Economic Devastation

[RealBitcoin]

I think I am nearing the limits of what I can contribute to this discussion. My background in quantum mechanics is not currently sufficient to fully understand the proposed orchestrated objective reduction model of consciousness discussed upthread and I have no working experience with iterative function systems and attractor-functions.

Until I have time to read more and better understand these issues I am going to leave your conclusions above unchallenged.

Also dont get sucked into the quantum quackery too much, there are tons of scammers that use this concept to make money so it's deceiving:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness


I dont think consciousness is quantum based. And I`m also skeptical about quantum theory itself.

[1714668919]

1714668919

[1714668919]

1714668919

[1714668919]

1714668919

[1714668919]

1714668919

[1714668919]

1714668919

[CoinCube]

The post below highlights a number of interesting concepts but was originally posted in a location where it was unlikely to be read or properly appreciated.

...
Our total reality and total existence are beautiful and meaningful . . . . We should judge reality by the little which we truly know of it. We have concluded that the awareness is the finest and greatest item in this world based on the practical analysis here itself. If the practical experience is neglected, the logic will lose its basis...

Now I will also quote Gödel and Chopra for their very helpful comments on this difficult discussion:

It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.

- See more at: http://www.chopra.com/ccl/what-is-cosmic-consciousness#sthash.qAGM6TT1.dpuf

Now all of this is according to the "philosophical viewpoint" of the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century:

The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems.
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
There is incomparably more knowable a priori that is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly one-dimensional.
Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
Concepts have an objective existence.
There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

I now present more fascinating and salient quotes from this mathematical genius:

"The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit."

Positivists decline to acknowledge any a priori knowledge. They wish to reduce everything to sense perceptions. Generally they contradict themselves in that they deny introspection as experience. … They use too narrow a notion of experience and introduce an arbitrary bound on what experience is …

One bad effect of logical positivism is its claim of being intimately associated with mathematical logic. As a result, other philosophers tend to distance themselves from mathematical logic and therewith deprive themselves of the benefits of a precise way of thinking.

What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Source: http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Why would awareness come from nothing and return to nothingness?
Would it not make more sense to say that awareness comes from a sort of non-awareness and returns to non-awareness in a cycle?
What is so difficult about accepting the possibility of another existence under conditions of material non-being? And the endlessness of these cycles?

What is so funny about all of this talk of "scientific proof" is that skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological research and mainstream science. I strongly advise anyone to browse the spiritual development site to discover the facts behind skeptical misdirection, eminent researchers, etc.

I too wish that others will understand the debate, so I am putting forward the facts. One final fact I want to mention: For any authority, the final stage is experience, which alone gives validity... Matter does not force upon us a belief and neither does science have much to say about death; we know for sure that it is a miracle to be alive if indeed the true home of our minds is annihilation (i.e. non-existence or nothingness). Gödel agrees that simple mechanism cannot yield the mind, and that the mind did not arise in the Darwinian manner. That home which gave birth to... mind "out of nowhere" (can be) described as both "pre-existing" (quantum fields) and "nothingness" (an absence of any thing), but it cannot be both! If it were, then our existence would be scientific proof of a miracle.


...

The standard dogma is that consciousness emerges from complex computation among brain neurons and synapses acting like ‘bits’ and switches; I will point you to four reasons given by Hammeroff for doubting the standard dogma; the implication is that the brain is acting more like a receiver of consciousness than a generator of counsciousness;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.html

[CoinCube]

Combining the above insights leads us to the idea that the world around us indeed the entire universe is simply the projection of a deeper fundamental reality. A universe with consciousness, as its ultimate teleology...

...
If it's true, then forces like gravity and physics entire can just be thrown in a trash can.

Because they only explain the interaction of the projected things on the canvas, but they can never explain the canvas itself.

Every time such a claim is made, someone shows a way to route around the limitation.

Qwik2learn above draws our attention to the mathematician Kurt Godel who is famous for his incompleteness theorems.

First incompleteness theorem
Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.

Second incompleteness theorem
For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself.

A formal system is consistent if there is no statement such that the statement itself and its negation are both derivable in the system.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#Int

Godels incompleteness theorem tells us that for any overarching logical system no mater how complete there will exist unprovable assertions which if assumed true will require a priori knowledge (truths which are assumed but cannot be proven from within the system).

With this in mind the logical course of action is to work to minimize our reliance on such assumptions via logic and scientific inquiry while ensuring that our chosen system is not inconsistent for it is an elementary fact of logic that in an inconsistent formal system every statement is derivable, and consequently, such a system is trivially complete (and useless).

[TPTB_need_war]

Stuff like integers overflowing, variables not having the precision they need, programs crashing due to idiotic stuff like divisions by zero, having buffers overflow etc etc - things like that are ridiculous and shouldn't even exist.

Impossible unless you want to forsake performance and degrees-of-freedom. There is a tension between infinite capability that requires 0 performance and 0 degrees-of-freedom.

Sorry some of the details of programming that you wish would disappear, can't.

The time when programmers tried to save every possible byte to increase performance is long gone because the bytes and the clock cycles aren't that scarce anymore.

That is the propaganda but it isn't true. There are many scenarios where optimization is still critical, e.g. block chain data structures, JIT compilation so that web pages (or in my goal Apps) can start immediately upon download of device-independent code, cryptography algorithms such as the C on my github.

So we are in the age of routinely forsaking performance just because we can, and we do so despite using - theoretically, very efficient languages.

We almost never should ignore optimization for mobile Apps because otherwise it consumes the battery faster.

You want to wish away the art of programming and have it replaced by an algorithm, but I am sorry to tell you that you and Ray Kurzweil have the wrong conceptualization of knowledge (<--- I wrote that "Information Is Alive!").

The bloat is even compensating for hardware increases - and even abuses the hardware more than previous generations of software.

There are still people in this world who can't afford 32 GB of RAM and if we forsake optimization, then a power user such as myself with 200 tabs open on my browser will need 256 GB of RAM. A typical mobile phone only has 1 GB.

I have to daily reboot my Linux box because I only have 16 GM of RAM and the garbage collector of the browser totally freezes my machine.

You see some programs like, say, Firefox, Chrome, etc etc, that should supposedly be very efficient as they are written in C (or C++), right? Yet they are bloated like hell, consuming gigabytes of ram for the lolz.

I am thinking you are just spouting off without actually knowing the technical facts. The reason is ostensibly because for example Javacript forces the use of garbage collection, which is an example of an algorithm which is not as accurate and performant as expert human designed memory deallocation. And because memory allocation is a hard problem, which is ostensibly why Mozilla funded the creation of Rust with its new statically compiled memory deallocation model to aid the human with compiler enforced rules.

And while some features, like sandboxing processes so that the browser won't crash, do make sense in terms of ram waste, the rest of the functionality doesn't make any sense in terms of wasting resources. I remember in the win2k days, I could open over 40-50 netscape windows without any issue whatsoever.

Same bloat situation for my linux desktop (KDE Plasma)... It's a piece of bloated junk. KDE 4 was far better. Same for windows... Win7 wants 1gb ram just to run. 1gb? For what? The OS? Are they even thinking when they make the specs?

Man haven't you noticed that the capabilities of webpages have increased. You had no DHTML then thus nearly no Javascript or Flash on the web page.

Above you argued that bloat doesn't matter and now you argue it does.   

In the 80's they thought if they train more coders they'll solve the problem. In the 90's they discovered that coders are born, not educated - which was very counterintuitive. How can you have a class of 100 people and 10 good coders and then have a class of 1000 people and 20 good coders instead of 100?

Because the 100 were populated by more natural hackers (e.g. as a kid I took apart all my toys instead of playing with them) who discovered the obscure field because of their interest. The 1000 was probably advertized to people who shouldn't be pursuing programming, which ostensibly includes yourself.

Why aren't they increasing linearly but rather the number of good coders seem to be related to some kind of "talent" like ....music? Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it?

I searched for that answer myself. I'm of the opinion that knowledge is teachable so it didn't make any sense.

Absolutely not. Knowledge is serendipitiously and accretively formed.

If you have the natural inclination to some field, then you can absorb the existing art and add to it serendipitiously and accretively. If you don't have the natural inclination, no amount of pounding books on your head will result in any traction.

My mind couldn't grasp why I was rejecting C when I could write asm. Well, after some research I found the answer to the problem. The whole structure of C, which was somehow elevated as the most popular programming language for applications, originates from a certain mind-set that C creators had. There are minds who think like those who made it, and minds who don't - minds who reject this structure as bullshit.

Agreed you do not appear to have the natural inclination for C. But C is not bullshit. It was a very elegant portable abstraction of assembly that radically increased productivity over assembly.

The minds who are rejecting this may have issues with what they perceive as unnecessary complexity, ordering of things, counter-intuitive syntax, etc. In my case I could read a line of asm and know what it did (like moving a value to a register or calling an IRQ) and then read a line of C and have 3 question-marks on what that fuckin line did.

What you are describing is that fact that C abstracts assembly language. You must lift you mind into a new machine model which is the semantics of C. The semantics are no less rational than assembly.

You apparently don't have an abstract mind. This was also evident by our recent debate about ethics, wherein you didn't conceive of objective ethics.

You probably are not very good at abstract math as well.

Your talent probably lies else where. I don't know why you try to force on yourself something that your mind is not structured to do well.

I've also reached the conclusion that it is impossible to have an alignment with C-thinking (preferring it as a native environment) without having anomalies in the way one thinks in life, in general. It's similar to the autism drawback of some super-intelligent people, but in this case it is much milder and doesn't need to be at the level of autism. Accepting the rules of the language, as this is, without much internal mind-chatter objection of "what the fuck is this shit" and just getting on with it, is, in a way, the root cause why there are so few people using it at any competent level globally. If more people had rejected it then we'd probably have something far better by now, with more popular adoption.

I strongly suggest you stop blaming your handicaps and talents on others:

Ego is for little people

My claim is that egotism is a disease of the incapable, and vanishes or nearly vanishes among the super-capable.

I’m the crippled kid who became a black-belt martial artist and teacher of martial artists. I’ve made the New York Times bestseller list as a writer. You can hardly use a browser, a cellphone, or a game console without relying on my code. I’ve been a session musician on two records. I’ve blown up the software industry once, reinvented the hacker culture twice, and am without doubt one of the dozen most famous geeks alive. Investment bankers pay me $300 an hour to yak at them because I have a track record as a shrewd business analyst. I don’t even have a BS, yet there’s been an entire academic cottage industry devoted to writing exegeses of my work. I could do nothing but speaking tours for the rest of my life and still be overbooked. Earnest people have struggled their whole lives to change the world less than I routinely do when I’m not even really trying. Here’s the point: In what way would it make sense for me to be in ego or status competition with anybody?

I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.

The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.

Finally, I think a lot of people need to believe that A-listers invariably have flaws in proportion to their capabilities in order not to feel dwarfed by them. Thus the widely cherished belief that geniuses are commonly mentally unstable; it’s not true (admissions to mental hospitals per thousand drop with increasing IQ and in professions that select for intelligence, with the lowest numbers among mathematicians and theoretical physicists) but if you don’t happen to be a genius yourself it’s very comforting. Similarly, a dullard who believes A-listers are all flaky temperamental egotists can console himself that, though he may not be smarter than them, he is better. And so it goes.

Ego is for little people. I wish I could finish by saying something anodyne about how we’re all little when you come down to it, but I’d be fibbing. Yeah, we’re all little compared to a supernova, but that’s beside the point. And yeah, the most capable people in the world are routinely humbled by what they don’t know and can’t do, but that is beside the point too. If you look at how humans relate to other humans – and in particular, how they manage self-image and “ego” and evaluate their status with respect to others…it really is different near the top end of the human capability range. Better. Calmer. Sorry, but it’ s true.

There are so many languages springing up but they are all trying to be the next C instead of being unique. For sure, programmer's convenience in transitioning is good, but it should be abandoned in favor of much friendlier languages.

You are not an expert programmer, ostensibly never will be, and should not be commenting on the future of programming languages. Period. Sorry. Programming will never be reduced to an art form for people who hate abstractions, details, and complexity.

Designing an excellent programming language is one of the most expert of all challenges in computer science.

While all this is nice in theory the problem will eventually be solved by AI - not language authors. It will ask what we want in terms of execution and we'll get it automatically by the AI-programming bot who will then be sending the best possible code for execution.

Sorry never! You and Ray Kurzweil are wrong and always will be. Sorry, but frankly. I don't care if you disagree, because you don't have the capacity to understand.

[BADecker]

This model cannot currently be proven true but neither can you disprove it or reject it as illogical for it for it is logically sound.
Indeed one can even argue that this model better explains our universe for this model allows you to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics a task which traditional models have been unable to accomplish.

If it's true, then forces like gravity and physics entire can just be thrown in a trash can.

Because they only explain the interaction of the projected things on the canvas, but they can never explain the canvas itself.

Actually, we are so extremely limited in our abilities that we can't tell about the "canvas."

Consider that there is parallel universe theory that suggests that the space within and between the atoms is filled with possibly an infinite number of universes that are distinct from each other, being separated by their own "dimensional phase" whatever that means. And we are barely getting into describing only a few of the dimensions necessary to get a picture of the "canvas."

When the devil, Satan, who has knowledge of the dimensions way beyond that which we have, thought he could destroy the mega-universe through his disruption of the dimensional laws, found that he couldn't do it, he was amazed. God holds the "canvas" by His own mighty strength, even though the laws and physics of the universe might become corrupted and inactive. Because of this, the physics laws don't do the holding of the universe in place. Rather, it is God Who holds the physics laws in place for His own purposes, even though they are unnecessary.

[RealBitcoin]

Consider that there is parallel universe theory that suggests that the space within and between the atoms is filled with possibly an infinite number of universes...

Those are only the fantasies of scientists. Nowadays science is more fantasy than actual evidence and logic.

Scientists have been corrupted by the leftist mindset of relying on feelings and emotions  instead of facts and evidence...


Parallel universes, Holographic Universe, String theory , Quantum theory (to some degree), M-theory, Time-travel,etc....  are all Pseudo-science.

And there is nothing, absolutely nothing backing up them , yet everybody is researching it and takes true them for granted.


It's really despicable how much this leftist culture has corrupted humanity.

[macsga]

Parallel universes, Holographic Universe, String theory , Quantum theory (to some degree), M-theory, Time-travel,etc....  are all Pseudo-science.

The best thing about a scientific theory is that it follows a specific path. First, it's being announced, peer reviewed and then consistently tested by experiment. I'd suggest you provide scientific evidence that (for instance) QM or ST are BS. Most of the theories described above are falsifiable.

I'm waiting...

[RealBitcoin]

I'd suggest you provide scientific evidence that (for instance) QM or ST are BS. Most of the theories described above are falsifiable.

I'm waiting...

Yes the formulas might work out, but they dont represent reality, and have absolutely no demonstratable evidence that they are true.


String theory is the Keynesianism of physics, on paper it works out, but in reality it's horrible

[macsga]

I'd suggest you provide scientific evidence that (for instance) QM or ST are BS. Most of the theories described above are falsifiable.

I'm waiting...

Yes the formulas might work out, but they dont represent reality, and have absolutely no demonstratable evidence that they are true.


String theory is the Keynesianism of physics, on paper it works out, but in reality it's horrible

Ah yes. Reality. The key word to our perception of the world around us. With all due respect I'd indulge you to read Plato's Cave. I'm mostly sure you will understand that you can't simply aphorize a scientific theory by just appointing it to a false reality (or leftism ideas, for that matter). It's a nice read, even if we continue to disagree, Plato always offers a nice advice.

Goodnight from Greece.

[RealBitcoin]

Ah yes. Reality. The key word to our perception of the world around us. With all due respect I'd indulge you to read Plato's Cave. I'm mostly sure you will understand that you can't simply aphorize a scientific theory by just appointing it to a false reality (or leftism ideas, for that matter). It's a nice read, even if we continue to disagree, Plato always offers a nice advice.

Goodnight from Greece.

Look string theory is data fitted. They have ultra complex mathematical models, that have flaws in them, so they explain those flaws by: "Oh it must be 11th dimensional vibrating strings".

Its the same as the God argument:  "I dont know how it works, so it must be God's miracle"


Then, the String theory has another flaw, namely that you can't tie the variables to reality:

It's like saying              a+b =2  , but so what? 

How can "a" or "b" represent anything in our world?

Those 11th dimensional strings, that have absolutely no proof whatsoever of being real, are the same as the invisible and untouchable unicorn argument.


It's pretty easy to detect bullshit around but you must have an open mind, and dont fall into the dogma, not even for scientists.


And don't give me Plato, his philosophy sucks.

[macsga]

[...]

[TPTB_need_war]

an infinite number of universes

Please understand the distinction between infinite and unbounded.

Infinite implies the tree fell in the forest even if no one observed it. Unbounded means no observer can find the limit.

That is an incredibly important distinction, because it totally changes the model.

I am certain the universe of universes is provably unbounded and not provably infinite. The proof will go something like how I have explained that a total observer (instead of partial orders) would require infinite speed-of-light (to observe the totality in real-time) which would collapse past and future into the a non-existent, infinitesimal point in spacetime.

P.S. CoinCube has been developing a lot of new theory and I haven't been able to pay attention. Hopefully I will have time in the future.

[CoinCube]

... but you must have an open mind, and dont fall into the dogma, not even for scientists.

RealBitcoin I place more priority on the quoted aspect of your thinking above rather then some of your other comments.

For example you appear to have summarily rejected all of modern string theory as 11 dimensional irrationality but is that really what string theory is?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity.

String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions of fundamental physics. String theory has been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. Despite much work on these problems, it is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world or how much freedom the theory allows to choose the details.

String theory is not one uniform "11 dimensional theory" it is simply a broad and theoretical framework physicist have developed to try and understand how the universe works.  As it is so broad it allows vastly different conceptualizations. For example both the theory of quantum gravity (graviton) and the holographic principle where gravity = entropy were derived by string theorists but these interpretations are mutually exclusive.

Our inability to intuitively grasp string theory is not grounds for rejecting it as string theory describes events on a scale so small we should expect it to be utterly alien to us. Einsteins relativity at relativistic speeds gives similarly alien conceptualizations as time passes at different rates in different frames of reference. Einstein's theory gained wide acceptance because he was able to explain astronomical phenonoma that Newtonian physics could not. Specifically his theory was able to accurately describe the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. String theory does not yet have a similar empirical test but it remains possible that someday it will. Until empiric confirmation is obtained string theory should be treated only as a possibility. However, outright rejection is simply premature for string theory has not been falsified.

[RealBitcoin]

String theory is not one uniform "11 dimensional theory" it is simply a broad and theoretical framework physicist have developed to try and understand how the universe works.

Yes indeed it's the M-theory that talks about that, i messed them up.

Yet, string theory is probably a quackery as well, because as you said it's unfalsifiable, but also there is no proof whatsoever of being true.


Not even a small proof that they are even heading in the right direction.


An invisible, untouchable, undetectable unicorn is also unfalsifiable, and it can never be proven, also it has no meaning whatsoever.


I start to think that physicists nowadays are becoming theologians, because whatever they can't rationally explain, they just invent some unfalsifiable ,yet coolish and geek sounding theory, and take it for granted.


You said that string theory haven't wen't through the scientific process, yet everyone is working with it, and building new theories on it.


I fear, that they are building on a house of cards, because when truth hits them, it will all come down.

[TPTB_need_war]

What exactly do you define the Armstrong model as?  When Bitcoin Core devs get mad at me about some random technical disagreement, words like "come on, you're not omniscient" are usually said.  So are you saying that when I claim it's an error-prone, probablistic model, that's wrong?  What else could it possibly be?  Are you really going to assign omniscient traits to this guy's gambling system?

As for your website, it's kind of bizarre that I have similar conclusions involving AI that you did, almost word for word in the David Latapite "transhumanism" thread from a year ago where I said true AI is impossible without human evolution, except in probably more detail.  Then the actual, real danger of AI or attempts to create it is in the last paragraph.  From my post:

[...]

The unbounded attribute of the universe appears to be fractal, i.e. patterns within patterns. So the unbounded entropy is in the small, not in the large. This is why Armstrong points out that short-term cycles (e.g. day trading) are much more noisy (i.e. randomized). The higher-level the cycles in time, the less random the deviation.

So while A.I. will eventually emulate much of what it can observe that a set of humans can do, it can't (unless it becomes integrated within evolution and competitive reproduction) make every copy of itself a unigue solution to the unbounded evolutionary fitness continuum. The unseen fractal patterns encoded in the evolutionary continuum are not carried within the genome and dynamic living network of A.I. bots, because for one thing they are discrete and not analog biological. The complexity/entropy of a living creature is unbounded in the unseen fractal patterns encoded in the evolutionary continuum.

Here is the key point. Nature is not top-down controlled and there is no 'error' as every variation is information to the evolutionary continuum. A.I. would need to become alive in the sense that it is a self-reproducing, self-motivated, decentralized process controlled by no one. Then it would no longer be ARTIFICIAL intelligence.

So Armstrong has correlated the large fractal pattern cycles which are stable as is man's lifespan, reproductive maturity, Sun spots cycles, Earth's various cycles such as earthquakes, etc..

[TPTB_need_war]

Europe is culturally destroyed...

you did not state it as a statistical fact...and high crime in area with poverty does not imply the abandonment of rule of law ...it is an inference that is bigoted. One that I find disturbing. It has tainted, greatly my opinion of your. Sorry thats how I feel. and that's a fact

It is a statistical fact that inner cities regions have higher crime rates, but thus by definition a lower respect for the rule of law. Crime can't increase if there aren't more people who disrespect the law or an ineffective legal system that allows repeat offenders. Or a corrupt legal system that prosecutes the innocent. In either case or all of the above, it makes my statement factual.

And it is evident by recent protects that the African-american community to some extent feels the justice system is not entirely serving their interests.

There is some grey area in there, so I did include the word 'perhaps'.

Now would you please stop cluttering the thread with a nonsense attempt to label me as a social misfit. Your biased motivation as a Waves supporter is entirely obvious.

And you are also wasting my very expensive time, which is really pissing me off. Stay on topic. Damn it!

WTF happened to our world. Instead of engineers and coders, we've become the social misfit conformance cry baby gestapo propaganda slaves. Is that how you young Europeans think about life, that is always about equality as a human right. Fuck man, no wonder Europe is fucking toasted. Entitled spoiled cry babies, who get pissed off when we don't let them make MLM scams to steal from us.

WTF happened to our world. Instead of engineers and coders, we've become the social misfit conformance cry baby gestapo propaganda slaves. Is that how you young Europeans think about life, that is always about equality as a human right. Fuck man, no wonder Europe is fucking toasted. Entitled spoiled cry babies, who get pissed off when we don't let them make MLM scams to steal from us.

how to spit on our ancestors fight for rights in 3 lines  don't forget that humanity has not enjoyed such rights for 99% of its existence.

The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights didn't propose to make us equal. Get an education and then come back here. Until then, don't let the door hit you in your dumb ass on the way out of here. Bye uneducated dufus. You are now on Ignore along with the other dumb or disingenuous trolls traumschiff and Come-from-Beyond.

[RealBitcoin]

WTF happened to our world. Instead of engineers and coders, we've become the social misfit conformance cry baby gestapo propaganda slaves. Is that how you young Europeans think about life, that is always about equality as a human right. Fuck man, no wonder Europe is fucking toasted. Entitled spoiled cry babies, who get pissed off when we don't let them make MLM scams to steal from us.

Hahaha europe is becoming a zombie collectivist land.

Soon they will become borg and they will assimilate us all

[OROBTC]

WTF happened to our world. Instead of engineers and coders, we've become the social misfit conformance cry baby gestapo propaganda slaves. Is that how you young Europeans think about life, that is always about equality as a human right. Fuck man, no wonder Europe is fucking toasted. Entitled spoiled cry babies, who get pissed off when we don't let them make MLM scams to steal from us.

Hahaha europe is becoming a zombie collectivist land.

Soon they will become borg and they will assimilate us all

Well, what gets me about Europe is how they have just submitted to their Islamic Invaders.  In France and the UK (probably other countries too) I have read about "No Go Zones" which are Muslim neighborhoods in major cities.  The cops and firemen are not invited in...  I doubt that American tourists would be welcome either...



I continue to wonder how much longer the feckless Euro .govs will just let things simmer.  At some point, my hunch is that the Hard Right, in one form or another, will take the lead in discouraging bad behavior by the Rapefugees. 

Should Syrians or Somalis (Obama's latest harvest of Muslims) wind up raping American women, the response here would be very different.  Americans are armed, and will not let them get away with that shit (at least after the first rape or two).

[Yakamoto]

WTF happened to our world. Instead of engineers and coders, we've become the social misfit conformance cry baby gestapo propaganda slaves. Is that how you young Europeans think about life, that is always about equality as a human right. Fuck man, no wonder Europe is fucking toasted. Entitled spoiled cry babies, who get pissed off when we don't let them make MLM scams to steal from us.

Hahaha europe is becoming a zombie collectivist land.

Soon they will become borg and they will assimilate us all

Well, what gets me about Europe is how they have just submitted to their Islamic Invaders.  In France and the UK (probably other countries too) I have read about "No Go Zones" which are Muslim neighborhoods in major cities.  The cops and firemen are not invited in...  I doubt that American tourists would be welcome either...



I continue to wonder how much longer the feckless Euro .govs will just let things simmer.  At some point, my hunch is that the Hard Right, in one form or another, will take the lead in discouraging bad behavior by the Rapefugees. 

Should Syrians or Somalis (Obama's latest harvest of Muslims) wind up raping American women, the response here would be very different.  Americans are armed, and will not let them get away with that shit (at least after the first rape or two).

An interesting thing I actually read about this earlier today was that even Somalians are seeing that it is bad in Europe, specifically Sweden, and they say that the truth is hidden and you're spoken out against.

It is starting to get horrendous in Europe, and the left is starting to censor all sorts of information, and anything that doesn't fit their narrative is blocked out.

[TPTB_need_war]

WTF happened to our world. Instead of engineers and coders, we've become the social misfit conformance cry baby gestapo propaganda slaves. Is that how you young Europeans think about life, that is always about equality as a human right. Fuck man, no wonder Europe is fucking toasted. Entitled spoiled cry babies, who get pissed off when we don't let them make MLM scams to steal from us.

Hahaha europe is becoming a zombie collectivist land.

Soon they will become borg and they will assimilate us all

Well, what gets me about Europe is how they have just submitted to their Islamic Invaders.  In France and the UK (probably other countries too) I have read about "No Go Zones" which are Muslim neighborhoods in major cities.  The cops and firemen are not invited in...  I doubt that American tourists would be welcome either...



I continue to wonder how much longer the feckless Euro .govs will just let things simmer.  At some point, my hunch is that the Hard Right, in one form or another, will take the lead in discouraging bad behavior by the Rapefugees.  

Should Syrians or Somalis (Obama's latest harvest of Muslims) wind up raping American women, the response here would be very different.  Americans are armed, and will not let them get away with that shit (at least after the first rape or two).

An interesting thing I actually read about this earlier today was that even Somalians are seeing that it is bad in Europe, specifically Sweden, and they say that the truth is hidden and you're spoken out against.

It is starting to get horrendous in Europe, and the left is starting to censor all sorts of information, and anything that doesn't fit their narrative is blocked out.

They submit because they really believe that it is unfair to discriminate or speak hurtful words or actions. The men have been indoctrinated to think like females. Politeness is politically required on all speech.

Two more examples:

you gotta lay low with the insults. getting you nowhere.

What insult is in my immediately prior post  

Is geek an insulting word? I wear that word as badge of honor. I'm a geek.

And Liberland is supposed to be a Libertarian paradise, yet they are accepting applications from Somalians, Egyptians, etc.., so how will they ever maintain a Libertarian culture  

And the application process requires political correctness:

Who is needed in Liberland?

Liberland currently needs people who:

• have respect for other people and respect the opinions of others, regardless of their race, ethnicity, orientation, or religion
• have respect for private ownership which is untouchable
• do not have communist, nazi or other extremist past
• were not punished for past criminal offences

They seem to have this delusion that they can keep political correctness censorship and maintain respect for private property.  

As Armstrong has pointed out, it was the discrimination against immigrants who did not assimilate with English and our capitalistic values, that made the great melting pot work as unified high economy-of-scale economy and culture. Once we ended that with anti-discrimination laws, we destroyed the melting pot economy. This is why the USA will breakup into regions.