Category Archives: general

The Truth About Karl Marx, Or The Fat Man Who Wrote a Diet Book

The Truth About Karl Marx

Karl Heinrich Marx is known as a German philosopher, economist and revolutionary socialist. How did the man who railed against economic and sexual exploitation treat those around him? What is the truth about Karl Marx?

Order “Intellectuals” by Paul Johnson here:…

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at:

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: LL76SbNek3dT8bv2APZNhWgNv3nHEzAgKT

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at:

Marx was a child of his time, the mid-nineteenth century, and Marxism was a characteristic nineteenth-century philosophy in that it claimed to be scientific. ‘Scientific’ was Marx’s strongest expression of approval, which he habitually used to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were ‘scientific'; they were not. He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behaviour in history akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behaviour in history akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Seems to have been a passionate Christian.

For a few years, in the 1860s and 1870s, he was again involved in revolutionary politics, running the International Working Men’s Association. But most of his time in London, until his death on 14 March 1883 — that is, thirty-four years — was spent in the British Museum, finding material for a gigantic study of capital, and trying to get it into publishable shape. He saw one volume through the press (1867) but the second and third were compiled from his notes by his colleague Friedrich Engels and published after his death.

He began writing poetry as a boy, around two main themes: his love for the girl next door, Jenny von Westphalen, of Prussian — Scotch descent, whom he married in 1841; and world destruction. He wrote a great deal of poetry, three manuscript volumes of which were sent to Jenny, were inherited by their daughter Laura and vanished after her death in 1911.

They were entitled ‘Savage Songs’, and savagery is a characteristic note of his verse, together with intense pessimism about the human condition, hatred, a fascination with corruption and violence, suicide pacts and pacts with the devil. ‘We are chained, shattered, empty, frightened/ Eternally chained to this marble block of being,’ wrote the young Marx , ‘… We are the apes of a cold God.’ He has himself, in the person of God, say: ‘I shall howl gigantic curses at mankind,’ and below the surface of much of his poetry is the notion of a general world-crisis building up. 4 He was fond of quoting Mephistopheles’ line from Goethe’s Faust, ‘Everything that exists deserves to perish';

He found it in his hatred of usury and moneylenders, a passionate feeling directly related (as we shall see) to his own money difficulties.

Hegel’s followers were all in varying degrees anti-Semitic, and in 1843 Bruno Bauer, the anti-Semitic leader of the Hegelian left, published an essay demanding that the Jews abandon Judaism completely. Marx’s essays were a reply to this. He did not object to Bauer’s anti-Semitism; indeed he shared it, endorsed it and quoted it with approval. But he disagreed with Bauer’s solution. Marx rejected Bauer’s belief that the anti-social nature of the Jew was religious in origin and could be remedied by tearing the Jew away from his faith. In Marx’s opinion, the evil was social and economic. He wrote: ‘Let us consider the real Jew. Not the Sabbath Jew … but the everyday Jew.’ What , he asked, was ‘the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.’ The Jews had gradually spread this ‘practical’ religion to all society:

Amazon US Affiliate Link:
Amazon Canada Affiliate Link:
Amazon UK Affiliate Link:

Stefan Molyneux’s Social Media
Linked In:…

Freedomain Radio Social Media

Message Board:
Meet-Up Groups:
iTunes Podcasts:…

The Truth About Karl Marx – YouTube

EmDrive: the propulsion technology that seems to defy physics

In 2001, a researcher named Roger Shawyer created something he called the EmDrive. He described it as a new space propulsion technology that can create thrust without propellant. It uses microwaves and electricity and he claimed it could theoretically push spacecraft through space without using any rocket fuel. If it really works, it will revolutionise space travel. We could get to Mars in 10 weeks without propellant.

Although Shawyer created a working model, the EmDrive wasn’t accepted by the scientific community. For it to work the way Shawyer describes it, the EmDrive must defy our current understanding of physics. He wasn’t the first person to make physics-defying claims so it’s no surprise that physicists didn’t take him seriously. Shawyer and his creation probably would have faded into obscurity if it wasn’t for the fact that 4 independent labs, including NASA’s Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory, have recreated the drive and reported that it does create thrust. They just can’t explain why.

News about the EmDrive has been buzzing again recently because a paper has been published with another controversial hypothesis but it’s one of the most interesting so far. The author, Dr Mike McCulloch of Plymouth University, claims that the drive’s thrust might mean we need a new theory of inertia and he has suggestions. His idea is controversial, but it’s also testable. That’s what makes it worth considering. Also, if true, it could explain the thrust without violating the conservation of momentum.

EmDrive: the propulsion technology that seems to defy physics

Feminism Blinds Students to the Truth About Men | Quillette

When I started taking Women’s Studies classes 4 years ago, I was seduced by feminist ideology. Mentally tabulating my oppression cards became a hobby.  Unfortunately, being steeped in feminism didn’t just make me blind to the truth about men—it made me actively resist learning about it.

Thankfully, while feminism taught me that women were on the losing side of everything—real life taught me that disadvantage is more nuanced than that.

Men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide. As schizophrenia is arguably one of the worst mental illnesses, men are also 2-3x more likely to fall ill to it. Research tends to concur that men are anywhere from 2-15x more likely to have autism. Men also are also twice as likely to develop alcohol addiction, which is a debilitating and destructive disease that has ramifications for everyone, including women and children.

Published by Toni Airaksinen

Feminism Blinds Students to the Truth About Men | Quillette

Who cares what feminists think? Well, not so fast. Feminism is about equality, but equality is really about communism. The feminist movement is about turning men and women into interchangeable bricks in a communism society.

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate or support the rights and equality of women.

Feminism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a couple of problems in pushing for equality:

  1. What does equality mean?
  2. How can you stop?

Women can’t really be equal to men until they take on all the roles of men, and men take on all the roles of women. So equality looks a whole lot like the same.

Where can one stop short of communism in the push for equality? There is simply no natural stopping point. Well, we could just become Sweden. Except Sweden is on a path that will lead to the danger of collapse due to massive immigration. Sweden is now the rape capitol of Europe because of Muslim immigration from the Middle East.

Marxist Feminism, Marriage and MGTOW – YouTube

I´m bringing this up because I see feminists as key influencers in the drive to undermine western civilization.

Google’s New YouTube Analysis App Crowdsources War Reporting | WIRED

To handle that flood of digital footage, his team has been testing a tool called Montage. Montage was built by the human rights-focused tech incubator Jigsaw, the subsidiary of Google’s parent company Alphabet that was formerly known as a Google Ideas, to sort, map, and tag video evidence from conflict zones. Over the last few months, it allowed six Carter Center analysts to categorize video coming out of Syria—identifying government forces and each of the slew of armed opposition groups, recording the appearance of different armaments and vehicles, and keeping all of that data carefully marked with time stamps and locations to create a searchable, sortable and mappable catalog of the Syrian conflict. “Some of our Montage investigations have had over 600 videos in them,” says McNaboe. “Even with a small team we’ve been able to go through days worth of video in a relatively short amount of time.”

Google’s New YouTube Analysis App Crowdsources War Reporting | WIRED


The World’s Newest Major Religion: No Religion

If the world is at a religious precipice, then we’ve been moving slowly toward it for decades. Fifty years ago, Time asked in a famous headline, “Is God Dead?” The magazine wondered whether religion was relevant to modern life in the post-atomic age when communism was spreading and science was explaining more about our natural world than ever before.

We’re still asking the same question. But the response isn’t limited to yes or no. A chunk of the population born after the article was printed may respond to the provocative question with, “God who?” In Europe and North America, the unaffiliated tend to be several years younger than the population average. And 11 percent of Americans born after 1970 were raised in secular homes.

The World’s Newest Major Religion: No Religion

The Post-Imperial Moment | The National Interest

WORLD DISORDER will only grow. The weakening and dissolution of small- and medium-size states in Africa and the Middle East will advance to quasi-anarchy in larger states on which the geographic organization of Eurasia hinges: Russia and China. For the external aggression of these new regional hegemons is, in part, motivated by internal weakness. They’re using nationalism to assuage the unraveling domestic economies upon which their societies’ stability rests. Then there is the European Union, which is enfeebled, if not crumbling. Rather than a unified and coherent superstate, Europe will increasingly be a less-than-coherent confection of states and regions, dissolving into the fluid geography of Eurasia, the Levant and North Africa. This is demonstrated by Russian revanchism and the demographic assault of Muslim refugees. Of course, on a longer time horizon there is technology itself. As the strategist T.X. Hammes points out, the convergence of cheap drones, cyber warfare, 3D printing and so on will encourage the diffusion of power among many states and nonstate actors, rather than the concentration of it into a few imperial-like hands.

We are entering an age of what I call comparative anarchy, that is, a much higher level of anarchy compared to that of the Cold War and post–Cold War periods.

After all, globalization and the communications revolution have reinforced, rather than negated, geopolitics. The world map is now smaller and more claustrophobic, so that territory is more ferociously contested, and every regional conflict interacts with every other as never before. …

Another thing: Remember that globalization is not necessarily associated with growth or stability, but only with vast economic and cultural linkages. These can amplify geopolitical disorder in the event of an economic slowdown. That’s what we are seeing now. …

In sum, everything is interlinked as never before, even as there is less and less of a night watchman to keep the peace worldwide. Hierarchies everywhere are breaking down. …

The Post-Imperial Moment | The National Interest

In my snowing mountain model, the snow falls for a very long time. There is an illusion of stability as everything seems OK. At the end of this period of stability, the snow on the mountain has reached a tipping point. It won’t take much to bring down a big wall of snow. The actual start of the collapse is the phase transition. You might not even notice the very initial phase of the collapse. Then very quickly the full collapse sets in and is unstoppable. Theoretically, one could stop the collapse in the very initial phase, but notice what this means: Thereafter, the mountain will remain unstable – on the edge of collapse.

The world is now in a state where things are starting to change – a phase transition. Previously, we saw an initial phase transition in the economies of the West. However, that collapse was suppressed, so we remain stuck in mid-transition where things don’t work right anymore.But what the big collapse showed us was that we have run out of time. The snow has fallen deep enough to cause a massive collapse. Just because we suppressed the collapse in one area does not mean that we do not have to worry about collapses in other areas. Now world disorder is increasing. We have entered a period of “comparative anarchy.” This is a phase transition for the entire planet.

Remember how all the experts told us that globalization was good? That lots of trade between the US and China would help to prevent war? Well, that’s all bunk. In the snowing mountain model, imagine that the slope of the mountain is divided up into sections with wide area of trees acting as dividers. Now let a collapse start on one part of the mountain. That collapse will likely only affect one or two sections of the mountain because of the tree separation. No trees means the collapse can spread far and wide. In the real world “no trees” means globalization. Globalization is precisely the thing you don’t want. You want to limit trade so that a crisis in one area won’t heavily affect you.

Thanks to the interconnectedness of globalization, problems get to spread all around the world. But some countries can’t handle a big disruption to their economy. And the likely result is an increased probability of war. Currently, a big war is building in the background between Israel and Hezbollah (plus Iran, Syria and Hamas.)  Then there are the concerns of war involving the US, Russia and China.

Why Women Destroy Nations And Civilizations

Before moving to the video and/or transcript below, I would like to point my own thinking on women. I noticed this problem a few years ago: National defense and border defense are a low priority for women. This thinking does not apply to all women, but it is a dominant force in the thinking of women. Protection of nation and civilization are generally taken for granted. It’s just not something they put a high priority one. And that could be a real big problem.

Have you noticed the great difference in priorities for the Democrats and Republicans?

Among the priorities most often listed by Democratic respondents, in addition to improving education, were bettering the job situation, reducing the cost of healthcare and making the Medicare system sound.

Among Republicans, top priorities included strengthening the military, cutting the budget deficit and dealing with immigration, the poll found.

Strengthening the military was cited as a top priority by three-quarters of Republicans, but only one-third of Democrats.

Similarly, two-thirds of Republicans, but only about four in 10 Democrats, cited immigration as a top priority.

Democrats rank better schools as top priority in new poll; GOP says fighting terrorism is Job No. 1

It’s about pushing for equality of outcome versus protection. If I’m dead, then do I really care about good schools?

Look at the demographics.

Gender. Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center

The Democratic party gets substantially more of the women’s vote than the men’s vote. More women translates into less focus on the bigger issues of protection – national defense, border defense and terrorism.


Edited Transcript of Video

If women’s sexual preferences are liberated and go unchecked they destroy civilizations. If women are allowed to choose the harem’s form, if women are allowed a voice in matters that pertain to the safety of a nation that nation will die inevitably. It’s as simple as that. Once you realize this you understand the entire basis behind civilized society, and if not, you will understand by the end of this video.

Let me state briefly what I’m talking about in this video so you can follow along more closely. Women do not on an instinctual level care very much about her tribe nation or civilization. It’s in their nature nor up to her biological creatures like all others, and they seek to maximize their chances of having viable offspring. This half century long experiment of women’s liberation and political enfranchisement has ended in disaster for the west, and the damage done to the west may be irreparable. And the only solution would be a return to a more patriarchal society and this seems highly unlikely.

I want you to hold onto this key thought as the meaning will become clearer as this video progresses. When I’m speaking of Western women I’m talking of women as an organism or in general. Of course there’s a spectrum and every individual is different but for the purposes of this video I’ll be speaking of Western women and their general characteristics. I realized that this is a sensitive topic and women with children are different from younger women but it’s the broad strokes of Western women that need to be addressed. If you’re a woman watching this and take offense this video, please understand that I do realize that not all women are the same but there are some very easily identifiable patterns of behavior that need to be discussed. Also key to understanding is that every dramatic change that Western women have brought to society has been allowed by Western men.

Western women, or for that matter any group of women, are not consciously seeking to undermine the foundations of a particular society through calculation or deception or for any underlying agenda. It’s just that women have never been the builders of any of the larger edifice is of civilization and are not and have never been responsible for maintaining them. This is borne out across every civilization throughout history. So to be clear I am NOT assigning any quote unquote blame on any group or gender in this video. I’m only trying to explain how I see the world that we’ve all inherited.

And let’s get this, tell me open women are not very good at being loyal to the tribe. They never have been, they never will be. The reason is it’s not in their nature to do. So women throughout history have shown time and time again they’re quick to seek the favors of men they feel are stronger and more dominant, whether they’re part of their in-group or not. Recent examples of this, besides Japanese or Vietnamese, war brides come from Europe and her illustrated by the countless numbers of Belgian French Dutch what have you. Women that took up relations with occupying German military personnel, and this was only a short time ago. But when Nazis were defeated and social stability was restored, they were punished for their betrayal and transgressions against their people. Now not only are women not punished for inviting alien and unassuming little armies of men into the West, they then vote for parties that forced the entire society to have its national rail redistributed to this army of aggressive and hostile men.

And women who are in positions of power even openly celebrate the destruction that they bring up on their people and openly target those that seek to retain their culture and civilization from obliteration as in the following video of German politician doctor Steffe von Berg in Hamburg Parliament:

“Our society will change. Our cities will change radically. I hold that is 20, 30 years there will no longer be German majorities in our cities. This is what we will have in the future. And I want to make it very clear, especially toward those right-wingers: This is a good thing!”

And as our societies become ever more dangerous because of people like Miss von Berg, and even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility for protection will probably always belong to men. This is very important. Women will only have as much freedom as their men are willing or capable of guaranteeing them.

So the question begs, why do women do this?

Why do women betray their in-group, and how is the current situation different from those that preceded it. Well, in a word enfranchisement women have been given the vote and in a democratic society they vote their biological imperative. Now what do I mean by this? Well, recent genetic research has shown that before the modern era eighty percent of women managed to reproduce while only forty percent of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top man had access to multiple women while the bottom sixty percent of men had no meeting prospects at all. Women clearly didn’t mind sharing the top man with a dozen other women ultimately deciding that being one of many women sharing a man who leads with still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a man who serves.

Commenting on this, Roy Baumeister a prominent social psychologist who teaches at Florida State University had this to say: It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences. He went on for women the optimal thing to do is to go along with the crowd: Be nice, play it safe, then the odds are good that a man who come along and offered sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. That we are descended from women who played it safe, from any outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe the odds are you won’t have children.

Most men who ever lived did not have any descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends, hence it was necessary to take chances trying new things be creative, explore other possibilities. Many societies including the West long ago devised a simple plan to stop the inherent infighting that occurs because a large majority of men in the in-group don’t have sexual access to women or the ability to reproduce legitimate children. The entire basis of Western society was the male agreement to keep only one woman in public, so that every male has nearly equal chance at reproduction. It’s for this reason that organized into advanced civilizations have always is needed to agree on the equitable distribution of women so as to incentivize. It’s meant to produce and have a stake in the Society’s health and security.

But this like other cultural arrangements that helped the West together for centuries is breaking down and can be observed in something as basic as the fact there are no western countries that are even at replacement levels in their birth rates. This again can be laid at the feet of loosening of sexual morality and the dating habits of young women. Locally called the 80/20 rule, what it basically means is that the vast majority – the eighty percent – are sexually pursuing the top twenty percent of men. This is highly damaging to the formation of monogamous couples and the successful formation of families. And the children that will be the next generation of any given country, and we’ll be talking about this more later in the video, but if you’re interested see Google for more information on this.

Also one thing to understand is that female psychology has always been about adaptation in our tribal past. If women of Concord tribes didn’t submit to their new masters they faced death along with their husbands, brothers, sons, fathers. Even today many women seek out aggressive men whether consciously or not as it seems that this psychology has been ground into women after countless years of our species evolution. That means criminals and gangsters and mass murderers are always going to be more attractive to women that hard working honest men. They always have been, always will be. Think of how many women throw themselves at drug dealers versus for example math teachers. Sexual attraction is based on this reality for many women regardless of whether they admit it or not, and the feminization of men in the West adhering to the repetitive and decades long diatribe that defies anything.  And all things masculine are no longer for many women attractive potential mates, especially for women in their critical prime childbearing years, but I do add this may and does change from many with age. The culture of the sensitive man, the emotional man, the compassionate man is at odds with what women are biologically predisposed to desire.

Young woman, if they tell you the truth, are drawn to the scalp drawl, not the impeccable gentleman with the perfectly manicured fingernails. It’s so much a part of women that it’s wrapped up in their very DNA. Just to get this out of the way because I have a feeling it might show up in the comments, yes I am aware that the vast majority of women when raped reach sexual climax or orgasm, however from all the science that’s been done this is just basically a hardwired response that if it does have an effect on women and their judgment it must do so at a very subconscious or primal level. I also know that the number one sexual fantasy disclosed by women over and over again is rape fantasy, forced sex fantasy, but fantasy and reality are two different things. So I’m not really going to count this as a reason why women are so prone to consciously betray their in-group.

The half-century long experiment of women’s liberation and political enfranchisement has ended in disaster for the west. When you begin to start connecting the dots you realize that since women have been given the vote the entire center of politics and that’s western society has shifted ever more to the left. Women have also used their political enfranchisement to further the cause of the aptly named women’s liberation – liberation socially, liberation financially, liberation from family, from motherhood, liberation from religious dogma, and most importantly sexual liberation. Once women were given equal say in the sphere of politics, it was only a matter of time until our civilization was swept up by the event horizon of its own collapse. All kinds of studies have been done on this subject as this one from Columbia University, and they all without exception note that as women become more quote unquote emancipated the decline of the family has further accelerated. And as the family disintegrates and women move politically further and further to the left in their voting, many then begin to use the government as a surrogate husband and provider. Women are thus even more liberated from their traditional roles within the family and society at large.

In one of the most comprehensive studies of civilizational decline, J.D. Unwin postulates in his book Sex and culture written in 1934 that the main driver for the rise of a civilization is the degree of chastity of the said civilizations. Unwin, a British social anthropologist at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, studied eighty six different cultures through five thousand years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint. The observed line of Unwin’s impetus for the project was to test the Freudian theory that civilizational progress was the product of repressed sexuality. He found that discipline in sexual matters appropriated social energy to more civilizational end. It’s very complicated but for Unwin the fabric of society was primarily sexual and heterosexual monogamy was the optimal arrangement for the planning building protecting and nurturing of the family. If enough heterosexual partners made a monogamous commitment civilizational energy was directed toward promoting the finest societal foundation possible.

Without exception, each civilization he studied allowed its success to alter its moral code. According to Unwin, after a nation becomes increasingly liberal with regards to its sexual morality it loses its cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. From a chaste moral code societies gain what he called expensive energy, and this energy allowed these cultures to expand into other weaker cultures. When you compare the modern Western world with the Islamic one, you see exactly the results that Unwin’s theory would predict. By allowing women to f..k freely, the West has defacto entered a matriarchy that dis- incentivizes young men. Islam, on the other hand, keeps their women chaste and they’re expensive energy as Unwin’s theory predicts is manifested in what we’re observing today. The Islamic culture is the one who’s expanding into the west, and it was only recently that the West was able to dominate all other cultures on the planet.

Ultimately, each civilization became less cohesive, less aggressive and less resolute. Civilizations in this liminal phase then collapsed from either an internal anarchic revolution or be conquest by invaders with greater social energy.

Terrifyingly, Unwin also noted that there was no case in any of the studies he’d made in which a culture managed to restrict the sexual freedom of women once they’d been loosened.

A feminist society and future is an oxymoron as it’s unsustainable in the long run. Based just on past history of civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in a very short time. This is why we’ve never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short span, and at the end of great empires the signs of decline are already observable.

While many countries are sliding into social decline, the canary in the coal mine is this self-described humanitarian superpower that pursues a feminist foreign policy [- Sweden]. When looking at Sweden it’s one of the most gender equal countries on earth, and while they’ve become the rape capital of Europe, they’re flashing their culture and country down the toilet, and pressing forward in their civilizational suicide at an ever accelerating pace. That total and complete feminization of Sweden and its men have allowed their women to invite their country’s own destruction through the importation of millions of an assimilated and aggressive people from completely alien cultures. Not only are they borrowing money to fund the colonization of their country but they are now even creating gender imbalances that will have severe and lasting repercussions on their societies future. And they await their doom with smiles of tolerance and passivity calm as Hindu cows. Looking again at Unwin’s work , he leaves us with a stark dilemma: It may not be possible to save the West. According to his model, this process is irreversible. The only way to do so would be to restrict the sexual freedom of Western women and move back to a more patriarchal society. As things stand, this is probably an impossibility. So instead of having it all, Western women risk losing everything.

What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gangs of migrants bent on theft and sexual violence?  Burn their bras and throw a pocket edition of cunt – a declaration of independence – at them. The violence now being directed toward Western women in their own countries is undeniable. Proof of the breakdown of the leftist utopian ideas for society – the million migrants that have already arrived and the millions on their way already understand that the West is toothless civilization ripe for plunder. While Western women might be the ones advocating whether knowingly or not for the destruction of the west by a misplaced compassionate hyper emotionalism, it’s also the fault of western men by giving them the choice and allowing their genders particular predilections to dictate what our civilizations values priorities and ultimately what our future should and will be. Maybe Unwin is right. Maybe there is no peaceful way to resolve this crisis of our civilization.

Post Script

Our feminized society has a built-in equality rainbow that will usher in the west into a Nirvana of peace and security based on mutual respect and tolerance. No, it has succeeded in paving the way for the takeover and Islamization of the west. Ironically, it’ll be feminine tendencies and policies that rule our society. If not kept in check, that will bring down the more gender inclusive states of the west and replace them with the tribalism of Africa and the Middle East and the hyper masculinity of Islam. You can have a feminized society but it won’t survive Islam. And here’s the crimson red pill of this video: Western men have given western women freedom of will and choice in their own society, and Western women are now choosing who will take it away from them.

If this kind of material resonates with you please click like and even better if you’d like to see more of this kind of material please click the subscribe button

The new era of great power competition – Vox

“Carter described a world where not just American power but also global peace and stability will be increasingly challenged by other powers.”

But I was struck, in our conversation, by the frequency with which Carter framed today’s world within those same dynamics that had preoccupied his early career: great power rivalries, nuclear weapons, and the power of deterrence to keep the world in line.

It’s not that he’s unconcerned with terrorism or rogue states, both of which he discussed at length. But he clearly drew from his experiences in the 1980s and ’90s an acute sensitivity to the world-shaking stakes of great power rivalries, and a firm belief in the role that deterrence and nuclear weapons still play.

Carter described a world where not just American power but also global peace and stability will be increasingly challenged by other powers. He returned over and over to the same answer to this problem: the power of deterrence, backed up by overwhelming American superiority and, ultimately, by nuclear weapons.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia, he suggested, is “trying to justify itself to its people on how much it can stand against the West.” This has led it to “emphasize military confrontation with the West, anti-Western propaganda, and especially the nuclear dimension of that.”

While Carter insisted the US has no problem with China’s power growing commensurate to its economy, he suggested that the country is also driven by “the idea [in China] that we need to right the wrongs of the past and dominate our region, and reject the system of rules-based order that we associate with the United States.”

The new era of great power competition – Vox

Putin’s brilliant strategy is to be against everything the West stands for unless there is an explicit benefit for Russia today. And just forget about tomorrow. Xi’s strategy probably means he needs a lot of psychotherapy: To right the wrongs of the past. How can China possibly right the wrongs of the past unless it goes to war against Japan and America? Once China (probably with Russia’s help) has destroyed Japan and America, then what kind of victory is that?

The Panama Papers: How the Massive Document Leak Came to Be – Fortune

The investigation took more than a year, and started when Bastian Oberway, a reporter for the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, was contacted by a still-unknown figure. The source asked whether the paper wanted access to 40 years worth of information from the Panama firm, including the details of holding companies and accounts related to dozens of prominent European politicians.

Suddeutsche Zeitung subsequently partnered with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which in turn is an arm of the U.S.-based non-profit Center for Public Integrity. By the time the project was complete, about 370 journalists from more than 100 media outlets around the world had worked on the investigation.

The Panama Papers: How the Massive Document Leak Came to Be – Fortune

Nassim Taleb: The Global Rebellion Against “No-Skin-in-the-Game” Insiders – Hit & Run :

What we are seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think…and 5) who to vote for.

With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30y of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, microeconomic papers wrong 40% of the time, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating only 1/5th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. I have shown that most of what Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types call “rational” or “irrational” comes from misunderstanding of probability theory.

Since then, several developments have proceeded apace. First and foremost, the powers that be in virtually every part of the planet have continued to reveal themselves as incorrigible, both in their pretenses to knowledge and their ability to act in a truly disinterested way. As important, the rest of us have gained confidence borne out of higher levels of education and wealth; we no longer feel as submissive as we once did. And finally, modern technology and communication have allowed us to route around once-unquestionable authorities, whether we’re talking about governments or religious leaders or aestheticians or whatever. As with the profusion of sects that followed in the effective disestablishment of state religion in 17th-century England (scroll to end of linked article!), we not only know there are more and more ways of being in the world, we are more and more comfortable with that knowledge—and we are more empowered to start creating the worlds in which we want to live.

The pace of this breakdown in authority is in some ways revolutionary and in some ways glacial. As the techies used to say of the future, it is not evenly distributed. Nor is it a simple triumphant march toward Progress or any fixed end state; it’s an endless discovery process that each of us will shape and participate in. It creates space for chaos even as it allows for liberation that was unthinkable even 10 or 20 years ago (can any of us in the West really grok the decline in global poverty and the narrowing of planetary inequality?).

Nassim Taleb: The Global Rebellion Against “No-Skin-in-the-Game” Insiders – Hit & Run :