Open Thread

Open Thread #67

The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!

The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.

Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.

63 thoughts on “Open Thread #67

    1. The old bond movies were really well made. They are classic movies. In contrast, the more recent ones are too focused on action and special effects. I can’t quite see anyone holding, for instance, Spectre in high regard. I watched that movie and I have a hard time remembering any plot details. It’s the kind of movie you unknowingly rewatch and then it dawns on you that you’ve actually watched it already.

    2. I cringe every time people say that Daniel Craig is a great Bond. He couldn’t shine Sean Connery’s shoes. To me its Connery, Brosnan and the rest.

      I love what little effort he puts into getting the hot chick in that scene. She was practically following him around. I wonder if Sean banged her in real life. Connery was basically playing himself. I’ve heard a few stories about him beating the shit out of guys that absolutely deserved it 😆

    3. Craig’s take on Bond is the modern, overused trope of the brooding, humorless, suffering action hero.

      Connery’s Bond definitely has more of a joie de vivre that you don’t see much of anymore in film.

      Perhaps they are a product of their times. Maybe people on average were happier in the 1960s than today? Funny how as technologicial progress seems to be inversely correlated to human happiness nowadays.

    4. Certainly substance abuse is at an all-time high, which would support your claim that people are less happy. Also, people, including the average Joes, were materially a lot well off in the 1960s. Today, we also have record levels of debts. In the 1960s, you could go to college, and finance that with odd jobs in summer. Today, people graduate with tens of thousands in the hole, entering a stagnant labor market. Another good data point is pop music: 1960s pop music was overall much more joyful and easygoing than modern pop music with its glorification of materialism, sex, and violence. I take the Beach Boys’ “Good Vibrations” over crap like Roddy Ricch’s “The Box” (I just looked up chart-topping songs in the 2020s) any time. I’d be quite concerned if my kids ended up listening to music that is, without any exaggeration, retarded.

    5. Despite our supposedly more feminist times the women in the old Bond films seem more “liberated” than the women in the new ones. The girls in the 60s films actually flirt and act like they want to have sex, in the new ones they seem really stiff and cold and Bond seems to have no chemistry with them.

      The only great Daniel Craig Bond film was Casino Royale (also the only recent one based on a Fleming book).

    6. I read a recent article on why Connery hasn’t made a movie in forever. He basically dislikes the industry. I don’t blame him. It’s full of sick fucks.

    7. He may also have been blacklisted, seeing how much of a sexist, misogynist pig he is, according to the mainstream. Didn’t Mel Gibson also run into some problems? I had the impression that he started directing movies so that he could have more of a say in the roles he was playing. Certainly, his portrayal of the Jews didn’t win him any favors with (Jewish-dominated) Hollywood.

    8. People were DEFINITELY happier in the 1950-60s. ESPECIALLY women. They were getting what they wanted. Strong men supporting them having a family. Women aren’t liberated now days. They are slaves to corporations, consumerism and feminism. Check this out. Not only is it a beautiful song, but it shows how much happier people were during that era. Plus the women were better looking:

    9. What strikes me most when I come across footage from the 1950s to 1970s is how slender people used to be. Today, there are so many fat slobs around that you may forget that this isn’t how humans normally look.

    10. @Aaron,

      Mel got into more than some trouble. He was public enemy #1 in Hollywood for a while. He said to police, after being arrested for DUI, that Jews caused all of the wars in the world. His father was a holicaust revisionist and Mel was asked about it in an interview. She asked if Jews were killed by the Nazis. He responded that millions of people were killed during the war. She pressed him if “6 million” Jews were killed. His response was “sure, sure.”

      Yes, Mel started funding his own, very successful, movies because the Zionists in Hollywood refused to produce his movies even though they were very lucrative.

      Years later the Zionists in Hollywood played a recorded fight he had on the phone with his then wife. All of it seemed like a sting operation by the media because of The Passion of the Christ.

    11. Mel Gibson is a hero. Really he done of the few who had the balls to stand up to the Jews. They probably hated him when he made Passion of the Christ.

      Mel is also woke and knows that Hollywood is run by satanists and pedos. When the world wakes up to what is happening and who’s running thing a behind the scenes there will be a huge cultural shift. Rumor is it’ll happen by the end of this year or early next year after trump wins the next election.

  1. So which Bond girls do you guys like best?

    For me it is:

    1. Eva Green (Casino Royale)
    2. Carole Bouquet (For Your Eyes Only)
    3. Diana Rigg (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service)

    1. Denise Richards (The World is not Enough). Even if you don’t like fake tits, you can’t dent how hot she is.

    2. She most certainly had a lot more done than just her tits. I did some research on that question, using this list. Denise Richards is in the top 3, next to Barbara Bach and Famke Jansen who played “Xenia Onatopp” in Goldeneye. Look up the fight between Bond and her on Youtube, it’s a precursor of the fight between Nathan Drake and Nadine in Uncharted 4. There was a time when James Bond slapped women on screen. In the 90s, he had a hard time not getting killed by women half his size.

  2. I’ve asked here a question quite some time ago about how to start investing money. Somebody here said that during coronavirus times the best would be to start investing in bitcoin and gold.
    Well, I did some study about bitcoin and decided to buy it.
    It went from 5000 USD to 9000 USD(now bit less) in 1.5 month.
    It seems that finding wise men and following their advice is one of the best thing one can do in their life.

    1. That’s great! Don’t put all your money in cryptocurrencies, though.

    2. Careful dude! Crypto is highly volatile. Fiat currency is bad enough, cryptos are not even “real” money to begin with.

      I know of several people who lost a ton of money, one moron even lost his life savings betting on bitcoin.

    3. Gold is somewhat stupid. Why buy an asset that is supposed to protect you from inflation, fully knowing that gold itself has an annual 1-2% inflation and has no known supply limit?

    4. Rule number 1: You learn to invest BEFORE a crisis so that you know what to do in a crisis. It’s the wrong time to start for beginners. Guys who tell you otherwise just want to make commission money with you.

    5. “It’s the wrong time to start for beginners.”

      That’s a bit pessimistic, don’t you think?
      The Fed is printing the shit out of the dollar, there’s global QE and the next halvening will happen in a matter of days. Let him buy some crypto now.
      The right moment was in 2016. I don’t know about you, but my broker doesn’t let me trade the left side of the chart 😉

    6. @Aaron
      “left side of he chart” is the past, obviously. The right side is the future.
      It’s a joke among traders that is brought up whenever someone comes with a 20/20 hindsight coulda/woulda/shoulda excuse.

    7. I think Neutral means his broker won’t let him go back in time to buy crypto when it was cheaper.

      Gold-backed crypto seems more secure than regular crypto right now since it’s tied to a physical good. This is more portable than just buying gold, and has the same functionality as a gold certificate, but can more conveniently be redeemed for other cryptos and currencies as well.

      Tangentially, I believe China has just taken major steps to establish a crypto-Yuan. The problem is that it is centralized and the CPC has full control over it, so how is that any different from using fiat digitally?

    8. “That’s a bit pessimistic, don’t you think?
      The Fed is printing the shit out of the dollar, there’s global QE and the next halvening will happen in a matter of days. Let him buy some crypto now.
      The right moment was in 2016. I don’t know about you, but my broker doesn’t let me trade the left side of the chart”
      Noone is printing anything physical. If everybody does quantitative easing isn’t that a sign it might be the right thing to do? What will halve and why?

      If you look at Bitcoins over the last year its high was ~11.000 € its low was ~4.300 €. That’s quite volatile.

    9. That’s precisely the problem of fiat currency under government control: You can just increase the monetary supply, which will cause inflation. Also, saying that X is the right thing to do because “everyone” is doing it is hardly a convincing argument. Think about this: The mainstream is very often wrong. The average person is a fucking moron. Consensus is often ether manufactured (PR, propaganda) or forced (hard/soft power). Did it never strike you as odd that whatever nonsense the US falls prey to gets gobbled up by all other Western countries with little delay, such as affirmative action, feminism, the climate change hoax, promotion of homosexuality/pedophilia/transvestitism, open borders, and all that diversity bullshit?

      Read this on Bitcoin Halving, and Bitcoin in general:
      This also helps you with your naive beliefs regarding “quantitative easing”, i.e. mindlessly inflating the monetary supply.

    10. QE is an asset swap. So by definition there is no additional money created. You swap central bank money against (usually government) debt obligations.

      The following central banks have used QE: Bank of Japan (2001), Bank of England (2009), Swiss National Bank (2009), ECB (2009), FED (2009). Where is the inflation in these countries? The usual argument that follows is it will come later. Hint: I included Japan (19 years ago) for a reason.

      With your repetition of “printing money” you probably want to conjure up images of Weimar which had monthly (!) double digit inflation rates. Is there anything similar going on in Japan, Britain, the US or the Eurozone? No? Are the usual crash prophets full of shit then?

      Bitcoin is a highly speculative bet with a huge volatility to boot. If your readers want to bet they should. If the bet goes south they shouldn’t come crying.

      I would be much obliged if you wouldn’t invent arguments I didn’t make. I never said “X is the right thing to do because everyone does it” and I’m pretty sure you know it.

    11. You need to read up more on money creation. In your view, there seems to be a fixed amount, say one gorillion bazillion dollars, that just sit in some vault, which the central bankers dip into. That’s really not how it works. Try to find out where that new money comes from. The Wikipedia page on quantitative easing isn’t a bad start; I just skimmed it.

      Once you are done with that, you may want to educate yourself on how inflation is measured. Here is a hint: how is it possible that inflation is claimed to be around 1% when prices for real estate skyrocket? I did not talk about hyperinflation.

      You wrote, “Noone is printing anything physical. If everybody does quantitative easing isn’t that a sign it might be the right thing to do?” Now you claim, “I never said “X is the right thing to do because everyone does it” and I’m pretty sure you know it.” If you think you are misunderstood, you may want to flesh out your thoughts a bit more because I can assure you that your first statement is generally taken to be an endorsement of quantitative easing based on an argumentum ad populum.

    12. No amount of arguing will change the fact that if the FED buys a T-Bond from an american bank with the value X and gives the bank amount X in exchange, no money was created additionally. It’s simply Fiat Money to Central bank money. The amount was already there.
      I have a pretty good grasp of money creation and quantitative easing so thanks for the suggested reading but I’m good.
      Banks hate QE btw. because their true and tested model of taking 6% bonds and selling you 5% interest bonds with an additional fee is quite dead. That’s why you read all kinds of shit about it in the mainstream media, especially in “economic magazines”. And the “alternative” media never quite got the concept.

      Sure let’s assume inflation is under-measured. By how much? 3 times? 4 times? Then we look at the highest inflation in the Euro Zone 2009 – 2020, which is 2,7 % per annum. Quadruple it: 10,8 % pa. Rather high, still not outrageous in historical terms (yes, even the Deutsche Bundesbank didn’t make 2 % all the time [all time high in Germany is 7,6 % pa]). If we take the lowest it’s 0,2 % -> 0,8 % pa. Which isn’t even the current inflation goal (<2 % pa). And if we take the housing prices you mentioned at 6 – 7 % pa that is still not that high historically. To put it in perspective: If your wage grows by 10% pa it doesn't bother you that much.

      There is a difference between "if everybody does something it might be worth looking into and find out why" (it entails the possibility that after some reasoning you can do it differently [key word: might]) vs "millions of flies like shit, let's all eat shit". You are – quite frankly – old enough to know the difference.

      And I'm losing my patience here so I come out and say it outright. QE assumes banks have a shortage of central bank money. Which they don't. Therefore this part is useless. The idea to lower interest rates is spot on though. We are on the way into a deflationary environment and have been for quite some time.

    13. I can’t believe what I’m reading. In QE, the buyer pays with money that was created out of thin air. Here is a simplified explanation by the Bank of England, in case you think I’m delusional: The key part it right at the start: “…purchases assets financed by new money it creates electronically.” You could be hung up on me casually referring to QE as “printing money”. Obviously, this is a joke. Central banks don’t physically print a ton of money when doing QE. Instead, the money gets created by the push of a button.

      Does the salary of the average employee grow 10% p.a.? Salaries have been stagnant for decades, in real terms.

      Your statement on QE was a clear endorsement in the context of your comment. Now you’re arguing like a shyster lawyer. You can’t seriously write, “If everyone does X (and indeed “everyone” does X), might it not be the right thing to do?” and then turn around and respond that you meant the exact opposite. Here’s an exercise: Get yourself a materialistic girlfriend and tell her about all the fancy vacations your friends are taking. Then you say, “Honey, everybody is taking expensive vacations this year. Isn’t it just what people do?” She gets excited thinking about where to travel with you, and the next morning you say to her, “Honey, just because I said my friends are blowing their money on expensive vacations and that it’s what “everyone” is doing didn’t mean that I wanted to do that.” How do you think she will respond?

      I can’t tell whether you’re dense or arguing in bad faith. I hope it’s not the latter.

    14. All business banks (CreditSuisse, Citi, JPMorgan, etc.) can create money out of “thin air” at all times (so before, during and after QE – 1950 as much as 1990). The business bank doesn’t have to have the money as deposit (Einlagen) or equity (Eigenkapital). Giving out credits is only limited by liquid debtors. The safety necessary is generated through the act of lending, i.e. a fancy car (which is bought) or a apartment or a house (which is built) which are seized if the credit defaults. If the rules say the bank needs a certain amount of central bank money (Zentralbankgeld) to back the credit, you know already that its supply is limitless. So QE isn’t a special circumstance according to “Geldschöpfung” (creating money) it is the norm and has been for decades if not centuries. It hasn’t lead to hyperinflation. But surely it will tomorrow.

      You’re onto something with the stagnant wages. You’re off with the rest.

      As fun as it was telling you the basics of the banking system and getting called names for it by someone pushing 40, I think that’s my clue. Have fun pushing deflationary cryptos.

    15. I never used the term ‘hyperinflation’ in my here argument while you have used it repeatedly. Do you actually read what I wrote or are you so delirious that my words transform to something entirely different in your head?

      The case you mention is, at best, tangentially related to the discussion as commercial banks are not central banks. Commercial banks also can’t create money ad infinitum, unlike central banks with QE as the former have capital requirements. I find it baffling that I can present you a (child-friendly) source from the Bank of England, incidentally the oldest central bank in the world, that states that, yes, central banks do indeed create money out of thin air via QE, and instead of you admitting that you were wrong you now turn around and say that “you know already that its supply [i.e. central bank money] is limitless”. It is now clear that you are not arguing in good faith.

      I could be 80 and it wouldn’t change anything. Heck, maybe I am 80 and I’m sitting in a retirement home, making up stuff. It wouldn’t really matter much because it is essentially irrelevant who or what I am as my arguments can be assessed on their own merits.

      [EDIT: To others reading this, Haselnuss displays cognitive dissonance here, which most people find very difficult to deal with. In fact, it is, in abstract terms, comparable to a psychosis as healthy humans cannot hold two contradicting opinions in their heads. Just admitting that you have been wrong is difficult for a lot of people, thus they end up arguing in bad faith. They prefer changing the facts after the fact as opposed to changing their beliefs.]

    16. My claim from the very beginning was:
      Bank A holds a bond of 1000 €. That’s the whole balance sheet. You don’t need to tell me this is unrealistic, I know. The ECB comes, creates 1000 € of central bank money out of thin air (never doubted that, that was a straw man by you) and buys the bond for 1000 € central bank money. The ECB gets the bond. Now we are reaching the tricky part. Has Bank A a) more, b) less or c) the same balance sheet in terms of value? In other words is there a) more, b) less or c) the same liquidity in the banking system?

    17. You are moving the goal post. We were initially arguing about where the central bank gets its money from. You claimed that it was always there. Let me quote you:

      No amount of arguing will change the fact that if the FED buys a T-Bond from an american bank with the value X and gives the bank amount X in exchange, no money was created additionally. It’s simply Fiat Money to Central bank money. The amount was already there.

      In this example, the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air.

      Let’s talk about the example you introduced: what if that bond is nominally worth 1000 euros, yet on the open market it is worth next to nothing? I know it’s crazy to imagine such a case but just humor me here. Surely, it must be my own delusions that make me believe that terms like “toxic assets” exist for such cases.

      Also, why would we ever need QE if it has no real effect on anything? Clearly, the fact that, in your example, a commercial bank can’t offload the bond on the open market means that it can’t find any other buyer. Also, the fact that it wants to sell implies that it needs money. You may be familiar with the phrase that central banks serve the role of “lender of last resort”. Occasionally, in finance circles this is parodied as “buyer of last resort”, i.e. central banks buy up all the toxic assets nobody else wants to buy.

    18. @Aaron:
      There’s no point in arguing with fiat defenders of any kind. They get triggered by a fixed-supply-monetary medium the same way RSD-followers get triggered by statements like “looks matter”.

      “Time makes more converts than reason.” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense (February 24, 1776).”

  3. Just to add about corrupt Jews controlling Hollywood……I watched a documentary about Clark Gable recently. During the making of Gone With the Wind the producer, David Selznick (Jew), called Gable out for a fist fight. Gable said repeatedly, “let’s not do this.” Selznick repeatedly insisted (supposedly Selznick was a big barroom brawler). They squared up and Gable dropped him in a couple punches, and walked off.

    That’s pretty badass. Kick your bosses ass and receive the fattest pay check.

    1. That’s amazing. I believe that the Jews have a domination fetish. Think about it. They act like victims through constantly reminding the world about the holocaust. And then they push vaccines – ultimate submission. Then they pollute our brains with propaganda through movies and porn making us even more fucked up. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the way I am due to watching movies and shows until my mid 20’s. I stopped watching movies and shows 4-5 years ago ( still watch a movie here and there but rarely) and I feel better but I’m hitting 30 soon so. Fuck maybe the damage is done.

    2. I’ve been indoctrinated even longer than yourself. I hardly watch Hollywood films anymore either, (most of it sucks, even putting politics aside) but the damage is definitely done. I grew up feeling bad about being a white American male. The only thing they give us credit for is WWII. Self serving as always……..Its tantamount to narcissistic abuse, but on a much wider scale.

      There was a time when most people got their history from Hollywood. Thank God that’s over. But the internet is now self-censoring. It’s obvious that we are not white nationalists over here. Hell, they would despise Aaron for having an Asian wife. But out of curiosity I googled to see if Stormfront was still around. They got taken off the internet in 2016. I didn’t agree with them, but fuck censorship.

    3. It’s not just self-censoring. Instead, there are massive censorship campaigns underway as the powers that be have been working frantically at regaining control over the narrative. I remember a time where you could search for random topics on Google and get results pointing to blogs or forums. Those days are long gone. Today, non-mainstream sources are heavily penalized in search results. YouTube likewise penalizes non-mainstream creators. Heck, on my account I watch zero mainstream stuff, quite the opposite in fact, and I get mainstream media crap by Jimmy Kimmel and CNN shoved in my recommendation feed as well as some diversity balderdash. Some of the creators I follow have been put in their own little bubble. There is one guy I quite like, and when I watch one of his videos, all recommendations are from his own channel.

      The concentration on social media such as Reddit and Facebook wasn’t entirely organic. It’s all part of suppressing alternative points of view. Of course, it’s a lot easier to take down posts or user accounts on big aggregator sites than it is to go after six gorillion blogs. Big independent creators nowadays also get “deplatformed”, some even having their domain name seized. Alex Jones and Andrew Anglin are prominent examples. We live in pretty dark times so better enjoy the (limited) freedoms you still have on the Internet. If you haven’t, check out sites like 4chan and 8kun, which are a thorn in the side of the ruling class, who are violently opposed to the plebs voicing its own opinions. We are supposed to get told what to think.

  4. On my other blog I talked about societal decline before and that there is some knowledge that seems to have gotten lost over time. For instance, Germany has been faring rather poorly in terms of carrying out large-scale infrastructure projects. The best example of this is the new airport in Berlin, which many billions of Euros over budget and several years overdue. German engineering really was something back in the days. Just remember that they managed to gas six million Jews in the early 1940s, and burn all those bodies. Now, just about 70 years later, the Italians run their modern-day ovens at full capacity and 24 hours a day in order to get rid of their Covid-19 dead, yet with abysmal results: “The crematorium of Bergamo, working at full capacity, 24 hours a day, can cremate 25 dead”, said a spokesperson for the local authority.” (Source: European couldn’t even pull off a proper Holocaust anymore if they wanted to. We’d need 20 years to burn six million Jews nowadays.

    1. Well the Italians oughta start putting multiple bodies per oven at once. That’s how the Germans did it back in the days.
      It’s alright, Aaron, the Nazis were just a bit smarter than us.

    2. The sarcasm in this post made me LOL. The “holicaust,” as it officially portrayed, is tantamount to believing in Santa Claus. Yet, they got everyone believing it.

    3. Don’t forget that there were 0 “safety” or work-time regulations back in nazi-germany like you have today. They also didn’t thought about budgeting, because they used slaves and held guns in faces of people to get the building materials.

    4. I have my doubts about that. The Nazis also invented mass tourism, by the way, as they made it possible for the average worker to go on vacations. If you look at how other countries treated their workers back then, I’d say that Nazi Germany was very advanced.

    5. the holocaust is as real as covid19.

      There are so many plot holes when it comes to the holocaust that I’m sure it’ll be illegal on day to even discuss it. People don’t want about the estimated 7-13 million Ukrainians that the Russian Jews killed in two separate famines, maybe if they were jewish then the media would talk about it daily.

    6. We need the Chinese to liberate us from our hostile governments for that to happen. Also, you’d need an unbiased outside historian to investigate the matter as there is nary a historian in the West who is able to think straight when writing about the Third Reich. More or less anything in the mainstream narrative I look into turns out to be bullshit to varying degrees. They just made up a lot of stuff without any basis in reality, such as the “wall of eyes” or Mengele concocting some Rube Goldberg machine that dropped a hammer on an immobilized prisoner’s head. A key aspect is that the Allies made up wartime propaganda and just kept claiming that it was true after the war. This is still part of their playbook. Just think of the claim that Hussein had WMDs or that Assad’s regime had used poisonous gas on civilians in Douma. Nowadays, it’s not quite as effective anymore, thanks to the Internet. Yet, this is one of the reasons why the powers that be have been working so hard on trying to regain control of the narrative.

    7. The media/Hollywood has lied to us so much, we just get used to it I guess.

      “The Big One” was supposed to be this catastrophic earthquake that would destroy southern California. Shit never happened.

      “Killer bees” would kill you in one sting. They would sting “anything that moved.” WTF happened to that?

      Razors in Halloween candy. Only one reported case. And it was a relative.

      Jaws. Some people won’t go in the ocean because of fear of sharks. One fatal attack every 2 years in the US. 7 a year worldwide. Much more likely to be struck by lightning.

      Covid is just the latest in a long line of media fear tactics.

    8. This reminds me that there were several movies about Californa getting ravaged by an earthquake. San Andreas (2015) comes to mind immediately, but there were a few others.

      In the context of Covid-19, the case has been made that a slew of movies on pandemics was used to prime the mind of the audience of the scenario we now see playing out, i.e. Joe Average saw a totalitarian government controlling the citizenry, so he’ll happily endure that his real-world rulers tell him that he can’t leave the house, despite the fact that hospitals are empty and that the effects of this supposed pandemic are comparable to a mild flu season.

    9. The thing is I’m trying to be impartial but the more i read about Hitler the more i realize that we may have defeated the wrong enemy. After Hitler lost communism got out of control. Really if Hitler won the war would the world be any better than it is today?

      Didnt some american general say adfter WW2 ended that we defeated the wrong enemy?

    10. You are not alone with this point of view. I think that Nazi Germany was the last hope Europeans had. Now our culture is corrupted through and through. Arguably, Europe was destined to fall after World War I and its immense blood-letting already but, man, the rise of Nazi Germany was such a sight to behold. This should be retold in movies over and over. Instead, we get constant vilification with a ton of bullshit thrown in. The fact of the matter is that Hitler was the most beloved leader in modern history and possibly in all of history even as he was genuinely concerned with raising the standard of living of the common man. On a related note, the sentiment of what could have been if the entire world hadn’t ganged up on Nazi Germany is beautifully expressed in a speech by Leon Degrelle, We Dreamed of Something Marvellous.

      The general you referred to is George S. Patton who died under very suspicious circumstances, “colliding with an army truck at low speed.” His death was about as natural as Epstein’s.

    11. I think the only hope we have is an overthrow of the US government as a consequence of economic collapse or military defeat. The US is corrupting the entire world. After an overthrow of the government, their military occupation of much of the globe would end. Countries that still have a decent army could then overthrow their own insipid, traitorous leadership, and start over. The next steps would consist of scrapping the welfare state, reestablishing social control, and expatriating all enemies of the state, which, of course, includes parasites of our own ethnicity, like those Antifa thugs. I’d arrange a deal with some African country and pay them something like 100 euros per person. There would be no shortage of takers. Then you shove those shitheads into a cargo plane headed to their new home. Once there, they can see for themselves how wonderful life without their pale, stale, white male oppressors is. It’s what they wanted. We’re just granting them their wish.

      You also have to consider that the Nazis were able to clean up Weimar Germany, which was an unimaginably rotten place. The country was so shot that women whored themselves out like they do in Venezuela nowadays. On top, you had communist street gangs who killed people for fun without any repercussions. In the early days of the NSDAP, they needed to first beat up communist thugs before Hitler could speak. It was a vigilante society that makes today’s leftist domestic terrorism look cute in comparison. All hope is not lost. Maybe we can clean up our countries once again.

    12. @ Deus

      The allies entering World War 2 had nothing to do with liberating Europe from fascism, it was simply that Germany was a rival power they didn’t want to see dominate Europe.

      Communism spreading after WW2 was a good thing though. Don’t dismiss the achievements of the USSR and its allies for ideological reasons.

    13. @overdrive – how is communism a good thing?

      Nationalism and pride in your own country is the only way i see the world moving forward. The ideologies of communism is evil . After WW2 the people in high powers were Jews pushing bolshevism. My roots are from eastern Europe and my parents fled in the 80’s to live in north America. the USSR was shit but it was needed only because it taught and showed eastern Europe what happens when you’re under communist rule. That probably explains why eastern Europe is better off culturally now and their men actually stand up against migrants.

  5. Medical ‘professionals’ have way too much time on their hands amid a supposed crisis, and they like to spend their downtime using Chinese made app Tiktok to capitalize on a crisis and garner attention:

  6. Do you remember when i told you about my tinder account was banned because of my catfish profile? After that they refund my money, it was strange, because they don’t refund money without the customer asking for a refund.

    After that, my badoo and bumble account was banned too, they block my account, you know why? Guess what? My SIM phone number was the same from tinder.

    All dating app are connected, they work together as one, it’s the same people running the program. Im telling you, they are paying people to pretending be someone else, and get others to talk so that way it looks like there is activity on the app, they pay models too, so they can use their pictures. This is serious, nobody is talking about this. Im not crazy.

    1. Yes, there are fake profiles on those apps. The average guy does not notice it because he’s used to barely getting any matches. Also, some dating apps are indeed connected due to being run by the same corporation. Look into the properties owns! I’d say it’s a breach of data privacy regulations if they shared user data across apps, but that’s for the lawyers to sort out.

  7. Idk how long the dopamine detox fad has been around, maybe a couple years? But I keep hearing more and more about it lately and it’s just starting to remind me of nofap. I’m inclined to think it’s mostly bullshit. Thoughts, anyone?

    1. if you overwhelm your dopamine receptors with dopamine they become less sensitive leading to you being a non responder to lower levels stimulators, if you ease up on the stimulation there will be less supply of the dopamine
      and your receptors increase to compensate and you sort of regain response for lower amounts.
      thats the theory it makes sense but you still need to see if it applies to you or not.
      if only matters if you are an addict by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.