Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 362. (Read 647188 times)

Yes the glorification of the 'freedom' of gender and type of family (single moms) is something which I believe is a symptom of sickness in society while not being completely destructive in and of itself (I was raised in a broken family)- the raising upon a pedestal such preference and individuality which should be a private choice (not enforced upon us all via redistribution).

People should be free to raise children and start a family as they choose but don't bullshit me that a child raised without a father will not suffer from that male absence in his/her formative years. This is fairy tale thinking. The destruction of the family is some of the most malicious unintended consequence (intention?) of the left.

A relation has recently chose to have a child via a sperm donor rather than find a mate. I have to ask is there something wrong with her that she cannot attract a male or partner to start a family? I find it is incredibly selfish and short sighted to bring a child into this world without a functioning family. She works for government though- so go figure.

This sir, is a very possible scenario. Yesterday's debate seems to unravel a glimpse of the things to come. A furiously delirious D. Trump that presented both the best and the worst of himself, outbursting the hoorays of TPTB Mass Media who are definitely willing to follow his agenda (because he's one of their own).

On your previous post(s) about women, I'd say that there's a common attitude that deliberately omits the basic role of (mainly) women in this world. This attitude is derived by their educational depth. The more someone (...and to generalize, no matter the gender) knows about science (and how the world functions), the less they want to raise a newborn child. Another factor to look forward to, is -of course- their wealth, religion and social conditions.

Within a fast indebting world, the next decades we're heading for a fast deterioration of the population of children that the most prominent couples would give birth to, and a fast rise of the children of the 'low-education' families who "they don't think". Essentially, this is a plan to expand the 80-20 rule towards a far less number for the 20%, practically eliminating the middle class population without war.

I agree that his anti-trade policies are potentially catastrophic, although there is a long distance between campaign rhetoric and (even assuming being elected) enacting policies.

I have to disagree about him proclaiming to not being beholden to special interests implies anything. He would proclaim that either way. No information content.

Regarding the Trump discussion (and resurgence in Republicans in general), I have concluded the winner will be...

...the military-industrial complex.

Right on time with MA's War Cycle, which expects war and pandemic to start going hot in 2017 and really accelerating into 2018.

We'll get the increased military spending. The reduced taxes won't matter because the world is going to be so fucked by the rising interest rates and War Cycle, that no one will be able to avail of the opportunities to start businesses in the tangible industrial age economy.

The Knowledge Age doesn't give a shit about the taxes any way, since they will be 0 for the anonymous internet coming.

A global smashup ahead. Trump card doesn't change anything and if anything this lurch back to the hard right politics accelerates it.

Now we see why the USA must break apart into regions as MA predicts. It is because the morass can not be changed from WA D.C. After 2017, the Americans will start to realize they have to take matters into their own hands.

The Feds will fight the militias. The country will break into parts. The world will be a much different place.

Crazy world we are heading into. Be prepared accordingly.

Edit: Rand Paul alludes to Trump being beholden to special interests. That Trump is loudly declaring that he isn't, is probably telling us that he is. Of course he knows he can't win without playing ball with powerful interests. He openly admits the realities of leverage. Trump is obviously willing to appease the NSA and military-complex in order to go after hard-nosed trade deals. He will appear to be a populist but is a wolf in sheepskin.

Trump represents a rise of fascist-capitalism in the USA. He is not talking about printing money the way the German socialists did, but instead it will be a hard lurch towards a brutal economic default coupled with military imperialism fully bankrupting Rome. As with Rome, the barbarians will later be at the gates of Rome and overrun it.

In fact, we need free trade and free markets. Rising protectionism is what lead to WW2. Trump is a very bad result for us.

bigtimespaghetti,

I added to my post after you quoted it.

The boomerang reaction to repression by religion is a supporting argument to the generative essence I stated, which is the people are reverting from fear of nature to boastful overconfidence disrespect for nature and the confidence that man can have everything he wants.

After the collapse, man moves too far to the other direction, and the new addiction will be the old one of religion again. Then man again disrespects nature (in a form of fear) and has the confidence that man can control everything other men want.

It is two extremes and both are founded in addiction and denial of reality. And both are founded in disrespect of the decentralized quality of free markets and nature, i.e. yes both extremes require collectivism.

The Republicans are trying to move back towards the old addiction. The Democrats want to move forward into the new addition. Conversativism vs. progressivism. Both are evil.

We need to put an end to this hamster merry-go-round using anonymity technology so the free market can be superior to collective power. Nature is a decentralized meritocracy.

I will quote this over in the Dark Enlightenment thread also.

You raise valid points, but the real genesis I believe is a confluence of Christian 'guilt' or rather openess which has been corrupted by the Church of England (most do not understand the Christian values that they say they do), Marxism and the concept of the Noble Savage, the latter two ignore reality and the former is using culturally ingrained attitudes to leverage the fantasy of a free lunch and communal utopia. Throw in 2 horrific world wars (beat the civilians into submission to accept anything) and you have the perfect recipe for the collectivist paradigm being perpetrated. The effect of the world wars I think is hard for anyone not European to assimilate- the echoes are still felt in every aspect of cultural life and the aftermath rather than the causes are obsessed upon leading to no true understanding.

Feminism and multiculturalism I believe are largely tools of collectivism. Viewed in this light it is obvious that the dangerous (desireable?) results are of no concern to collectivists but are actually encouraged. You can see a revival of this extreme leftism and entitlement in  British youth and clueless pedagogues like Russel Brand.
Now they have conflated feminism and multiculturalism with equality (when they are exact opposites) the mantra of weakness is strength and freedom is slavery rings true.

Also Smooth, yes you are right on my opinion of trump, I am making biased assumptions. It could be his idealogy aligns with special interests regardless.

Let's do a Steve Jobs and be brutally frank.

Apparently feminism = hedonism.

I've noticed how much Westerners are getting a thrill from teaching two women to eat each other's pussies.

I think Nordic Europeans support feminism because it enables them to justify fucking non-virgins and then the hedonistic dominoes from there.

It also frees the men from the obligation to raise children, if they can convince the women they are more powerful if they don't bear children.

I've noticed here in the Philippines, the females are vehemently anti-abortion and anti-birth control. It is very, very difficult to get them to take birth control pills and they are not that happy about using a condom. These are real women who want to have the real happiness of bearing children and raising a family. My own mother criticizes me when I don't force the women I am involved with to use birth control pills!

Europe has entered decadent Frankenstein mode and the USA is following close behind.

I am not trying to be a moral dogmatic oppressor here. I know any of us can be influenced as we are human, but the thing is that once a man prefers to get happiness more from hedonism than from family, then the culture is broken. The society will collapse into an abyss.

And this is precisely what is happening to Europe.

How does a mother who has become bisexual raise her daughter and son   (not my mother)

Sorry I am fairly open minded person and I've explored many things in life, but I can tell you there is a major difference between the gf I have now and some of the Western women. My gf values dogs, children, family. She could easily be a hedonistic queen given her D breasts and very attractive face (not to mention brown skin), but she is humble and wants the things that really make happiness.

Those Europeans who support feminism are insatiable. They want to steal and have everything. They don't want any natural limits on society. They want that man is superior to nature. Why should a woman be limited to sex with only a man or a human? She can fuck a pet monkey and that is more freedom. Why must she bear children. It is better we educate the women to fuck more people, sexes, and things and have more freedom! It isn't enough for her to undress and fondle herself on a webcam, instead the men want her to pee and insert objects into every orifice.

And that is why they've run their debt sky high. And they can not change their system. They are addicted.

trollercoaster thank you for educating me about the respect some of the Aussies have for the Aboriginals. And the upstanding ethics of some of the Aboriginals. :thumbsup:

Edit: I see proper spelling is Ozzie. Got it mate.

I wouldn't assume that. Virtually every policy position has an interest group behind it. Just because he takes a policy position doesn't mean he's in anyone's pocket, though they very well may support him because of his policy.

This doesn't mean he isn't in someone's pocket, or being manipulated even without his knowledge. But logically, that his (or anyone's) policies favor some powerful group means nothing at all.

Trump is such a wild card that I am convinced he is somewhere between being controlled and a bit of a vigilante- he certainly has the money to ignore many lobbies. But I do think he is in the pocket of the Industrial Military Complex from his comments. I will have to think on the 'European' perspective and try and explain. You may be surprised to know that the UK is perceived as 'backwardly conservative' by many northern europeans (I have nordic colleagues). Note the thousands of illegal immigrants desperate to cross the border into the UK- it either has great benefits (true for kegal immigrants, asylum seekers get a fucking pittance and are forced to work illegally anyway) or offers more of a chance to improve their lot. Also note that Dutch 'legal' immigrants from North Africa are migrating to the UK because of more opportunity.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/british-dream-europe-african-citizens

Anyway, I'm sure many other Europeans will explain the general zeitgeist here too.

US citizens are going to be targets for assassination all over the world:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404556957001/is-isis-an-ideological-or-military-problem/?playlist_id=2114913880001

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404624806001/donald-trump-calls-iran-agreement-a-disgrace/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404797374001/walker-paul-huckabee-on-opposing-the-iran-deal/?playlist_id=938973798001

Unfortunately the Republicans are wrong. You can not beat ISIS militarily.

I don't think I have a good "solution" either. I guess I would say that no muslim nations can immigrate nor travel to the USA until they clean up their ranks of islamic terrorism. EDIT: but we destabilized the region and now Jeb Bush tries to pretend he is apologetic for his family's destruction of the world.

But let's be more honest here. TPTB are funding the ISIS because they want to divide-and-conquer the world. So the last thing we the people want is to put more funding into the military-industrial complex (and Trump even wants to involve the oil companies) to go meddling in the world.

No wonder Jeb Bush is becoming nice to Trump.

So I see this is a hard lurch to the right with moar funding for war!

MA is cluelesssimpleton as usual:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35761

Also Trump did very poorly on the misogynist question:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404595126001/is-donald-trump-part-of-the-war-on-women/?playlist_id=2114913880001

He should have emphasized that he for a meritocracy and creating economical growth due to meritocracy and not rewarding failure by forcing companies to hire the least qualified candidate! He should emphasize he has nothing against men or women and wants all to be the best they can be, and the way to achieve that is to stop rewarding failure with socialism!

War mongers:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404748303001/how-should-us-respond-to-vladimir-putin/?playlist_id=938973798001

Wow:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404942265001/trump-on-third-party-pledge-why-should-i-give-up-leverage/?playlist_id=2114913880001

He is a strong personality. He reminds me of myself in some aspects of his brutal frankness, lol.

Notice however that he is willing to "look the other way" on waterboarding:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404942265001/trump-on-third-party-pledge-why-should-i-give-up-leverage/?playlist_id=2114913880001

The USA is poised for a hard lurching turn to the right and this could drastically increase the volatility in the world!

Dream about a guy who can alienate Russia and China and create a world war, here you go.

Dream for a president who can create a strong dollar and cause interest rates to skyrocket and implode economic activity via debt defaults, here you go.

I mean he is correct to some extent but the shock cure could end up killing the patient.

You must be European? Because your support for multi-culturalism is very apparent. (And that is why I would not even consider to migrate to an EU country)

I am vehemently against multi-culturalism because it is just another way for TPTB to weaken the individual sovereignty of the men who are already present in an area.

If we had a world with no government social welfare, then I would support a world with no borders. Who ever can pay their own way, can go where they like. But if you have the immigrants coming to alter the politics and voting for more and more expropriation from the wealthier citizens who were already present in the area, that is just another theft paradigm.

I am against theft. Europeans for some reason wish to steal from themselves. And they are going to pay the price for it again, just as they did with Hilter 79 years ago (right on time with MA's 79.6 year cycle).

Sorry I have always liked your astute comments up until now. And I am not trying to pick a fight with you, hopefully you can explain to me your position and we can agree to disagree. This is a reason I have a fundamental difficulty becoming politically symbiotic with most Europeans. They love socialism philosophically for some reason. Can any of you Europeans explain to me why       It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Don't Australians have an empathy for the underdog because they were always the underdog w.r.t. to the British who banished them?

Yet it is natural that they see themselves as superior to the Aboriginals because they were the colonizers of Australia. It was necessary for them to adopt that belief system in order to steal the land of the Aboriginals. So they have wanted to be open to others who are underdogs yet they maintain the distinction of those who they think are more of the level of an Ape, such as crazy Muslims who behead people and Aboriginals who eat barbecued rats.

I don't agree with stealing sovereignty from the Aboriginals, but I also don't agree with awarding them funding from the government. Let them have sovereignty over themselves and give them the same rights as citizens do. They were the original inhabitants. But don't give them (or anyone else!) social welfare!

I can empathize with discrimination against Muslim (even though I know most are not fundamentalist nutcases) because look what they have done to Europe and they can't seem to get control of their nutcases (ISIS etc). So I say let them figure it out in their own lands.

I also thought I heard that long ago Australians were a very male ego society and woman were second class, but lately I've come to believe they are more woman's lib? It is strange because when I first heard that during my travails to the Philippines in the early 1990s, I was more a women's lib guy and thought they were extreme and now later in life I have become against women's lib and now wondering why the Aussies have lost their masculinity?

Let me explain this clearly so there is no misunderstanding. I am all for women achieving everything they can achieve. I would not discriminate if some female can do the work as well as a man. In fact, recently I recruited a PhD in math and a Masters in Math that were both female. And neither of them could handle the computer security requests and they couldn't handle the concepts of a society going F.U.B.A.R..

I have come to realize that there are innate differences between woman and men, and woman on average just aren't equipped with the same analytical interests nor the same priorities when it comes to building things and planning for the future. Females are more concerned about their kids and immediate family than anything else.

Here follows some astute blogs from a guy you might think is a misogynist bigot rascist, but in reality his facts are correct.

http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/



http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/


Include also Eric Raymond's blogs on feminism and here is a guy who is for empowered women who can shoot guns:

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+feminism

Even MA has supported the position that traditionally females have a different role than males:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/12411

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/14810

I love to see females happy. What appears to make them happy is a big and happy family and social network. And a daily involvement in caring for that.

Yet in the West it appears we've been indoctrinating our women to tell them to be powerful and wear the pants. This has made them confused and unhappy, and it causes them to become Frankenstein addicts to their natural hypergamy instincts (being played by the lowest life playboys):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6627

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934

If they do have any abilities in the STEM fields, then they want to do that work as an adjunct to their core social network. Whereas a male such as myself can lock himself in a programming cave and not see civilization for months while determined to reach a goal.

Males were designed to tolerate pain and to prioritize hunting and strategic endeavors. Women not. They were design to rear children and manage the affairs of the local community.

Those are damned facts.

I wish someone could explain for me the European perspective?

This is a fairly romantic view of the Australian character. True regarding modesty. And hile accurate in a general sense, it fails to mention the undercurrent of racism that has always been prevalent. At the moment you'll get a fair go (unless you're Muslim or Chinese).

White Australia has continuously treated the Aboriginal population disgracefully, from outright murder and enslavement, to not giving them the right to vote (or be classified as human), to continually underfunding development. Aboriginals has poorer access to health, education, employment etc and even now, funding has been cut to remote communities. One of the biggest controversies of the last month has been the racist booing (called an ape, told to go back to the zoo) of an Aboriginal football player who has a) mentioned the way Aboriginals see Australia and his hopes to unite all and b) performed an Aboriginal dance on the field.

With immigration post ww2 (outside of the horrendous White Australia Policy), each ethnic group that arrived was ridiculed and disliked until the next wave came; Greeks / Italians in the 60's, Vietnamese in the 70's, Lebanese in the 80's, Asians in the 90's, Muslims now.

At the moment the Australians have a far right government that continues this racism for political gain by attacking Muslims and those seeking legal asylum (those fleeing the very wars Western nations have instigated). It is the main issue (along with anti climate policy) that led to their election. And as the government continues its disastrous decline in the polls after severe mismanagement and endemic rorting and lying, they are playing the terrorism card to its fullest (cancelling of passports for suspicious activities, decided by the Minister and not due process). They further aim to tax lowest wage earners and avoid acting on the billions of dollars lost by not taxing big multinationals.

A United States Congressperson does not, directly, suffer predefined political repercussions for its defiance of its President of the United States. The President of the United States exists to oversee and ensure the proper operation of the executive branch of the United States Government. No United States Congressperson need feel any sense of obligation to comply with the political agenda of its President of the United States within United States law.

Coherent election of the United States Congress (towards your stated ends) would facilitate what it is you claim to want, but "We the People" (United States) are not coherent (as a whole).

Yes, I know that.  It has been impossible to get any meaningful changes down here in the USA.  You are likely 99% correct.  +/-  !!

We would need a real hard-ass Republican to knock heads in the Senate and the House to get anything real done.  Since the REPUBLICAN Senate was unable to stop neither ObamaCare nor federal funding of Planned Parenthood (embroiled in a horrific aborted-baby-parts scandal here), I am not hopeful.

But, having just a Consumption Tax would bring money and talent back to the USA very quickly.  It would be HUGE.

A president, unlike a prime minister, does not head the legislative branch of its government. Therefore, those hopes are unfounded.

...

Martin Armstrong for President?

Here (link below) he writes that he would only impose indirect taxes.  No income tax (the big plus: more privacy).  No property tax (the minus: property is THERE, so will likely always be taxed).

Armstrong would do some version of a consumption tax.  Five stars.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35741