict], these people initially get several small doses to look for problems such as arrhythmias, followed by the high dose intended to produce addiction-curbing effects.  Kogan and Prueger have charted patient progress through voluntary phone calls and e-mails over moths and even years, and they say that this regimen can cure 75% of the people who come to them."

 

"There are a few studies by outside researchers that support the notion that ibogaine is therapeutic.  In November 2014 research led by neuroscientist Eduardo Schenberg of the Federal University of São Paolo in Brazil looked back at the  histories of 75 addicts a year after they took a large dose of ibogaine.  (Schenberg reports that he conducted pohone interviews and corroborated data with doctors who saw patients during periodic checkups.)  His study, he notes, found that only about 39 percent relapsed into drug use and that those who had a single treatment remained abstinent for 5.5 months on average.  That could indicate an improvement over methadone:  as noted earlier 80 percent of methadone patients relapse if they stop taking it.  Schenberg's study found addicts who received multiple ibogaine treatments remained off drugs for even longer:  a median period of 8.4 months."

 

And more to your other comment:

 

"Despite Mallek's disparaging remark about 'talk therapy,' Brown thinks ibogaine cannot work well without it.  Counselling helps patients identify addiction causes such as emotional trauma or physical pain, and ibogaine, he says, interrupts physical cravings and stems withdrawal symptoms.  This double effect can, according to Brown, 'greatly strengthen people's resolve to live sober, honest lives again."

[D-Light]

The pain of the withdrawal is one of the motivators for the addict to stay away from the drug.

Actually, the pain of withdrawal is the very reason why most addicts stay on the drug instead of kicking it. The reason why most do not stay off the drug is why most graduate to it from less harmful drugs -- lack of connection with others.  Essentially, drug addiction to narcotics is a coping mechanism for, among other things, social isolation. It is the primary reason for persistent alcoholism, and the reason why 12-step programs which reinforce healthy social behaviors are successful in keeping people sober. Granted, it depends greatly on the adherence to the 12-step program as any participant will readily admit. There are very few who actually adhere to all 12-steps of Alcoholics Anonymous who engage in alcoholic behavior again.

 

The problem with statism is that you're dealing with an entire nation, almost half of which (or more) are heavily dependent upon the state. Getting such individuals to give up state dependency cold-turkey will be as ineffective as prohibition. People will find a way to become dependent upon a new state as soon as the old one is destroyed. It is the reason why when a nation falls to anarchy, it is almost immediately replaced by local warlords and chieftains who assume power and control under the auspices of providing order and stability, when in truth, the majority of the time, it is simply opportunism to become the new slavemaster.  The slaves must first develop the mindset of free men, or when anarchy comes suddenly and swiftly, they will run to any who will promise a familiar whip to the terror of possibility of having to face annihilation or death from an unfamiliar or foreign one.  (For example, the foreign invader who merely seeks land and other natural resources and has no interest for someone else's slaves.

[AccuTron]

 they snapped back at me with, "There is NOTHING you (I) can say that will help me now".  

 

They don't want helped.  Right now they are in a female mutual pity party, they can make crybaby faces at each other and be encouraged for it, and the whole thing feels pre-orgasmic.  They are girls and as has been noted in abundance, both on the net and in my own experience, except for a few responsible females such as found here, most women don't give poop about truth or consequences.  It's about perpetual defensiveness and groupthink, and how dare you attempt to interrupt their pre-orgasmic pity party with something despicable like honesty.

 

Stop thinking you will appeal to any moral attribute in them...it's simply not there.  You'd get better results trying to play chess with a bee.