Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 223. (Read 647183 times)

Remember when I said the real price of gold should be $2200 even in their artificially low rigged system and that people already had to pay far above spot to locate large amounts of gold currently?

Jim Wille claims people who are attempting to buy gold in bulk (like $100 million) have to currently pay exactly that much to find it ($2100 - $2500):

http://youtu.be/ef4-NF0TT7w?t=122

Alex Jones claims Trump will release "hidden" DARPA technology:

https://youtu.be/IlzXhH9bwI8?t=1083

I think there is actually probably something to it, since it seems like numerous groups have published data in the past about being able to create 40-90% efficient solar energy collectors, yet here we are still sitting at 20%.

Meanwhile, the Jews have banned white males from working at banks:

http://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/5q3rox/no_straight_while_males_allowed_at_bank_of/

While Trump resurrects Andrew Jackson:

http://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/5q5fz7/trump_hangs_portrait_of_andrew_jackson_in_oval/

JUDD, I knew that last name was familiar, sister of Wynonna, daughter of Naomi (last two are country music singers from awhile back).

Yeah, a nasty woman!  Ha ha, nobody wants the 48 (almost 49) yr old tramp.  Good riddance.

* * *

"Trump Derangement Syndrome".  Even strikes harder than its related "Bush Derangement Syndrome".  Symptoms include instant Tourette's, bitterness towards real humans, lost minds...  

Dr. CoinCube maybe should look into this!  

I have better things to do at the moment than try to flood the planet with clones of myself like some type of sub-saharan African.  The other life on earth like whales and rats and whatnot matters as well.  Every human having kids just hastens the demise of all other lifeforms, so it's not like there's some benefit from western people attempting to adopt r-selection to compete with others that do when it's already a losing strategy in the short and long term in the first place.

The issue at hand is twofold:  

1)  K-selection technology has erroneously been handed to r-selection populations who could otherwise never have invented it, which only subsidized evolutionary dead ends.

2)  Globalization makes regional overpopulation that would otherwise sort itself out everyone's problem.  Instead of r-selection groups evolving towards k-selection and increase efficiency, they just outsource their deficiencies to maintain themselves in current state with less effort.

Since k-selection groups do not win in any way by converting to R, the only choice is to either completely remove yourself from globalism to stop subsidizing them, or actually go to war against the r-selection groups to prevent them from overrunning everything.

As for reproducing solely for the sake of reproducing, either way the sun will eventually go red giant and eat the earth.  Even if you believe you're going to get your genes off the planet before that happens, you still have heat death of the universe.  There is no way to win that game and achieve immortality unless you believe you can "transcend" into some other type of plane or whatever.  In such a case you no longer need to reproduce since reproduction is only needed if you plan to die in the first place, or if further rounds of selection process would actually be beneficial.

OROBTC, this guy JAD we've been talking about, has something to say about Ashley Judd:

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-bitter-bitch-march/

r0ach, you might be interested in this poll:

http://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/poll-on-the-jewish-problem/

The following is perhaps relevant to the above poll:

I moved our discussion:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17633518

...

(Note to readers: I do not mind conversations wandering, I learn something when exposed to new ideas.  And what ideas are greater than considering a Deity far greater than ourselves?)

* * *

But, keeping Martin Armstrong alive here, I pass along the two below posts of his discussing TAXES and CA$H, both of which our Collective Governments seem to hold opposite ideas vs. those of us yearning to be free...:

The first comment deals with the "War on Cash" now underway, by, wait for it, Leftists!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/eliminating-currency-communism/

And who wants more coercive taxes? 

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/trump-tax-reduction-follows-john-f-kennedy-approach/

There are many positions you have taken in the posts immediately up thread. Some of these are correct and others are not but most are tangential to the underlying issue. There is also one mischaracterization of my position but that is also irrelevant.

You have raised one central query, however, that is critical to the discussion above. That question revolves around the fear of God. Is it necessary?

I posted my reasoning on this issue as well as the reasoning of others in the Health and Religion thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17633233
  

CoinCube, I suggest you post a link to where you've moved this discussion to (Politics & Society). You could put any rebuttal there. If I wasn't interested in your thoughts, I wouldn't be discussing it with you.

But I am not going to just lay down and accept an argument that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I deluded myself with too much bullshit over the 50 years and received a lot of incorrect philosophical guidance from others. I am not going to follow any more fools (and that includes being wary of my own myopia but that doesn't mean I need to fear a God, although it does mean I need to open source). If you want to convince me, then you need to have impeccable logic.

You seem to be so sure of things you do not measure. Did God give you this omniscience?

I have watched the read counts jump by ~500 - 1000 every time I slept for a few hours and reloaded the thread (except this last time it didn't, but I don't know if that is because of the time of the day or some other factor).

We are discussing a very important concept which dovetails with Armstrong's concerns and blogs. And I think many people are interested to know the truth on this matter.

Besides, I am not here to pander to readers. Obviously if I care about what politically correct thinking would think of me, I would have never posted the comments I did over the past couple of days. I bared my thinking in open source, because my main goal is to find someone who can provide a cogent argument which refutes my thesis. If my thesis can't withstand the critical review of open source, then I can't rely on it.

That is why I discussed it openly with my gf over dinner and I was actually surprised to see that she understood or seemed to understand. Her main objections were "you mean I can't bring my kids to the mall" and "are we putting the kids in a prison". And I went off on a long discussion with her about if the society at the mall was not polluting the values of our potential future kids, then we could gleefully bring them to the mall. But if we let our daughter watch these programs on TV which teach her to dress up in a mini skirt and wear high heels at age 6, and she knows that other teenagers are at the mall being mind controlled by George Soros and feeling jealous of their peers, then we've entirely lost any culture we are trying inculcate. I said we must have such social experiences within the community that protects the culture from those external temptations, especially for the females because I related to herself in that whatever she sees other women do, she wants to copy. Why is it women want to color their hair, straighten their hair, buy a new outfit, and still not contented, then color it back, curl it back, change the outfit style again, and then stand in the mirror and anguish over still not feeling contented with themselves. I reminded my gf what happened to her when she ran away from her parents and become a lesbian because her peers influenced her and told her she was naturally a lesbian. And they taught her to drink and have her big breasts sucked by another woman. To do this day, she still always grabs my nipples like I am another woman!

So she understood to some extent. We even talked about her father and brothers who are always drunkard, and her father who never worked and let her mom work like a slave while also bearing several children. He was the disciplinarian who made her knee in salt for making snide jokes that hurt the feelings of her little sister. And I told her I would prefer to talk to the kids and teach that how would they feel if someone else did that to them. And I told her that her and her brothers learned that devious behavior from others. They were exposed to the wrong influences in the society, because I know very well the culture of the filipinos in that so many of them laugh at your when you slip and fall down on a muddy pavement. It is a defect in their culture and I think it comes from the jungle life and laughing a monkeys or something. These jungle people like to laugh at everything. They much rather to get drunk and laugh than to work hard especially the men.

Do you think I like to discuss such personal topics in public! No! But otherwise people won't relate. They won't grab the complete picture. Humans relate to real stories.

Yet man also needs to relax sometimes and have some jokes, but all the participants needs to think it is joke. A joke at another's expense is taking advantage.


An intelligent man who doesn't care when he is destroying his own culture, thus naturally selects himself out of the culture. Let the door hit him in the ass on the way out.

You are trying to maintain a total ordering and force people to not defect, but that is impossible. This is why religion has failed. How as a rational person can you propose what has not worked.

Women OTOH can't rationalize about strategy. They only rationalize about their near-term love, emotion, and happiness. The only long-term aspect you can reason with them about is the future of the kids, but they can only see it on a near-term basis of their kids, not a multi-generational strategy basis. Only the men are competitive enough to understand multi-generational strategy. And actually only the smartest and strongest men can. And that is how it should be. The weak men will always be slaves. And so please don't regurgitate that SJW mind control nonsense to me about how we eliminated a form of slavery. That is obfuscation of the reality.


Women can't improve themselves on the multi-generational strategy issue. They are not wired for it. So when I wrote do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself, I obviously do not mean treat me as a woman, because I am not.

So yeah maybe you could use the delusion of a fear of God to keep the women fearful of defection, but it is counterproductive to use it on men, because all you are accomplishing is enslaving the weak men in religion and weakening the culture. And this is why religion repeatedly leads to large scale failure and megadeath.

If you can't trust the men in your culture, then you have no culture. In the Jewish faiths you've been investigating, they apparently defer to elders of men they trust. But they can't trust all the men, because again they refuse to allow the community to be weaned and culled by natural selection of those weak men. The community tries to carry these weak men along, and they are a liability. I am saying let them go. The Bible tells me, "you are not one of them, come out of them".

If I can't control myself to adhere to a correct multi-generational strategy, then how will God help me? By enslaving me in fear? I think you don't trust yourself? Then how can you ever succeed if can't control yourself? If you can control yourself, then why do you need a fear of God?

You object to JAD's desire to use force to enslave and control the black men who can't control themselves (because he wants a society that functions well) and it is well documented that black men have lower IQs and can't control themselves as well as white men, and yet you propose to use religion to enslave and control the men. The bottom line is the weak men will always reap the slavery they sow, one way or the other. They can choose which slavery option they prefer.

No where did I propose that the men in my proposed culture should not leverage the society as a whole. The better that the society as a whole is functioning, the healthier my brothers would be also. There is something to be said for enslaving the weak men and keeping the society from diverging into total chaos. But (as you have also pointed out) slavery leads to top-down manipulation and distortions and is ultimately megadeath culling directed, whether it be the slow route of insufficient fertility or the more rapid forms of culling such as pandemics and war (totalitarianism/socialism end game implosion and lashing out).

I think you must be coming at this from the stance that you want to leave no child unprotected. You seem to be very concerned about what the weak men can do to women and children. That you want to control the defection of society-at-large. I don't think it is my role (I am not omniscient) to choose which form of slavery the people will end up. Nature takes care of that. Religion is one of the options. I want to focus on becoming stronger and not focus protecting weak people against themselves. If I mire myself in that unfixable reality of weakness, I will drag myself down into weakness and waste the rest of limited remaining productive years.

Sorry you've been utterly defeated on this logic.


I don't lack the motivation and hopefully also not lacking the strength. If we don't have that then we are weak males and we will always be enslaved.

I was not armed with the information I needed, so I had no way to focus myself on what I needed to do in terms of self-discipline. And it is not exceedingly difficult to do from the perspective of self-discipline (although not without challenges), because I get nearly everything I want. It is very difficult to achieve for a myriad of reasons though. And I believe the women get everything they need which really makes them happy. I don't want to have my brother's wife. I don't covet my brother's greater success. I congratulate them. There are so many fish in the sea. I am not insatiable. Yet I am also extremely competitive and I love to compete. So just because I can't have everything, doesn't mean I will become complacent. If I know there is a multi-generational outcome, every effort I give is not a diminishing return. It all helps. It all matters. It rewards my competitiveness, whereas religions (and other forms of forceful collectivism which enslave men) penalize me for being competitive which is entirely wrong and counterproductive!

If you think I am talking about making women unhappy, you are wrong. Women are very unhappy in the cultures we have today. They keep themselves busy on consumption and other patterns to try to convince themselves they aren't unhappy. But (as you have also pointed out) just look at the fertility rate and the lack of closeness of families, rate of destructive behavior amongst their offspring, etc. and you know that women are not happy. And if they think they are happy, then fine. Let them continue in their culture. I am not stopping any female. They have their free will to choose.

But I think women are much happier when they are slightly controlled and given a big, healthy, close family. And especially if that expands into a big, healthy, close community and culture.

Delusion (religion) won't get the males there. Sorry. But of course feel free to pursue what ever you want. If you can make a cogent rebuttal then of course I want to read it. I want to know if someone can show me a better way.

Most men choose to ride a dominant culture. This is in many ways a rational strategy. Give in to some slavery in return for some multi-decade stability and leverage all the parasitism. Inchoate Frankenstein outcomes ferment. As another commentator wrote, "smoking two packs a day and I am fine".

I am quite sure suspect we have more than exhausted the patience of the readers in this thread looking for discussions on Martin Armstrong so I will reply one last time and let the matter rest.

God is needed because the primary struggle is an individual one. Our greatest battle is with ourselves. It is very easy to say women shouldn't do this or society shouldn't do that. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to say I shouldn't do this especially when I want to and can get away with it.

Your thinking continues to return to the concept of controlling others (especially women) indirectly through culture when the real battle is that of individual women and individual men learning to improve and elevate ourselves. Cultural structures can help us win or lose this struggle but they are ultimately secondary.

God is necessarily because otherwise we lack the motivation and strength to succeed. Without God our focus inevitably turns away from the self and towards controlling others either directly or indirectly.

Yet again, I seem to often write a day or two before what Armstrong writes:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/are-we-getting-dumber/

I presume you've punted on raising offspring and thus have culled yourself via natural selection. Failure. Unless the power of the ideas you are promulgating is your contribution to evolution (per Freeman Dyson's point that cultural evolution is outpacing genetic evolution).

CoinCube it is expected that you will fight for your ideological religion fetish, because afaics you are heavily invested in ideological delusion (which is why imo you are so vulnerable to cultural failure as are nearly all men these days). There that is my version of giving you a taste (mirror) of your own moralizing judgement. I am just hoping to find a few strong men on this earth, for if I am the only one creating a strong culture, it is far too slow (which is another reason for my writing of "females" as in polygamy in plural in special cases because remember the female's ovaries are more valuable than the males testicles because you only need one remaining male to inseminate all the women).

So we are in competition of ideas and I appreciate you playing the role of the villain who afaics wants to (perhaps unknowingly) destroy both successful culture and yourself by regurgitating untruths that you've apparently latched onto.

I had already stated that in fact Hitler did evil because he assumed a top-down omniscience which he can't possibly have and tried to exterminate entirely races and handicapped peoples in attempt to have a total ordering over the state of nature. Of course any high IQ person can see this will result in evil and destroy the very culture he might have been trying to protect. So sorry, you can use a delusional totalitarian idiot's lack of insight as a correct argument or counter example.

I have proposed a decentralized culture wherein the culture wins in the competition of ideas, not by attempting impossible total orders. You and I have also discussed in great detail else where why total orders must be impossible, else we can't exist (other than as some scripted movie with a static entropy in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

And no where have I proposed to do unto others in any way that which I would not want them to do unto me.

I presume your fetish-preference is clouding your ability to actually look into my concept and understand it properly. You need a justification for religion, but sorry to inform you there isn't such a necessity. For some reason, you seem to need an ideological or "higher" purpose and this also seems to be the downfall of man in general. Hopefully the very high IQ people can start to figure this out and move towards a superior culture as I proposed and absolutely and totally dominate all these deluded peoples. But the thing is, by domination I don't call for extermination nor doing unto others in any way other than I would them to do unto me, except noting if self-defense becomes a necessity (I do think these deviant cultures are eventually going to annihilate the planet with a nuclear winter if they continue on the path they are on, so we at some point may have to take them out, at least the command and control).


You compare things which are not at all similar. I have made the very important point that if you restrict your males from education then your culture is evil. If you restrict the capability of your cultural competition, then you are also destroying the competitiveness of your own culture (because it looses competition to drive it and also loses a good pool of cultural and genetic evolution to extract from).

Also I have made the point that you absolutely can't enslave your women and expect to be successful. You must give them their free will to choose. But that doesn't mean giving them the choice of defecting while simultaneously staying within the community. They must choose. If they want to pollute their minds or want to pursue their intellectual careers, then they can leave the culture community and enjoy the failure they will share with these other lonely old foul mouthed feminists who follow the FALSE LIFE PLAN. There is very rarely if ever a woman who is smart or unique enough intellectually that by not pursuing her abilities (women have much less outliers on the far high IQ end of the curve as I pointed out in my prior posts), society has lost something more valuable than the value of her ovaries. Failure-directed cultures will argue she can do both, but that sets an incorrect example that lesser IQ women try to emulate with disastrous results.


I have pointed out to JAD that he has a flaw in his model, and I have offered the correction. Again I advocate giving women their free will, but again not letting them have a defection cake and eat it too. Just as men can't be allowed to defect and parasite on the culture community, women can't be allow to either. To do so, would be another deviant failure-directed culture such as the ones we have now.


You are building a strawman. I have argued for education of the males and them having the free will to decide to destroy their own culture if they are too stupid to get it. And thus by natural selection the culture community will grow stronger over time.

How is open education, competition, and partial orders leading to stagnation. Sorry you are apparently not even understanding what I have proposed.

I guarantee you CoinCube, I've got you on this one. I am correct.


Typical ideological nonsense. You can't have correct behavior if you allow the females to defect (because you force the males to defect by allowing such defection). Period. Go review the resources I linked to. Until you understand this, you are hopelessly lost.


I wrote he is closest to correct, because he identified correctly the core principle that females can't be allowed to defect. Yet I agree he is failing (even he apparently admits he failed with his own sons), because he doesn't understand what I have written above. I have sent him links to this thread and hoping he is not too old to recognize his mistakes.


Why you put this at the very end and I am not going unwrite everything I wrote above just because you save this for the end.


You have not made any argument.

God and religion have nothing to do with it. If the men are so stupid that they need to fear a God in order to adhere to the truths they've been taught, then the culture is growing weaker not stronger.

I am arguing for a culture that grows stronger via natural selection and free will of choice. And never did I expect all men to join such a culture because I don't think the bell curve of IQ is ever going to be eliminated.

Note I am honoring your research on evolution, biology, and social organization. I have adopted your defection and culling by free choice themes (which you employed to sell religion). As usual, I am clever about how I assimilate all the information I have been exposed to.

Yup! I also think when the people start buying is when you should sell tops and distribute your stash... the big boys would be looking for liquidity to exit from their 2011 accumulations

My war with the Jews has nothing to do with others.  I consider their media propaganda and usury slavery schemes an insult to me personally.  I'm not trying to save the world.



The US acts as a blow off valve for the failed state of Mexico.  By closing off that valve, Mexico will either turn into another Venezuela or worse at our backdoor, or they will implement some type of huge economic changes.  There's almost unanimous consent to go back to silver backed peso in Mexico with people like Hugo Salinas.  Any type of turmoil Trump creates in Mexico would likely hasten such a thing.  Mexico going back to real money would then accelerate the demise of fiats in other countries.

Yes, well it could be.  I have a proven track-record of lousy financial market predictions.  Armstrong's point re this, however, does reflect the tendency of "investors" to pile into a market near its highs...

A related phenomenon often seen is that BUBBLES can go on much longer than observers expect.  The US stock market continued rise for years after both Greenspan and Warren Buffett declared it dangerous.

Still, you could be right.  I have NO IDEA what will happen.  "Best be diversified."

Im  now seeing dow coming to a multiyear bear market.. the high might be in