Signs we are winning copy

[J.L.W]

[barn]

Hi @J.L.W

Don't think it is sensible or beneficial to see those as 'the tide's turning', not at least for now.

It's a common card, up the Devil's sleeve to instill false hope or paint achievement ahead of true change so that we lessen our efforts or loosen our grip on what's Evil and had summoned our well-deserved opposition.

No no no, signing up to a gym membership and loosing weight is only but the first step towards keeping the weight off or objectively declaring a new heading after DECADES of indulgence in avoidance and 'war on virtue'. Not to mention, our tribalistic, irrational nature has changed little throughout the THOUSANDS OF YEARS so expecting a major update to humanity so soon is crazy in my opinion. (Not saying/implying you did, I'm just making a point.)

I don't think we can (or should) win as a whole realistically. I think we should make long overdue updates and just stand for what is right. That's it, practise what we preach more, no abstractions required. I for one make a conscious effort holding myself to the principles of NAP and RTR as much as I can.

 

- - - /18-08-2018/

Hi 'doorbell enthusiast',

Thanks for your continued interest here and in many other threads recently (month or so). Don't be afraid to make an argument, I don't bite... generally

[J.L.W]

That's silly. It assumes that in order to act positively people must be in a state of hopelessness with the belief nothing will ever change unless they put in a lot of energy to change it.

In practice what actually happens is people simply give up under those circumstances.

[barn]

18 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

That's silly. It assumes that in order to act positively people must be in a state of hopelessness with the belief nothing will ever change unless they put in a lot of energy to change it.

In practice what actually happens is people simply give up under those circumstances.

Perhaps you could quote parts if you wanted, please quote parts as for me it would be recognisable what your issue was...

or

Should I take it as a blanket statement in response, for all that I have provided?

(You could be right, not saying... as of now, don't know what you are referring to and I rather not assume things but ask you to tell me instead.)

[J.L.W]

Barn, you have an unusual way of wanting an incredible amount of specificity in your conversations... I'm not complaining you ARE AT LEAST CONVERSING and the attention is positive. But I would point out it is you that is unusual not the other person. Most people do respond to the general overall emotional tone of a post, and only pick up on specificities casually.

If I were to pick a line I was responding to directly I would say it is this one:

Quote

It's a common card, up the Devil's sleeve to instill false hope or paint achievement ahead of true change so that we lessen our efforts or loosen our grip on what's Evil and had summoned our well-deserved opposition.

 

[barn]

19 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Barn, you have an unusual way of wanting an incredible amount of specificity in your conversations... 

You're right, I do ask and prefer specificity.

Not sure about "unusual" or "incredible" because compared to what... I also understand it might not be something you preferred ideally for yourself, besides it might be even annoying to you or at least tiring.

19 hours ago, J.L.W said:

I'm not complaining you ARE AT LEAST CONVERSING and the attention is positive.

If you ever need to complain... don't hold it back, we'll figure something out if we can, as long as it's constructive, both agrees.

19 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Most people do respond to the general overall emotional tone of a post, and only pick up on specificities casually. 

Yes. You are right. Most people do. I'm not like most people. I'm unique as everyone else! (Tee-Heee )

19 hours ago, J.L.W said:

If I were to pick a line I was responding to directly I would say it is this one:

Quote

It's a common card, up the Devil's sleeve to instill false hope or paint achievement ahead of true change so that we lessen our efforts or loosen our grip on what's Evil and had summoned our well-deserved opposition. 

Cool. Thank you @J.L.W

Where I was going with that is, it's a common error (you can observe it in business, sports, scientific research... ) to think a goal is being achieved by looking at some minuscule progress having been made.

Think of this: 'Extraordinary claims require...' or what people usually deem as overnight succes, more often than not turns out to be a preparation in the making for a very long time...

How long has been the corruption of the state expanding into all aspects of life? How many generations? How many centuries?

Add to that the fairly constant nature of humanity (and it's subgroups, ethnic, cognitive differences) for hundreds and thousands of generations...

Do you think it's reasonable to expect change due to at least (and ONLY) after the same amount of (not time) and intensity, opposite, counter effect/work?

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see 'something' happening but I am not convinced at all after having seen how un-Brexit is being implemented, France, The Netherlands, Trump's sweating bullets for minor achievements...

When I see sustainability (change in principles, not appearances) , be it economic or social... but that needs much more work.

By the way... What do you think about the "Fall of Rome" presentation and the plethora of parallels with current times?

Edited June 17, 2018 by barn
grrrmer

[barn]

Additionally:

I do think 'aiming at the sky but landing on a mountain peek' is a great thing, realistically. We shouldn't suspend our dreams or be paralysed because what we aim for isn't guaranteed.

I was perhaps 'triggered' by the notion that we are "winning" which I can only but falsify from all that I've seen on the large scale(techworld, monetary, educational, activists... all but doubling down,) less and less conversations amongst people with different views. Thanks by the way for this very convo!

[J.L.W]

Quote

Not sure about "unusual" or "incredible" because compared to what... I also understand it might not be something you preferred ideally for yourself beside it might be even annoying to you or at least tiring.

At the right time and for the right reason it is a good thing, such as sometimes the analysis of strong emotions. But specificity is not something I specialise in for most tasks. I spend most of my life in more of an abstract mindset.

I specifically do believe that to get a really strong handle on anything politically is a fools errand unless you have worked in the area for a long time. I know the basics on finance I do not know anymore so would only put forward vague general assumptions because I know that I know nothing here.

Reading some of your last post... I do appreciate all you have written but do think it is a little above my cognitive ability to engage with it all. I mean cognitive ability I do not mean preference. I can do scales all day but I cannot really look at some things I get tired.

For instance this. I have no clue what this means, or the bits immediately preceeding:

Quote

Do you think it's reasonable to expect change due to at least (and ONLY) after the same amount of (not time) and intensity, opposite, counter effect/work?

Perhaps it represents the mindset of a physicist or engineer.

Following through on another post.

[J.L.W]

So, finance wise. Perhaps I had not explained my perspective well enough:

My understanding is that the financial system works is in a very delicate place where small moves can upset the balance. For instance, let us consider the stock market. The reason zero percent interest rates are so beneficial to the stock market is that companies buy back their own stock to prevent it from falling. There is also another element here, an emotional element, whereby traders have been getting deliberately punished by the ECB and other banks with multiple short squeezes, which is where traders think they will gain money from a stock market crash and the ECB and other agencies through dark pools, push up the market so any trader holding a short has to drop them all and usually has to lose money in the process. This is also complicated by algorythmic programmes that can en mass destroy an entire market within seconds potentially and is probably part of the reason for the 2014 thousand point flash crash.

But the stock market as a whole is very delicate with even a minor move for will bring traders running for the hills.

In many ways the systems of checks and balances where that mafia organisation the EU has a protection racket, is what keeps the current situation in place in relation to political parties and the practice of power, i.e. how power is allocated. With every move that goes against the status quo likely to bruise such people and make them more likely to jump ship into the Trump camp. Said simply.

Not sure how much that explains but, I think it has some relevance.

[barn]

48 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

For instance this. I have no clue what this means, or the bits immediately preceeding:

Quote

Do you think it's reasonable to expect change due to at least (and ONLY) after the same amount of (not time) and intensity, opposite, counter effect/work?

Perhaps it represents the mindset of a physicist or engineer. 

Following through on another post. 

Good engineers, physicists are able to explain complex ideas a lot simpler, be clear on what they mean... I certainly would like to achieve that standard as much as possible.

Besides, I wouldn't worry about cognitive stuff for now... maybe I was just too dense, too 'whatnot'... you should always let me know if anything similar occurs, I welcome it.

Ok, let me know if this version is better:

Would you agree,

in order to get back to the starting point of a ship's journey, the ship has to travel in the opposite direction the same distance than it has been sailing since the initiation of the journey. (to return back)?

plus:

° can do ( faster movement )

° can't do ( not change direction or just slow down = won't get closer)

49 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

So, finance wise. Perhaps I had not explained my perspective well enough: 

I'm sorry, don't know enough to contribute here meaningfully, other than in layman's terms.

I just understand why Fiat currency is cannibalism on the long run, we're already neck deep in the obvious consequences... If you've seen Stefan Molyneux's latest presentation on Italy, you know what I mean ( German banking standards, or lack of... )

Do you think my doubts in your thread are doing a disservice to what you think would be preferable?

[J.L.W]

15 minutes ago, barn said:

Do you think my doubts in your thread are doing a disservice to what you think would be preferable?

No, it has given me the opportunity to more strongly explain my position and I think that sort of political discussion does need strong opinions. Since we are dealing with real stuff here with a lot of material a lot can be discussed. There is a lot that can be falsely assumed.

I did think you were not contributing on the thread about subconscious signals. Not in that the analysis was incorrect but that to contribute you might have discussed your own ideas on the subject before jumping in and analysing mine.

Quote

in order to get back to the starting point of a ship's journey, the ship has to travel in the opposite direction the same distance than it has been sailing since the initiation of the journey. (to return back)?

Yes that does make sense. So what you are saying is that you do not see a sudden shift for a positive change but that people will have to really slog to change things.

This in my view has an underlying assumption I don't think is correct about the nature of power. In that, it assumes the power of the creation of these bad things is equally spread out but we know, that power is heirarchical. I do think if the entrenched political class can be taken out very quickly and a negative is REMOVED. I.e. as in the fall of the European Union. Then we can make very quick progress in a positive direction. Even once the progress is happening it is less bad then when it does not seem to be.

Also, the Deep State is very effective and for this many things to be happening against them, it seems likely that they are palpably losing and unable to prevent positive change from all avenues it comes from.

The way I see this is of a lot of good people having been stopped by a singular negative force, when that is removed a tide of positive energy can flood in.

I just read that Merkel might be out of a job by the end of next week.

[J.L.W]

26 minutes ago, barn said:

Do you think my doubts in your thread are doing a disservice to what you think would be preferable?

No, it has given me the opportunity to more strongly explain my position and I think that sort of political discussion does need strong opinions. Since we are dealing with real stuff here with a lot of material a lot can be discussed. There is a lot that can be falsely assumed.

I did think you were not contributing on the thread about subconscious signals. Not in that the analysis was incorrect but that to contribute you might have discussed your own ideas on the subject before jumping in and analysing mine.

[J.L.W]

Quote

in order to get back to the starting point of a ship's journey, the ship has to travel in the opposite direction the same distance than it has been sailing since the initiation of the journey. (to return back)?

Yes that does make sense. So what you are saying is that you do not see a sudden shift for a positive change but that people will have to really slog to change things.

This in my view has an underlying assumption I don't think is correct about the nature of power. In that, it assumes the power of the creation of these bad things is equally spread out but we know, that power is heirarchical. I do think if the entrenched political class can be taken out very quickly and a negative is REMOVED. I.e. as in the fall of the European Union. Then we can make very quick progress in a positive direction. Even once the progress is happening it is less bad then when it does not seem to be.

[J.L.W]

Also, the negative is very effective and for this many things to be happening against them, it seems likely that they are palpably losing and unable to prevent positive change from all avenues it comes from.

The way I see this is of a lot of good people having been stopped by a singular negative force, when that is removed a tide of positive energy can flood in.

I just read that Merkel might be out of a job by the end of next week.

[J.L.W]

Also, the negative is very effective and for this many things to be happening against them, it seems likely that they are palpably losing and unable to prevent positive change from all avenues it comes from.

[J.L.W]

I just read that Merkel might be out of a job by the end of next week.

[barn]

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

8 hours ago, barn said:

Do you think my doubts in your thread are doing a disservice to what you think would be preferable? 

No, it has given me the opportunity to more strongly explain my position and I think that sort of political discussion does need strong opinions.

Oh, that's good.

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

I did think you were not contributing on the thread about subconscious signals. Not in that the analysis was incorrect but that to contribute you might have discussed your own ideas on the subject before jumping in and analysing mine. 

Errm, I beg your pardon? ( I'm happy to re-visit it THERE if you'd like, it doesn't make sense to me HERE, maybe you assume I'm following your train of thought since it initiated in your mind? Sorry, I don't. )

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Quote

in order to get back to the [...] the journey. (to return back)?

Yes that does make sense. So what you are saying is that you do not see a sudden shift for a positive change but that people will have to really slog to change things. 

I don't see sudden shift, yes but that's beside the point.

The ship has travelled a distance, it first needs to return. THEN can it go more in the opposite direction, opposite of the initial heading that had to be reverted.

I deliberately said speed was optional

8 hours ago, barn said:

plus:

° can do ( faster movement )

° can't do ( not change direction or just slow down = won't get closer)  

because let's say society agrees we  need a fix and needs it quick, it's possible to have the work required done faster.

But the amount of work still won't change, the 'ship' still needs to traverse all that distance back it 'wrongly' sailed down upon the first place.

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

I do think if the entrenched political class can be taken out very quickly and a negative is REMOVED. I.e. as in the fall of the European Union. Then we can make very quick progress in a positive direction. 

This looks like a nice-ish sentiment, a hopeful thought. Wish it was that simple.

Do you have any ( past) provable track record supporting the validity of your idea? (I mean, can you point to a single example of reduction in state-power/coercion?)

{Caveat: I'm all about probabilities, not exceptions. In regards to politicians, I just see them as 'shopfront', even Trump... it's like a machinery, some parts get exposed, others never get to see daylight. You can't interact with what you don't know existed. Replacing the outer layers, don't have any meaningful effect on the inner parts responsible for the running of the 'engine'.}

I strongly believe that the real change for a better future can only come from a transformation within the base of the pyramid. The top only cares about itself, only extorts what people are willing to in order for quick 'n easy cash...

The more people wake up to their potential, the more they realise their responsibility for their own life, their' horizontal' influence -> the more 'accurate' (aware) their response will be to existing incentives. -> the less they can be influenced by dangled carrots tied to sticks.

i. e. - increase in preferring long term gain over short term bursts of gratification, or at least more honest about it -> people will appreciate more those that provide such things = peaceful parenting, strong ethos, merit based evaluation, principle based justice system, respecting property/ownership more... etc.

But first, society has to check-in to a rehabilitation facility, get off drugs such as future borrowing or 'let us not worry about our children, they'll raise themselves' hypocrisy.

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Then we can make very quick progress in a positive direction.

We might. Or we might not. The availability of an option doesn't mean it is going to happen. ->

( Not saying it about you, just in general to my point : ->A common misconception about "Murphy's Law(link)", the inverse is falsely interpreted too)

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Also, the negative is very effective and for this many things to be happening against them, it seems likely that they are palpably losing and unable to prevent positive change from all avenues it comes from.

I couldn't piece this one together, probably it's too vague but I really can't tell . Sorry.

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

I just read that Merkel might be out of a job by the end of next week. 

I'm more worried about the people who have chosen her (4 TIMES !!!!!!!!!) in the first place, the people who are celebrating Germans becoming a minority by the end of 2040 hasn't decreased significantly... and, well, they're not saying nonsensical stuff if you look at the rate of population replacement.

Oh, and the recently arrived, soon to be state-power 'props', them people kinda tips the scale of 'progress' too towards 'hard-landing on the side of a mountain, gears not extended jammed, engines stalling' . In my assessment, very nasty and turbulent times are being facilitated by all of that, the options for negotiations are decreasing, everyone's doubling down, pushing harder. You know as well as everyone does, what will come next... SNAP!

Do you know who's most likely to replace her?

P.s. :

#1 - A happenstance.

#2 - A coincidence.

#3 - Enemy movement.

#4 - 'You' are clearly brainwashed.

Edited June 17, 2018 by barn
grrrmer, Xtndd

[J.L.W]

Quote

Do you have any (past) provable track record supporting the validity of your idea? (I mean, can you point to a single example of reduction in state-power/coercion?)

The fall of the Soviet Union, and the conversion of Germany to the Free market after WW2

[barn]

4 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

The fall of the Soviet Union, and the conversion of Germany to the Free market after WW2

Um... how did state power decrease there?

Isn't state control greater, only reorganised?

[barn]

What I mean is,

Say you had a land for crops, which you managed exploitingly, didn't replace nutrients, didn't allow the land to rest... etc.

One day came a farmer from a faraway land and suggested that you used crop rotation and allowed other farmers to utilise some parts of the land for a small cut in the proceedings from their work, allowed them to choose from ONLY 10 different types of crops to grow.

My question is :

(1)Did you or did you not give away any power over your land since the beginning, (2)or is it just that you're managing your property better?

[J.L.W]

Yes, relative to where they were at the time it was a reduction in State Power because Germany went from totalitarian social economic control to free market.

?

[barn]

36 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

Yes, relative to where they were at the time it was a reduction in State Power because Germany went from totalitarian social economic control to free market.

?

I'm not trying to convince you or anything, sure I see your idea. 

I'm just saying less control is still not freedom. Although faint memories of what I've read about the 'Miracle' tells me there's a lot that can be learned from it. Especially, since it quickly got 'watered down' , how it got diminished and turned into some sort of a feudalism for the joining nations within the EU.

Quite annoying to think of it that it couldn't be maintained nor taken further towards more freedoms.

[barn]

A quick re-cap, noticed they weren't answered.

It's ok if you don't want to, they're totally up to you. I'm just letting you know I had noticed:

#1

On 06/16/2018 at 1:41 PM, barn said:

By the way... What do you think about the "Fall of Rome" presentation and the plethora of parallels with current times? 

#2

19 hours ago, barn said:

Errm, I beg your pardon?

#3 ( this is an ask for clarification )

19 hours ago, barn said:

I couldn't piece this one together, probably it's too vague but I really can't tell . Sorry. 

#4

19 hours ago, barn said:

Do you know who's most likely to replace her? 

#5

Lastly, have I been successful (in your opinion) un-packing the 'ship' analogy enough, so that you could respond to it now?

19 hours ago, barn said:

21 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Quote

in order to get back to the [...] the journey. (to return back)?

 Yes that does make sense. So what you are saying is that you do not see a sudden shift for a positive change but that people will have to really slog to change things. 

I don't see sudden shift, yes but that's beside the point.

The ship has travelled a distance, it first needs to return. THEN can it go more in the opposite direction, opposite of the initial heading that had to be reverted.

I deliberately said speed was optional

22 hours ago, barn said:

plus:

° can do ( faster movement )

° can't do ( not change direction or just slow down = won't get closer)  

because let's say society agrees we  need a fix and needs it quick, it's possible to have the work required done faster.

But the amount of work still won't change, the 'ship' still needs to traverse all that distance back it 'wrongly' sailed down upon the first place. 

 

[J.L.W]

13 hours ago, barn said:

I'm not trying to convince you or anything, sure I see your idea. 

I'm just saying less control is still not freedom. Although faint memories of what I've read about the 'Miracle' tells me there's a lot that can be learned from it. Especially, since it quickly got 'watered down' , how it got diminished and turned into some sort of a feudalism for the joining nations within the EU.

Quite annoying to think of it that it couldn't be maintained nor taken further towards more freedoms.

I am at work at the moment and there is a high call volume and I have other things I am preparing for later on today so cannot look at the points you made in detail now. But while I agree less control is not freedom, I also don't subscribe to Utopian visions. The only thing we should be doing is moving towards improvement, not moving towards Utopia where everything is solved. Also, improvement can have a snowball effect.

Fall of Rome was the 5 hour presentation? I think the world is now more complex with competing empires whereas Rome only had the one. Plus computers, finance etc. However I would have to re- review that. I remember a lot of it such as inflation of currency but I must have forgotten a lot since the presentation was so long.

[barn]

Hi @J.L.W

Sounds like you got the job you wanted, if so... awesome!

Sure, no rush.

[J.L.W]

3 hours ago, barn said:

Hi @J.L.W

Sounds like you got the job you wanted, if so... awesome!

Sure, no rush.

Thanks Barn, that's my current job. It's the one I am trying to leave.

Just about to re- go through the Rome presentation now.

[J.L.W]

That presentation is so good I realise I have not taken in enough of it. It's like apparently you need to read a book more than once to really get it.

Stefans depth of research here does offer a few very disturbing and very bad trends. But there are also differences. Rome had no industrial revolution whereas, cheap immigration is used as a stopgap against progress at the moment but we have industrialised a whole lot. Politicians inefficiently attempting to put quick fixes on their stupid ideas is a problem. We are not in socialism yet.

I would estimate we can still come back from this. There is not yet any arresting of landowners for 'treason'. The internet has created an ideas revolution which Rome never had access to. We also have other unpredictable factors such as China and Russia not being Barbarians but being fairly advance, we have cryptocurrency, we do have a judicial system and people in the military that are prepared to defend rights against vote rigging and arrest child traffickers.

[J.L.W]

What do you think Barn... Do you think Stefan's Rome parallels are an accurate comparison to the present day?

[J.L.W]

I do not know who is likely to replace Merkel. But we are on a lucky streak Barn! Italy, Spain. Let's hope for a non blood drinking goblin one.

[barn]

(I was hoping you wouldn't mention Spain... please, can we pretend it was never brought up... pretty please?!...<facepalm>)

I'll wait for the rest of your contributions to trickle in...

[barn]

° (4yr old data, humble estimate = willing to register) over 10.7% of the total population.

° (as a reference) In 1998, immigrants accounted for 3 per cent of the population

...

Please, let's not go into the details about partnership with African coordinator centres, doctors without borders and / illegal migration re-routings...

Touchy subject, haven't (yet) seen a dedicated presentation on it. I would appreciate it but at the same time it's also... a Touchy subject. I might not be able to go into it any deeper. Sorry.

[ticketyboo]

On 6/18/2018 at 11:18 AM, J.L.W said:

Do you think Stefan's Rome parallels are an accurate comparison to the present day?

Parallels:

Immigration: The Romans imported "barbarians" (foreigners) because they needed tax payers and soldiers for their army. The modern West imports foreigners to pay taxes for their pensions to make up for the low native birth rates. Rome experienced declining birth rates, similar to the West. The barbarians "just wanted a better life", similar to immigrants coming into the West. It all really comes down to the magical dirt theory of immigration.

Welfare. Bread and circuses.

Public finance. Currency debasement. Increasing taxation.

Easy divorce. Female empowerment. Low birth rates.

Loss of civic virtue. Loss of moral confidence. Loss of spirit of sacrifice for the greater good of the community. Loss of courage. Decline of character. This is the slide from r-selected to K-selected. This is harder to describe, but you can see it in the modern West in the form of this appeasing cowardice and conflict avoidance. As an example, consider Stefan's recent adventures with Lauren Southern and this video of her with the Australian chief of police (exact rank unknown, but he seemed high up). This man (or his superiors) have a choice. They can insist that Lauren has the right to say anything she wants, and that violent response by muslims is unacceptable. Instead, they insist that Lauren remain silent, because they are too scared to deal with any violent response by muslims. It's the same situation with the Pakistani rape gangs in England. You can either confront the problem directly, or cover it up to avoid conflict in the present moment. Complete surrender of all principles in order to avoid conflict. What sort of character do you imagine such men possessing? It's hard to put into words just how contemptibly cowardly and weak Western men have become. I also don't believe it is possible to explain to such men how contemptible they are. They likely wouldn't register the words as anything other than another conflict to avoid or a game to win in the moment. "How do I get more lollipops? How do I avoid more hurtsies? Will this impact my pension?" You can't use shame to make shameless cowards brave and moral. Do you see much bravery in the modern West?

 

 

[Meister]

You must be living in a parallel universe because I don’t see much winning going on.

The biggest tech companies, the government and the voters are all firmly in the hands of the international communists.

The Potus and congress are both in the hands of the republicans but the democrats just managed to prevent them from appointing a supreme court judge by getting a bunch of ultra-leftist activists to claim trivial, unprovable, bizare stuff that supposedly happend over three decades ago. Just as they did with Roy Moore.

 

If that’s winning then I dare not imagine what losing would look like ...

[Donnadogsoth]

On 8/4/2018 at 11:56 AM, ticketyboo said:

Parallels:

Immigration: The Romans imported "barbarians" (foreigners) because they needed tax payers and soldiers for their army. The modern West imports foreigners to pay taxes for their pensions to make up for the low native birth rates. Rome experienced declining birth rates, similar to the West. The barbarians "just wanted a better life", similar to immigrants coming into the West. It all really comes down to the magical dirt theory of immigration.

Welfare. Bread and circuses.

Public finance. Currency debasement. Increasing taxation.

Easy divorce. Female empowerment. Low birth rates.

Loss of civic virtue. Loss of moral confidence. Loss of spirit of sacrifice for the greater good of the community. Loss of courage. Decline of character. This is the slide from r-selected to K-selected. This is harder to describe, but you can see it in the modern West in the form of this appeasing cowardice and conflict avoidance. As an example, consider Stefan's recent adventures with Lauren Southern and this video of her with the Australian chief of police (exact rank unknown, but he seemed high up). This man (or his superiors) have a choice. They can insist that Lauren has the right to say anything she wants, and that violent response by muslims is unacceptable. Instead, they insist that Lauren remain silent, because they are too scared to deal with any violent response by muslims. It's the same situation with the Pakistani rape gangs in England. You can either confront the problem directly, or cover it up to avoid conflict in the present moment. Complete surrender of all principles in order to avoid conflict. What sort of character do you imagine such men possessing? It's hard to put into words just how contemptibly cowardly and weak Western men have become. I also don't believe it is possible to explain to such men how contemptible they are. They likely wouldn't register the words as anything other than another conflict to avoid or a game to win in the moment. "How do I get more lollipops? How do I avoid more hurtsies? Will this impact my pension?" You can't use shame to make shameless cowards brave and moral. Do you see much bravery in the modern West?

 

 

The cowards may be shameless but they are still ruled by the fear of being shamed out of existence by their fellow men.  Thus postmodern conscience makes cowards of us all.

[Azrael Rand]

12 hours ago, Meister said:

You must be living in a parallel universe because I don’t see much winning going on.

The biggest tech companies, the government and the voters are all firmly in the hands of the international communists.

The Potus and congress are both in the hands of the republicans but the democrats just managed to prevent them from appointing a supreme court judge by getting a bunch of ultra-leftist activists to claim trivial, unprovable, bizare stuff that supposedly happend over three decades ago. Just as they did with Roy Moore.

 

If that’s winning then I dare not imagine what losing would look like ...

Have to agree with you here. On a historical chart this could likely be a dead-cat bounce. Unless Republicans stop cucking or the Alt-Right manages to infiltrate the Democratic Party it seems like a sure path downwards after Trump leaves office.