@WhiningCoil's banner p




5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:24:47 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 269



5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:24:47 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 269

Verified Email

The weaponization of the dollar has been one of the worse policy decisions in the history of our country. The only reason we've been able to float such insane deficits, and largely skate through innumerable corrupt bailouts or foreign wastes of lives and treasure, is because our debt to GDP ratio doesn't matter. Because the dollar isn't just backed by our own economy, but all the goods in the world that trade in dollars. It's a cushy gig if you can get it, and we've gone and made getting off the USD a national security issue to any country that values its sovereignty.

I see people mock dedollarization. That the process of getting off the USD will be so painful for these countries that they'll never do it. And I can't completely discount that. But it does stink of hubris, and countries may judge (correctly) that the pain of getting off the dollar is less than the pain of staying on it.

When I dabbled in gold, and I still hold some in fact, I just bought 1 oz American Gold Eagles. Then when I wanted to sell them, I took them to my local dealer and got I think 97% of spot for them. I did this in 2020 in anticipation of buying a house (which didn't happen that year), and then again in 2021 (closed that year). I came out about $1000 ahead on $13,000 invest in 2020, and $3000 ahead on $7000 invested in 2021. On my remaining gold I'm $6000 ahead on $8000 invest.

Gold wouldn't be my first thing I'd invest in. But it worked out well enough as a hedge against inflation. That said, my BTC and my brokerage account have absolutely crushed my gold gains. But if BTC were scary to me, or I didn't have the fortitude to weather a stock crash without selling the bottom like a rube, gold has never been worth nothing. Harder to panic sell too.

Well shit, then I guess learned helplessness is the only possible answer. Not using the eyes in your skull to perceive that the veggie tray is categorically different from the canned "Hearty Vegetable Stew" with 30 added grams of sugar, along with more unrecognizable ingredients than not. It's all processed! Nothing to be done about it.

It's easier than you think. Avoid processed foods and refined sugar and you are 75% of the way there. Yeah, it involves picking up lots of meats, vegetables and grains and cooking them yourself. Sometimes even those are still adulterated, but it's still gonna be better than boxed slop.

Sure, everyone swears by a one true right way to eat that is better than all other ways. But that doesn't mean give up, especially when there are so many pretty obvious, and pretty universally agreed upon things you could do to move the needle in the right direction.

It's irrelevant because no one actually cares about their doctor's academic credentials.

That's the old way of thinking under how things used to be. They are no longer that way, and how people think about it will change.

Yeah, I'm not good at being subtle.

Great. See if I end up needing another new account soon. Nothing good ever comes of being noticed.

I'd still rather live to a ripe old age and drop dead of medical malpractice in an "equitable" healthcare system than wreck my body young. Current statistics about amount of medical care used mean nothing in the face of how "equity" is cannibalizing all other concerns going into the future.

If this isn't your wake up call to get healthy now, nothing is. Best way to never have to see a fake doctor is to never get sick. Eat right, exercise, hope you don't have any genetic predispositions towards chronic conditions. Do it now, because it's way harder to unfuck your health than it is to maintain it in the first place. Once you see your GP and they are axing you about your medical history before you ask about this pain in your gut that hasn't gone away for three weeks, it's over for you.

Truthfully? I just want the country I grew up in back.

I want back a justice system and a police force that punishes crime, regardless of "disproportionate impact". I want back a world where I'm not skipping over 50% of the job listing because they explicitly say they have a focus on "marginalized people" for the role. I want back a country where it doesn't feel like we can't have one single nice thing because some third worlder does some third world shit and ruins it. I want back a country where our government isn't a naked racial spoils system. I have no illusions that the government was never corrupt. Just like I have no illusions that my auto mechanic is probably fleecing me. However, my auto mechanic, despite probably ripping me off somewhat, at least also keeps my car running. The government is just handing out sinecures to nakedly incompetent diversity hires, and meanwhile the country is falling the fuck apart.

I want back a country where I'm not awash in naked anti-white propaganda, and it doesn't feel like my government is oozing hate out of every pore at me.

If these wishes could be accomplished without violent expulsion, I'd be down. It felt like we had all these things in the 90's. Maybe that was an illusion. I don't know. Maybe the 90's was the top of the roller coaster, where for a brief moment the acceleration has almost cancelled out your velocity, before you plummet straight to hell. I no longer know what to believe that I'd say publicly about "multiculturalism". But privately, seems to me it's only going to end in genocide, and I'm not confident about who's.

Wasn't there a way to escape that barricade using the vehicle rather than shooting his way out? How would he know that escalating with his firearm would not start a broader shoot-out with other armed protesters? Was he ready to shoot at a crowd if needed?

You know, I was going to put together a whole post about how, for whatever reason, it seems less legally dubious to shoot a protestor pointing a gun at you in your car, than it does to run over dozens in an attempt to flee an angry mob. But as I kept trying to find supporting evidence, minus the poor bastard in Charlottesville, it seems people who run over protestors that are menacing them get away with it. And a lot of Republican states have specifically enshrined your right to do so.

I mean, I still wouldn't roll my dice on that in a district with a Soros DA. You'll just spend 5 years behind bars without bail fighting in the appeals courts, over behavior that was specifically legalized by your state. And you'll probably still lose, and be bankrupted to boot.

Leaving out any examples of healthy monogamous relationships, in an article trying to figure out how to escape some sort of sex positivity trap, and then throwing up your hands and going "There is no way out! Might as well do sex work!" Is nonsense. Its ignoring the most obvious examples to learn from about how to escape said trap.

But then again, this assumes agency. That there is something women could do in order to find and keep emotionally healthy relationships, as opposed to them being things that randomly happen to some people and not others. And if you dont believe women have agency, I guess it makes sense to not try to learn from them. It would be like trying to learn how to win the lottery.

Which way modern women... which way. If they don't believe they have agency, they'll be treated the way those without agency are treated.

So, now what?

If I've learned anything, it's never, ever post your violent fantasies online. Not on Facebook, not on Twitter, not on Reddit, not on Discord, not even on Signal with people you trust with your life. Somehow the feds will get ahold of them the moment you protect yourself from their foot soldier, and then it's off to the rape cage with you.

It's probably off to the rape cage with you anyways, but being hoisted by your own petard in the media just adds insult to injury. Your very seriously injured colon.

IMHO the man who was menaced in his vehicle by armed protestors, and ran over several to escape at the Virginia Charlottesville riot was railroaded even harder, but I sincerely doubt any governor of ours will have the balls to pardon him. The state stripped him of his lawyer, introduced prejudicial social media posts, and recorded phone conversations with his mother, and then quietly sentenced him to life in prison.

Maybe with respect to my gripe about financial markets.

The dating market is downwind of biology. There is no changing that.

Maybe. If all you are trying to do is get as much sex as you can, fine. But this happens in other context too.

This happens after you've been getting to know a woman for a few weeks, and there is some ambiguity about whether this is going to be friends, or more. You feel like you click on every level, and one night you get your shot to take things to the next level. But you mistook her playing coy for earnestly saying no, and you failed your audition. Now she has the ick and you are permanently friendzoned.

Is it fair? No. But, and I don't have statistics here, if you decide to cut off every woman who does that from your potential partner pool, you've probably just axed 90+% of otherwise well adjusted women. Because in the experience of everyone I've ever spoken to, some degree of overcoming resistance to prove how attracted you are to a woman is expected by both sexes.

I spent my 20's raging at the banking system post 2008 bank bailouts, refusing to participate with my money in a corrupt and fraudulent investing markets... only for nothing to happen. In my 30's I decided I wasn't going to be the only chump not getting mine, and now I have a seven figure net worth. Likewise, I spent my 20's expecting women to be honest, straight forward, and exercise agency. I had zero success. Needless to say in my 30's I changed strategies.

Some systems just aren't worth raging against. The rules may not be fair, but unfortunately we don't get to change them.

Badgering women into having sex with you after they've said no is apparently fine in some people's minds.

Including women! And to go a different direction than the poster below me, women expect men to ignore their "no". Say no and then being pursued regardless makes them feel desired. You hear anecdotes all the time of women who said no, the man respected it, and they thought less of him for not just going for it. Like that's not how a "real man" is supposed to act.

This is further confused by the fact that girls who say "no" but are timid or nervous, and girls who say "no" but are just playing coy can sound exactly the same. Grinning ear to ear, giggly, clingy.

Witnessing what my friends went through, as well as living through my own batch of lackluster dates, I wondered if I should just wait to have sex.

The idea felt odd. And boring. I wasn’t religious, nor did I have my sights set on a diamond ring. So I wasn’t scared of hell, nor a future puritanical husband. “What are you waiting for?” people would ask me. I’d ask myself as well. I didn’t have the gall to admit that I was sort of waiting on my gut to tell me when. It felt like a cop-out. I knew gut feelings were wonky moral compasses– afterall, that semester we were reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in class, and learning how Huck’s gut feeling of guilt for abetting a runaway slave is shaped by the social mores he’s been exposed to. That was also the year the media littered the term “implicit bias” in basically every headline,27 to unmask rampant racism and sexism in institutions. Suffice it to say, gut feelings were not in season.

Now estranged from the sex-positivity I once adored, I do believe there is a right and wrong time to have sex. I also believe that your sexual footprint does affect you, for better or for worse. And I think a lot of girls are having sex at the wrong time. All these beliefs are fundamentally at odds with the principles of sex-positivity, which beats out any notion of right or wrong sex, other than via the consent-yardstick.

A proper feminist should make prescriptions not off some optimistic blank-slate, but from these basic phenomena: girls are more agreeable, more susceptible to manipulation, cognitive-sexual overload, and sexual blueprinting. They are more likely to be pressured into the receiving end of violent porn fantasies, lied to about STDs, addled by sexual regret, and victim to partner violence.

Anyone who turns a blind eye to this epidemic and eggs on young women to carelessly leap into bed with guys in the name of female liberation, is grooming girls with a flashy, pink glove.

Instead of working against the culture of rampant sexual coercion, pop feminism basically just serves as a bottom-bitch.

Everything old is new again, isn't it? It's fascinating watching someone think out loud, going round and round and found in a neurotic spiral for 30,000 words.

When I tell people that I’m opting out of having sex, I get told a lot of things. That I’m prudish, wasting my “prime,” overthinking it, a control-freak, or even pathological.

I mean, both can be right.

It's fascinating, going through this bizarre, alternate reality hellscape of sexual relations. Absent is even a single person in a monogamous relationship. Not even a single one. How is that even possible? You don't know one single person in a relationship? You don't even know of one? This reads like some sort of speculative fiction where relationships have been outlawed.

Then again, I'm married. I've been with the same woman 15 years. Apps were brand fucking new right when I met my wife, old school dating websites being the standard. In my 20's I remember a lot of people in turbulent relationships. Or the weird friend groups where it seemed like everyone had tried a relationship with everyone at some point. Those were bizarre to me. It was rough. I know a few guys who opted out, and just couldn't take women's high expectations, sociopathic behavior and imperious attitudes anymore.

Maybe there really are just two breeds of men. The ones depicted in this article, who somehow get these broken women to throw themselves at him, and everyone else who these broken women take their trauma out on.

I can imagine how the experience of dating has deteriorated greatly since I was active. But the reality of this article where a monogamous relationship is literally not an option for anyone, and doesn't exist at all, seems a bit extreme. It seems more like cope to justify sex work and/or trying to rebrand as some sort of "intellectual" e-girl.

She'd be better served deleting her entire internet presence.

You know, this does hit on a curious experience I had.

I was going through my big stack of George Carlin DVDs, and I got to one which opened on about 10 minutes of unadulterated white bashing. Now I recall, way back in the day, when I first watched this special, that never bothered me. But that was also performed in an era before State and Federal governments were nakedly discriminating against me. Or the schools I would send my children to began gutting the curriculum to cater to lower black achievement levels. Or preposterous notions of "restorative justice" allowed feral blacks to terrorize schools with impunity. Or before decent, productive, law abiding people were punished to the maximum extent of the law for refusing to allow themselves to be victimized by habitual criminals with a politically relevant melanin content.

It reminds me how I laughed at similar bits by Louis CK about how whites have had it so good, we've gonna get fucked so hard when the tables turn. It was funnier as a hypothetical, in the context of lots of other challenging and awful bits. Now it just makes me angry beyond reason to watch it happening in earnest.

Did I care about AC2's pope shiving when it came out? Nope. But it also came out in a very different cultural climate. Things that were hypothetical back then are actually happening now. I also never cared when the pilot episode of The Lone Gunman involved an airplane crashing into the twin towers, and it was all framed as marginally goofy hijinks. But things happened between now and then which significantly changed the cultural context in which an episode like that, made today, would be received. This is not hypocrisy or evidence of any sort of inconsistency.

Edit: I want to note, I know "feral blacks" might be an inflammatory phrase, but I am honestly at a loss as to what else to use. There is a massive cohort of aggressively and confidently antisocial and violent blacks in our schools, enabled by feckless "restorative justice" policies. They are a force of destruction, disruption and violence, unaccountable to all, and utterly untamable, as though a pack of feral animals had been loosed in schools. Some protected species nobody was allowed to do anything about.


Reddit strikes again. A shame you didn't just cut and paste it here.

At this point, it's impossible to deny it's ideological. And to whatever degree the CEOs of these companies "learn their lesson", the lesson won't be "Maybe it's wrong to be racist towards white people". It will be "What is the most anti-white racism we can get away with?"

What's even the point of this? It's all so tired. Ubisoft games are practically a parody of themselves at this point, and have been for years. They are the defining example of monogame slop. Soulless open world games with the same generic tedious grab bag of decade old game mechanics, with a sprawling cluttered minimap full of OCD bait. This one has a giant red flag that a DEI consultancy group ratcheted up the The Narrative a few notches? So what? The games before this weren't worth playing, the games after this won't be worth playing. It's just the same battle lines between people who are tired of demoralization propaganda, regardless of it's plausible alternate explanations, and people who are 100% aboard with current year NPC updates. No one will ever give an inch of ground.

If the OP has experiences anything like myself, you hate the world because "the world" seems to be actively propagating preposterous lies and blood libel enabling sociopathic behavior among a select group of untouchables. And the "victims" that choose the sociopathic untouchables over yourself have credulously lapped up every lie, directly leading to you being thrown under the bus by people you trusted. Family with deep ties, friends you've known for decades, coworkers you overcame profound challenges and found success with. The anointed sociopath with politically relevant melanin content washes all that away. You're lucky if even a single person overcomes the firehose of bullshit propaganda, overcomes their cognitive dissonance, and even privately supports you. If you expect public support, you are out of your fucking mind.

I can't speak to women, but I can say one particular woman has been driving me fucking insane with her news coverage of Palestine.

I'm a long time fan of Breaking Points, but Krystal Ball has resorted to the most ghoulish, amoral dead baby calculus to justify literally anything Palestine has done, is doing, or will do. It's all "If Hamas killed 50 babies on 10/7, what does it say about Israel that has killed hundred of babies in their operations in Gaza?" She literally starts crying on air, choking up over "all the little babies starving to death in Gaza." Her entire argument is just babies and tears, and she beats that dead baby horse for hours a day.

I've taken to skipping all her coverage of Palestine. Ryan Grim, the other progressive host on their network, generally does a more informative, dispassionate job when he assumes his duties on Wednesdays.

Kind of, but kind of not.

Write too little, and you get a lot of "This isn't what we like to see from a top level post" mod warnings. Write too much, and you risk showing your power level and getting a mod warning for "Boo outgroup" or "consensus building". In fact, posting virtually any topical bit of news often gets you a "boo outgroup" warning, because it's often your outgroup behaving badly, in a public attention seeking manner, driving national policy, that is the news worth talking about.

More or less exactly describes why I don't bother making many top level post.