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.

I had about nine months since I was last training, consistently, in the gym. In this time I had about 3-4 of months of not doing much, followed by irregular gym training and fairly regular body weight stuff (mostly push-ups and chins). I found my bench didn't suffer all that much in the time off, but the endurance is gone. Ie I can do 1-2 sets of 120 at a couple of reps, but then need to drop it back down to about 90 to get sets of 10 after that, which is much lower than in the past. My squat has taken a big hit, so I'm happy to squat around the 120kg mark (6-8 reps) for a while. Shoulders have also taking a big hit. I know what you are saying about the time off being a booster to strength. The 531 program has each 4th week set at about 60-70% (as far as I can recall) loading. But I noticed that I could skip training completely during this rest week and I would recover even better, which I did on and off. Interestingly, a few people said I noticeably grew a bit during these rest weeks too.

My previous best lifts while training with "531",taken from my training diary. Military press 70kg x1 Deadlift 170kg x2 (no belt) Bench press 130 x1 Squat 152.5kg x1 After having a break I am ranging between 65-80% approx of my previous strength. Does anyone know about the best way to trigger muscle memory? I got a belt now also, which I think Ill start using once my DL gets above about 150 again.

Depends on the gym. Feb and March are the worst months for me. I'm training solidly again after a patchy 6-9 months of mostly bodyweight stuff. Prior to my hiatus I had been using the "531" program(strength training) with awesome results. So Ill give that a crack again. Anyone else done it?

Thats very fresh!

Great that you want to be a teacher, but maybe you should think about some of the basics, like grammar and punctuation, before getting too wild?

...

Solid graffiti in here. Props to NSF.

You're not winning anything mate, don't kid yourself.

*Fixed.

So first can we assume that since you have not attempted to defend your "too much information=no information" hypothesis , you concede that it is flawed? Don't you think it's a little ironic that you say people all around you make statements about things they do not understand and are fake or partially true? The irony is in the fact that you have just perfectly illustrated this point with your previous 'too much info' assertion which is either fake or at best partially true. But by your argument you are not average but exceptional? How is this so? You say the proof of your exceptionalness is demonstrated by your knowledge of the information contained within 250,000 cables. To be honest I find this a little hard to believe. If we were face to face I could design a test to see if this is true by plucking a cable out at random and asking you to expand on the subject. Since this would not work online I will have to rely on my suspicion based on the calibre of your previous comments. Btw, while The Chaser are pretty funny their skit is certainly not valid social research haha Christof; Fair point. I agree that it becomes a harder case to make the more narrow and specific a qualification you make on a statement about average people, ie average people are not astrophysicists. This statement is very certainly true. However, it is often attempted to use this phrase to summarise a package of behaviours; the average person likes sport, drives a car and does not thoroughly investigate information contained in the news. This statement might be likely to be true, but it would require some research to say with any certainty. It would also only be applicable within a certain context, ie the average person in the US likes sport. This may be true, but it doesn't equally apply to the average person in Tibet. Furthermore, this kind of hazy description of "average people" is often used as a counter-weight against the originators self granted superiority, ie average people don't know how to manage their own lives so I will have to enact some laws to do it for them. Or by implication, ie average people don't know what they are talking about (therefore I do). So, my previous statement should have been qualified to say; broad, unsubstantiated, applications of the phrase "average people" is almost always code for saying 'I am going to make a huge generalisation based on little to no evidence'. RIPS's statement; "Average people do not process or contextualise anything" brilliantly illustrates this point by absurdly generalising the intellectual behaviour of the "average person" in absence of a context and by implication asserting his/her superiority in-contrast to this generalisation. Also, "persecuted vigilante of truth" made me fucking laugh!