Removed

Haha How's your form? Months later and you are still looking for my posts to write me little love letters! This is a message board where teenagers talk shit about petty crime and you take it REAL serious. Man your life must suck. 30,000+ posts, 13 a day! You want to keep adding to my 12oz "reputation"? Go on dude, have a ball.

Alex Jones and his ilk will find a 'globalist boogeyman' in the shadows of every major political event. In fact it is his organisations mandate to do so. While occasionally these kinds of media outlets will say something interesting that more mainstream editors are not willing to touch, that little corn kernel of succulent truth will always be found in large steaming pile of turd. Zig's article is the proof.

haha Anon are really stepping up their game!

Yo Theo Check this article;

This seems as good a place as any to post this cool interview. It briefly canvases some of the same issues that have come up between Mams and I as well as Theo and AOD.

Is it online somewhere? Youtube or something?

Remember when Caligula used to joke about fucking fat girls? That shit was sooo funny! LOLOLOLOL

YOU WANT A FUCKIN GO DO YA?

Wanna fight cunt?

I don't find either of the two options you have presented as particularly satisfying. First of all I don't see that capitalism and greed have a direct relationship at all. Secondly the notion of greed is problematic in itself, here’s why; What is greed exactly? When do you know when an act is motivated by greed and when is it not? It seems to me that the only real gauge for greed is a relative one measured against a subjective standard. For example; I could charge Bill Gates of greed since he has far more stuff than I do and I know I am living fairly comfortably. But my standard of living may also be viewed as a product of greed compared to our friends in less developed countries. It also seems that greed loses meaning when viewed over time; by the standards even a westerner living 100 years ago, my lifestyle would be viewed as one of lavish excess due to the technology I have available to me. So for these reasons, and a few others, I think it is better to avoid discussions of greed as the concept is illusory. I think it is also fairly difficult to nail down what exactly capitalism is as well. However, I am happy to make this statement; Capitalism is an economic product of the nexus formed between a liberal society and self interest. So would you say you are a social libertarian in the vein of Chomsky? I find this brand of libertarianism almost as problematic as centrally controlled socialism. I quite like a lot of the Neo-Marxist writing, but mostly because I think they built a great discourse for deconstructing the current paradigm of corporatism, I think they fall waaaayyy short when they start to make positive statements about how things ‘should’ be. Out of interest, would you argue that the ownership of property equates to theft?

Nice article, thanks for the heads up. Most of this is equally relevant to the free market thread so I will write more substantial reply there.

I think greed as a concept is over represented in its relationship to capitalism and modern society. Self interest is key to capitalism and greed may be an aspect of self interest, yet many other forms of behaviour may be initiated from a position of self interest as well. For example, I may give my friend a gift out of self interest, knowing that giving the gift will give me a personal sense of satisfaction. But anyway I thought I would take a look at your example, and it seemed that this paragraph seemed to capture the issue quite nicely (my emphasis added); http://anthropology.si.edu/canela/environmentfr.htm This would seem to suggest to me that a society without highly developed technology may have less difficulty maintaining altruistic relations. In this case this is demonstrated as those lending the goods to others in the society are not so concerned of significant loss if their goods are damaged or lost, this is as these goods do not hold such a great value. When goods are introduced that they could not produce themselves this culture of easy loans is disrupted as the person who owns the steel axe. for example, would be more considerably disadvantaged at its loss. Another contributing factor in this could be the size of the society. I would argue that the larger the numbers in the society the less robust an altruistic system becomes. But that is another discussion.

Tellurian?

talks about the causes of the GFC and how a free market is the solution.

Its very possible. The principle behind the 4 week cycle is that if each week you go to max out your lift, you will make slower progress and plateau easier than if you cycle up and down. Imagine it like climbing a mountain in a zig-zag motion rather than going in a straight line straight up. Slightly slower over all progress, but less likely to hit a wall. The core of the 531 4 week cycle works as follows (from memory). week 1; 5 reps for 3 sets, the last one reps out. week 2; 3 reps for 3 sets, the last one reps out. week 3; first set 5 reps, second set 3 reps, 3rd set 1rm (or more if possible). week 4; 60-70% loading 5 reps(?). What you do on top of this basic core is essentially your choice. I would do another 5 sets of the same exercise at a lower weight for 10 reps, and then a couple of isolation moves. At the end of each 4 week cycle, you add 2.5-5kgs to each exercise and recalculate your lifts for that month. By reaching failure at a different weight with a different rep range each week, then having a deload week before starting again, you are less likely to plateau. I can say from experience I made much more gradual but consistent progress over the year or so that I was training with 531, than with any other training method. I have been training on and off since about 2001. One great thing about this program is how strictly you are forced to train if you have already calculated each of the core lifts you will do before entering the gym.