[It_is_my_time]

(12-23-2013 05:37 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

@tail gunner it wasn't even a personal attack. I am pointing out the fact that he is dropping "data" based on zero experience.

HC said it better than me above, tugging at the heart strings of a political faction/affiliation to gain some credibility.

Same story as I posted above, if you're successful you're not bitter. If you're not bitter why do you hate your country so much. Pretty simple.

Making economic claims on a game forum based on zero actual experience is a bit of a joke no?

You continue to say I have no economic experience and no success in life.

You are wrong on both. But I would be interested more so in where you came up with these ideas.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-23-2013 06:12 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(12-23-2013 06:00 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

A brief follow-up on the IQ discussion earlier in the thread:

Of course men are smarter than women and have higher IQ. Does anyone on this forum or anyone with a brain in their head seriously doubt that?

The "study" that "J.J." linked to earlier is complete garbage.

Finally, it is my considered opinion, and has been for a long time, that the poster known as "J.J." is a female feminist . I was going to hold off longer but I don't like seeing that in a thread like this. Anyone look at that poster's history and tell me if they disagree.

From what I've heard, men and women have a similar average IQ. It's just that there's more variation among men.

So on the one hand you will almost never see female omegas that still live with their parents.

In the same vein, you will almost never see a female Newton either.

Yeah I know that is the party line. But if you read the literature they've done things for decades to "adjust" and "calibrate" the tests to eliminate the average difference between males and females. Even if you read the wiki which is basically party line one of the first sentences you see is:

Quote:

Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no differences between the average (mean) scores of females and males.[1] Areas where differences in mean scores have been found include verbal and mathematical ability.[1]

In other words the tests are specifically calibrated to eliminate the difference. As you might imagine, this is an incredibly corrupt field with an agenda to prove that there is no difference "on average".

The reality based on the best metastudies that you can get is that girls are as or more intelligent than boys until puberty or so. Then once males start getting real androgen secretion in puberty they overtake females in intelligence and never look back. Another way to verify this is to look around and observe that guys are smarter than bitches.

And you can safely remove that "almost" qualification about a "female Newton", "never" is just fine.

There are zero female Fields medalists.

[WestCoast]

^ okay what do you do then? That gives you the idea that you can correctly predict the impact of quant easing and a 10% rate?

You stated earlier you're saving your pennies for a collapse.

You have all the signs of a troll verbose propositions with no actual sheets or contributions to the forum.

So feel free to prove me wrong. If you're living the life everyone here will give you many more props than your posts about 10% interest rates.

It's pretty simple, happy people are not bitter about their lives/situation.

[Tail Gunner]

(12-23-2013 05:59 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

But bickering gets us nowhere. I enjoyed reading everyone's comments here.

I think that the goal of this thread was to meet Roosh's "banned members" quota for the year.

[Hotwheels]

(12-23-2013 06:39 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(12-23-2013 05:59 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

But bickering gets us nowhere. I enjoyed reading everyone's comments here.

I think that the goal of this thread was to meet Roosh's "banned members" quota for the year.

Just kicking back with some corn on this one.

[Roosh]

(12-23-2013 06:37 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ okay what do you do then? That gives you the idea that you can correctly predict the impact of quant easing and a 10% rate?

You stated earlier you're saving your pennies for a collapse.

You have all the signs of a troll verbose propositions with no actual sheets or contributions to the forum.

So feel free to prove me wrong. If you're living the life everyone here will give you many more props than your posts about 10% interest rates.

It's pretty simple, happy people are not bitter about their lives/situation.

7 day warning. Personal insults, roid rage, and vigilante revenge is not suitable here.

[amuseBouche]

I don't agree with the way westcoast is making his argument. But I think I see what the discrepancy is here. There's a certain energy about living in california that forces yourself to try to make it in some capacity. To reach your potential. I've noticed in middle america that energy is void. It's obvious that the push back of OP is coming from posters in cal. It's not that they're greedy or maladjusted, but that it's so obvious to them that making money is win-win and always has been. From the gardener to the banker. Yea maybe some make more than others, and some leverage their money at a higher rate. But in the end, making money is a win-win proposition. An act far more civilized than looting and killing to attain value.

[Aliblahba]

   

[Feisbook Control]

(12-23-2013 12:06 PM)ms224 Wrote:  

Victor Davis Hanson Takes on pajama boy

Quote:

There is a growing tiredness with Pajama Boy nation. Millions are sick of being lectured, caricatured, and slandered for their supposed pathologies by the Sandra Flukes of the age and those in their pajamas who still grasp with two hands their hot chocolate. Add all their annoying Stalinist efforts up — to selectively going after Chick-fil-A or the Washington Redskins or Duck Dynasty — and the public is becoming tired of the shrill nerdocracy.

How many are revolting against Pajama Boy nation and his bunch, no one quite knows. But I’m beginning to think for the first time since 2009 that the rage and numbers of the disengaged have not crested yet, not quite yet.

This is from a much more mainstream source than, say ROK.

I love VDH. At times, reading about inland California from him is like reading Cormac McCarthy. It would suck to live amongst it, but it's interesting to read.

[Feisbook Control]

I do think there is a certain cultural decline in the West, but I am also under no illusions that the non-West is a bowl of cherries. Here is where I am coming from though.

Firstly, I do have more than enough money to live quite comfortably outside the developed West off passive income alone. I am trying to build that to the point where I could live in the developed West off passive income alone so that I have more flexibility in where I live. The reason for this is that I've never been into the concept of a career. Jobs and businesses have only ever been about making money so that I could eventually do other things. My ultimate goal is to have no active income so that I can do other things that I am unlikely to make money from without them becoming a disproportionate part of my life (e.g. maybe I could make money from hiking, but not if I did it a few hours a week, and I don't want to do it thirty hours a week because that would make me stop enjoying it).

The question becomes though about how much utility I could get from different levels of passive income in different places in the world. My parents' water bills in Australia are somewhere around five times my water bills in Taiwan. The basic cost of living in the developed West is just higher. Why does it cost five times as much for water in Australia? The most straightforward reason is that there's a huge flat fee everyone pays, regardless of water usage. Yet why is that? That starts getting at a lot of things people are complaining about here. I pay 5% tax in Taiwan. There's little to no welfare state, etc. Now obviously, there are qualitative differences that are better in the West (for instance, footpaths/sidewalks in Taiwan are atrocious). Yet think of it like this.

Say place A cost $20,000/year to live in and place B cost $40,000/year to live in. Are those qualitative differences really worth the $20,000/year difference? Would I be better off accepting lower standards in some areas by living outside the developed West, but then having that extra $20,000/year, for example, in my pocket? Most people below the age of sixty simply can't live off passive income in the West, and even many of those above that age can't. They might have trees on the street outside their house, but they can't afford to take a vacation. I'm not talking about people with incomes (passive or active) in the top 1% here. Pretty much if you have $10 million, you're going to live like a king in most places, obviously. What if you have $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, etc.? Where can you get the most utility? My sister and her husband do make a massive amount of money in the West in real careers, but they work like dogs to get it (and the government takes a huge slice, yet I can't quite work out where all the tax money really goes, and I actually find Australia to be far more bureaucratic than Taiwan). For me, that's not a trade off I really want to make because I have a whole lot of other priorities than a career, inner city apartment and general SWPL lifestyle. Isn't this what Scorpion is getting at?

Not all of us complaining about these things are losers. It's just that money is a means, not an end, or at least it's a different means to that of other people.

[Cattle Rustler]

People in less developed countries flock to the west because their country is too "shitty"

People in the west complain about their country and flock to less developed countries because their country is too "shitty"

It's nice to survive in EE or SEA with 30K, one can work doing what they like and have free time. Most locals don't have that ability.

Edit: What's up with the MGTOWs, MRAs, and frustrated libertarian influx to RVF? I've seen some members post only in political threads.

[Cattle Rustler]

(12-23-2013 06:26 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(12-23-2013 05:07 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It says everything about the values of a Wall Street guy that he automatically assumes a person who disagrees with him must be disgruntled and poor. It's a special kind of obliviousness and arrogance, born out of the sick cultural belief that the accumulation of money is the supreme good, and that since bankers enjoy the closest proximity to money, they themselves must be the most virtuous and knowledgeable of all.

Remember it was these financial "geniuses" that brought the country close to a great depression and had to be bailed out by the government. Maybe he is too big to fail.

The Wall Street/Finance-Industry geniuses kept their jobs and riches......while main street got underemployment and the bill. So yes, they are geniuses.

[Muk]

but do we really have to expatriate? I've been wondering lately, how is it that the Amish, Mormons, and " Indians" have managed to successfully separate themselves from American society without having their houses knocked over with tanks and foot soldiers? Is it something that we could learn from?

[la_mode]

"For every choice, there is always a sacrifice".

- West side Chicago retired pimp

It applies to everything. Including this topic.

[Tail Gunner]

(12-23-2013 05:26 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Honestly, a lot of you guys who whine about cultural shit on the internet just sound like pussies. That shit is not red pill and people who whine instead of talking about the success they are achieving - or trying to achieve - have no business hijacking that term. The most incessant whiners are the guys with the least value. Westcoast drops a lot of data, from travel to game to whatever. But there's a lot of guys that you only see in political threads trying to appeal to people's fears and insecurities instead of uplifting them with wisdom or game. That's BS. Good to see some reclamation of reality going on in this thread. About time.

What you see as whining and weak, I see as strength and empathy for my fellow man.

I am a lifelong student of history, business, and politics -- and a more recent student of economics. After the 2008 financial crisis, I read dozens of books on economics and probably over 1000 articles on the topic.

Throughout human history, money consisted of gold (and silver). When a nation ran out of gold, it simply went bankrupt.

When nations began to issue fiat currency (only since the 1800's), people developed trust in those intrinsically worthless pieces of paper only because they were backed by gold. Because gold is a finite asset, it controls the amount of currency that a nation can print and prevents inflation and currency debasement -- based on the maximum amount of gold that a nation owns.

By the 1860's, the U.K. was the primary exporter of manufactured goods and services and over 60% of world trade was invoiced in pound sterling. The British Pound became the world's reserve currency, backed by gold.


Problem #1:

After WWII, the U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency, backed by gold. In 1971, Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard and created, for the first-time ever, a free-floating world reserve currency back only by the good faith of the U.S. government.

That has never happened before in world history.

So, what does this mean? It means that the world is engaged in a massive forty-three year experiment in using a world reserve currency, backed by no asset to restrain money printing, with completely unknown consequences for the world's economy. This scenario has never before occurred in human history. What if that experiment fails? Are you ready?


Problem #2:

Most of the dollars circulating today are not in the U.S., but outside of the U.S. What happens when the rest of the world, fearful of trusting a currency not backed by any asset and a nation with a debt load that no nation has ever survived, decides to drop the dollar as the world's reserve currency? What happens when no one wants all those extra dollars?

The U.S. government can afford its current debt levels only because of current historically low interest rates (see next section) and because of the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, which creates an artificial demand for dollars amongst every nation on Earth.

The USD is almost assured of losing its status as the world's reserve currency within the next ten years. Are you ready for that?


Problem #3:

The Federal Reserve has artificially suppressed interest rates, because the government cannot afford to borrow money to pay the interest on its debt at real market interest rates. In the meantime, mom and pop who worked all their lives to save $1 million for their retirement have to eat cat food, because they can only earn less than one percent annually on their money ($10,000) because the Fed has suppressed market interest rates.

They could, however, live quite comfortably on historical real market interest rates of six to eight percent annually ($60,000 to $80,000 annually). This is institutionalized theft from the middle class to Wall Street.


These three problems are the tip of the iceberg. There are many others. These problems are so serious that the U.S. government has contingency plans to nationalize the nation's retirement accounts, which hold trillions of dollars in assets.

If you do not believe that a country can get that desperate, Poland just recently nationalized private retirement funds worth about 68 billion Euros -- or more than one-fifth of Poland’s gross domestic product. If you did not hear that news, then you are not in the loop and you should question what else you do not know about the world's economy -- or even just your own country's economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/busine....html?_r=0

[j r]

I find these treads fascinating, but they tell me much more about the people posting than about what America's problems are.

When I read Jezebel or other femenist sites, I notice a lot of personal unhappiness masquerading as political philosophy. And I see something similar at work here. America has plenty of problems, some of them wry serious. However, there simply was not golden age in which America was some paragon of morality and virtue. There is good and bad now and there has always been good and bad.

[paninaro]

(12-23-2013 11:24 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Problem #1:

So, what does this mean? It means that the world is engaged in a massive forty-three year experiment in using a world reserve currency, backed by no asset to restrain money printing, with completely unknown consequences for the world's economy. This scenario has never before occurred in human history. What if that experiment fails? Are you ready?


Problem #2:

Most of the dollars circulating today are not in the U.S., but outside of the U.S. What happens when the rest of the world, fearful of trusting a currency not backed by any asset and a nation with a debt load that no nation has ever survived, decides to drop the dollar as the world's reserve currency? What happens when no one wants all those extra dollars?

The U.S. government can afford its current debt levels only because of current historically low interest rates (see next section) and because of the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, which creates an artificial demand for dollars amongst every nation on Earth.

The USD is almost assured of losing its status as the world's reserve currency within the next ten years. Are you ready for that?


Problem #3:

The Federal Reserve has artificially suppressed interest rates, because the government cannot afford to borrow money to pay the interest on its debt at real market interest rates. In the meantime, mom and pop who worked all their lives to save $1 million for their retirement have to eat cat food, because they can only earn less than one percent annually on their money ($10,000) because the Fed has suppressed market interest rates.

(I cut some of your post just for brevity)

For 1 and 2 -- if the USD will fail to remain the world reserve currency in the next 10 years, what will replace it? It has to be a currency with a) a large market (supply) b) backed by a relatively stable and transparent government with good monetary policy

The a) requirement eliminates just about all currencies except the Euro and RMB. Then, b) eliminates RMB for sure, and probably the Euro. The ECB and EU, partly due to their complicated structures which hinder decision-making, haven't proven very good at responding to problems in a rapid manner.

For 3 -- the US's ability to borrow at low interest rates is primarily driven by investors willing to loan money to the US (in the forms of T-bills) at that rate. A decent amount of that money is coming from foreign governments and investors. So, if they're willing to give the US a loan of money at such a low rate, why should the US not accept it? (The reason they do it, IMO, is that there are no other "risk-free" options for holding large sums of money.. i.e. the US is the best of the worst when it comes to safe investments).

Moving on to the overall apocalypse I think you allude to. What happened in 2008? From a numbers standpoint, that was pretty bad. Markets down, home values down, unemployment up. But it still wasn't Mad Max style armageddon. We didn't have wide-scale riots in streets; a collapse of order, etc. People for the most part went about their usual routine, though with a lighter wallet and a smaller bank account.

But let's just pretend the USD fails entirely. So what? The US produces a surplus of food and has abundant resources notably fresh water and energy. The next day, the Mint can just start printing some new currency, and all domestic transactions will take place using that. We can just ignore world trade (which is the only place where a currency's value is compared anyway) and still at least get by.

The reason I don't think the USD will fail is that would imply some other world currency will take its place as the global currency, and I don't see any good candidates. On top of that, so many countries and businesses are tied to the USD, whether it be due to trade or just holdings, that there's so much to be lost if that were to happen.. I don't think they would let it reach that point.

[scorpion]

(12-24-2013 12:23 AM)j r Wrote:  

I find these treads fascinating, but they tell me much more about the people posting than about what America's problems are.

When I read Jezebel or other femenist sites, I notice a lot of personal unhappiness masquerading as political philosophy. And I see something similar at work here. America has plenty of problems, some of them wry serious. However, there simply was not golden age in which America was some paragon of morality and virtue. There is good and bad now and there has always been good and bad.

Do you fail to see the irony of this statement? You basically just played the favorite feminist debate card, a modified version of, "Anyone who is critical of women is just bitter and can't get laid!"

In this case: "Anyone who is critical of American society is unhappy and unsuccessful!"

[j r]

(12-24-2013 12:35 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 12:23 AM)j r Wrote:  

I find these treads fascinating, but they tell me much more about the people posting than about what America's problems are.

When I read Jezebel or other femenist sites, I notice a lot of personal unhappiness masquerading as political philosophy. And I see something similar at work here. America has plenty of problems, some of them wry serious. However, there simply was not golden age in which America was some paragon of morality and virtue. There is good and bad now and there has always been good and bad.

Do you fail to see the irony of this statement? You basically just played the favorite feminist debate card, a modified version of, "Anyone who is critical of women is just bitter and can't get laid!"

In this case: "Anyone who is critical of American society is unhappy and unsuccessful!"

Nope. That's not what I said at all.

People should most certainly be critical of American society. It is just very telling what aspects of American society and American history that people choose to criticize and which they choose to ignore or gloss over.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-24-2013 12:39 AM)j r Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 12:35 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 12:23 AM)j r Wrote:  

I find these treads fascinating, but they tell me much more about the people posting than about what America's problems are.

When I read Jezebel or other femenist sites, I notice a lot of personal unhappiness masquerading as political philosophy. And I see something similar at work here. America has plenty of problems, some of them wry serious. However, there simply was not golden age in which America was some paragon of morality and virtue. There is good and bad now and there has always been good and bad.

Do you fail to see the irony of this statement? You basically just played the favorite feminist debate card, a modified version of, "Anyone who is critical of women is just bitter and can't get laid!"

In this case: "Anyone who is critical of American society is unhappy and unsuccessful!"

People should most certainly be critical of American society. It is just very telling what aspects of American society and American history that people choose to criticize and which they choose to ignore or gloss over.

Exactly. You can't bring up the "founding fathers" and ignore the fact that they owned slaves and were running a pure profit plantation economy based on exploitation. It's always been about money out here. Always has, always will.

Too much of the "Golden Age Fallacy" among certain segments of RVF posters.

[Tail Gunner]

(12-24-2013 12:34 AM)paninaro Wrote:  

For 1 and 2 -- if the USD will fail to remain the world reserve currency in the next 10 years, what will replace it? It has to be a currency with a) a large market (supply) b) backed by a relatively stable and transparent government with good monetary policy

The a) requirement eliminates just about all currencies except the Euro and RMB. Then, b) eliminates RMB for sure, and probably the Euro. The ECB and EU, partly due to their complicated structures which hinder decision-making, haven't proven very good at responding to problems in a rapid manner.

For 3 -- the US's ability to borrow at low interest rates is primarily driven by investors willing to loan money to the US (in the forms of T-bills) at that rate. A decent amount of that money is coming from foreign governments and investors. So, if they're willing to give the US a loan of money at such a low rate, why should the US not accept it? (The reason they do it, IMO, is that there are no other "risk-free" options for holding large sums of money.. i.e. the US is the best of the worst when it comes to safe investments).

Moving on to the overall apocalypse I think you allude to. What happened in 2008? From a numbers standpoint, that was pretty bad. Markets down, home values down, unemployment up. But it still wasn't Mad Max style armageddon. We didn't have wide-scale riots in streets; a collapse of order, etc. People for the most part went about their usual routine, though with a lighter wallet and a smaller bank account.

But let's just pretend the USD fails entirely. So what? The US produces a surplus of food and has abundant resources notably fresh water and energy. The next day, the Mint can just start printing some new currency, and all domestic transactions will take place using that. We can just ignore world trade (which is the only place where a currency's value is compared anyway) and still at least get by.

The reason I don't think the USD will fail is that would imply some other world currency will take its place as the global currency, and I don't see any good candidates. On top of that, so many countries and businesses are tied to the USD, whether it be due to trade or just holdings, that there's so much to be lost if that were to happen.. I don't think they would let it reach that point.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. There is near universal agreement that the new reserve currency will be a basket of currencies that will include the USD, the RMB, the Euro (if it still exists), perhaps the GBP, and a few BRIC currencies. The purpose is to act as a hedge against using only a single devalued currency from a nation with a huge debt.

BTW: Nothing need go wrong in the U.S. need for the financial system to fail. The 2008 financial crisis began in the U.S. and quickly went worldwide. In fact, next time it is much more likely to begin in Europe or Japan and then spread to the rest of the world, but the result will be the same.

I fervently disagree that "low interest rates are primarily driven by investors willing to loan money to the US (in the forms of T-bills) at that rate." The Fed has made $85 billion per month in bond purchases (recently cut to $75 billion) because no other buyers are willing to make those bond purchases.

In essence, the U.S. government is selling debt to itself to artificially suppress interest rates. The USG would need to offer much higher market interest rates to entice real buyers back into the U.S. bond market. Instead, the USG simply sells debt to itself to skew the market.

Here is an excerpt from an article that I just read today, explaining some of these points:

Quote:

Moreover, the Fed has the ability to increase its liabilities at will. Mr. Bernanke can conjure additional Federal Reserve notes out of thin air and pump them into the system.

And at this point, thanks to a long-standing policy of wanton money printing, the Fed has more liabilities than ever before in its history. By an enormous margin.

This precarious balance sheet is dangerous, because if the Fed goes bust, everyone loses.

Is it even possible for a central bank to go bust? Definitely. Zimbabwe and Tajikistan are infamous examples.

And most recently it happened in Iceland. The banking system there collapsed from being so highly leveraged, and Iceland's central bank suffered tremendous losses.

The end result was insolvency, and the central bank's liabilities, i.e. the Icelandic kronor, went into freefall, losing 60% against the dollar and euro in a matter of days.

So yes, it does happen. And the consequences are devastating.

But how likely is it that the Fed could go bust?

In its most recently published balance sheet, the Fed listed assets valued at $3.5 trillion.

Most of this is US Treasuries and 'agency' debt securities. You probably remember those-- the toxic mortgage debt that blew up a few years ago like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not exactly low risk.

Meanwhile, the Fed has become one of the biggest creditors of the United States government... which has managed to accumulate more debt than any government in the history of the world.

Of course, the only way the US government can pay interest to the Fed is by going into even more debt (which the Fed then has to buy).

Every time this happens, the Fed's already razor-thin capital gets smaller and smaller, and the Fed's balance sheet becomes riskier and riskier.

In fact, the Fed's capital ratio (1.53%) is lower than Lehman Brothers when they went bankrupt in 2008.

But what happens if the Fed becomes insolvent?

In the case of Iceland, the government bailed out its central bank.

Iceland's government went from being essentially debt free to having debts in excess of 100% of the country's GDP, just to bail out the bank.

But the US, Japan, and Europe are already too indebted to bail out their central banks. An insolvent government cannot bail out an insolvent central bank.

The IMF is not an option either. The US, EU, Japan, etc. make up roughly half of the IMF capital quota-- these are the countries who fund the IMF, not the other way around.

There really is no backstop for the Fed. The buck, so to speak, stops here. And with a capital ratio of just 1.53%, the Fed's balance sheet is already in precarious financial condition.

Given that the Fed's assets are so closely tied to the finances of the US government, the outlook should concern independent, thinking people.

If they go bust, the value of Federal Reserve notes (i.e. 'dollars') is going to plummet... along with the paper wealth of anyone holding them.

http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/thin...ain-12453/

[j r]

America has a very definite long term fiscal sustainability issue. No doubt. It could end in some sort of pronounced economic and political crisis or it could just manifest itself in lower future spending and higher taxes. Who knows?

The Fed is expanding its balance sheet, because that's what the Fed is supposed to do during a recession. Read Milton Friedman.

America's problem is a fiscal one. The monetary doomsaying is overwrought.

[elabayarde]

About that visectony.... If I wanted to have kids one day would it be possible? Like are there procedures? In alittle young for it but... I had so many pregnancy scares, I mean a lot and recent. If there's threads on this sorry.

[tiggaling]

Great discussion guys.

I honestly think America is heavily under siege. Pretty much all the Americans I meet O/S speak of the same sort of oppression. The whole American way of life has been under attack for a long time now, as the constitution (and all that represents integrity) is left in tatters and stomped on by greedy, power mad men and then by proxy, all those under their pyramid (same old story)

On a psychic, emotional, spiritual level - America has become unreasonably sick. It is very obvious to all of us who do not live in America that this is the case. I meet random Americans and they take it for granted the level of brainwashing that is occurring there on every level. I also talk a lot of non-Americans about this too. Out there in the big wide world, there can be level of stigma against all American people, simply because it is quite easy to get burnt by those who are brainwashed into the manipulatively medicated, hyper-individualistc agendas.

And yet, it is like every country, there are small numbers of very brilliant people who just transcend their cultural milieu. And the very brilliant Americans out there are some of the most brilliant you will meet anywhere. And yet, the man on the street, is far more stupid than in any other western countries.

As for the females, I am not sure. Maybe there can be some change. Maybe females will return to true female values. I do not think the way is back into some sort of 1950's versions of femininity. But it is the women themselves who must change, the question is, what can we do to precipitate or bring this realization to the women? As men, do we really know what changes, evolutions, transformations are needing to occur? So as things get worse and worse, as American women begin to look more like Hyena's than humans, I think more and more people will wake up. Red pill thinking will likely increase, and perhaps a new kind of enlightenment will prevail. Perhaps it is American women who will then lead the charge.
Perhaps.

[Moma]

(12-24-2013 02:16 AM)elabayarde Wrote:  

About that visectony.... If I wanted to have kids one day would it be possible? Like are there procedures? In alittle young for it but... I had so many pregnancy scares, I mean a lot and recent. If there's threads on this sorry.

LOL@this random post!