Scholar

He probably promised Elon Musk to put Tariffs on Chinese EVs so that he could remain competitive, in exchange for Elon's propaganda apparatus.

When it implodes the right will blame it on the deep state, that's the problem. They are too delusional to ever come into contact with reality. The consequences of their actions can be dismissed and spun into into their narrative.

You have to ask yourself where the resentfulness comes from. If your parents are ugly and low IQ, do you also feel resentful that they had you as a child, being born ugly and low IQ? Why would you be resentful, if the alternative would be to not exist at all? I think it is reasonable to be resentful of your parents willfully put you into a scenario in which you would live a life unworthy of living, meaning a life that is so filled with suffering, one would rather have never been born. Most resentfulness of inbred individuals towards their parents is a function of cultural discrimination towards such relationships, rather than a genuine function of individuals being angry at their parents because they might have been born with worse health outcomes than the average person. If two genetically blind individuals have a child, I don't see a reason why the child could be rationally resentful towards their parents in a meaningful way that would not also translate to basically every other human that exists. By that logic I could be resentful towards my parents because my mother was over 40 when I was born. Some of my health outcomes could be attributes to the fact that my mother had me so late. But if my mother didn't have me at 40, I would simply not exist at all. If she had a child when she was 30, it would not have been me who was born. I think it's important to understand that inbred people do not live a life of suffering. They might (keyword might) have some difficulties, and in the worst case more severe disabilities, but that does not equate to a life of suffering or a life not worth living. Born in poverty could have a far greater impact on your well being than being born with some minor or even severe defects due to your parents being related, or disabled and so forth. The option that is reasonable here is that you should educate individuals of risks and encourage wise procreative choices. If you have a certain moral view on the matter, advocate for that view. Either way, current standards have nothing to do with an underlying moral view, but are simply a symptom of discrimination on the basis of primitive feelings of disgusting and revulsion towards a certain act. There are deeper problems with eugenics, but I think it is likely that we will use technologies to eliminate certain diseases and risk factors.

We don't consider individuals who might have a higher chance birthing individuals with problems as "abusive" towards those children. We allow individuals with Huntington’s disease, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, Down syndrome, Tay Sachs, cystic fibrosis and so forth to have children despite the risk ratios being higher as well as the conditions children will suffer from being far more devastating. We support such individuals in their reproductive choices and give them medical guidance and assistance, rather than shaming them and framing them as abusive. When parents give birth to such children, we have great sympathy for the parents, rather than condemning them. There is also the non-identity problem, namely: Giving birth to an individual that might be born blind is not harmful to that blind person, because that individual could not have been born without that condition. In this case, you are simply saying that individuals born with certain genetic inferiorities ought not to be given the privilege to exist. A harm would be causing damage to a child when it's existence would not depend on that limitation, namely if you drink alcohol, smoke or do not consume enough folic acid during pregnancy. In that case, a child who would have been born healthy will be born with a significant impediment to it's well-being. In the case of inbreeding, or breeding between individuals with genetic inferiorities or genetic disabilities, the resulting child existence depends on being born. It could not have been born healthy. The reality is that you can mitigate significant problems with inbreeding through medical intervention and screening of fetal development early during a pregnancy. In principle, inbreeding is far less risky or devastating than individuals who generally have low quality genes procreating, or individuals who have significant genetic disorders as mentioned above. Incestophobia simply leads to irrational discriminatory attitudes, as well as, ironically, the shaming of individuals who are born of inbreeding. People make fun of inbreeding all the time, and directly mock traits inbred people might have due to genetic disorders that might affect them. In other words, incestophobia gives you a free pass to dehumanize and mock disabled people, specifically on the basis of their disabilities, or malformations. All of it while people proclaim a concern for those very children, to justify their knee jerk hatred and disgusting of individuals who engage in incest or inbreeding. People who are born of inbreeding feel incredible shame around that fact, which is a direct result of our culture.

Incestophobia is a cultural thing, similar to homophobia. It's an irrational aversion and demonization of incestuous relationships or activities.

I love how they had to add some incestophobia in the end as if that had to do anything with the matter. This person is clearly intersex.

Lex and Russell Brand are probably russian ops. Nobody should respect them or anything they have to say..

The reason why Joe Rogan seems on the fence about it is because he does not want to appear to be biased. He wants to come across as a normal dude who is reasonable, and who just looks at the facts and in the end has to admit that he has to vote for Trump because that's the only way sadly. But it's obvious from his audience what kind of person he is. They are all conspiracy brained MAGA types.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1gk3dys/joe_rogan_says_its_the_last_election_says/

Look at him: Remember him talking about conspiracy theories about how billionaires control the world and influence everyone and so forth? You can't make this shit up, he is rim-jobbing the richest man on earth who literally bought the biggest social media platform to push a particular political candidate and who changed the algorithms so he his tweets would be the most seen on the platform.

Yes after he convinced half the nation of this nonsense. And these individuals weren't informed enough to have these debates. It creates a completely skewed picture. And like I said, he also had a debate with a vegan on, and HE ADMITTED THE VEGAN WON and proved that meat causes heart disease and so forth. A week later he was on a carnivore diet and continued to say that meat is healthy for you and so forth. The guy is a dishonest baffoon.

The guy went on a carnivore diet a week after he hosted a debate between a vegan and a doctor who promotes meat, and Joe had to admit that the vegan won the debate. The guys is a baffoon. He appears unbiased because he is a clout-hungry, pathetic people pleaser but in reality he is bias manifested into human form. He is the Nr.1 driver of misinformation in the world. Remember when he had Hancock on and that Ralston guy, with their insane conspiracy theories about archeology and the impact theories? All of that was complete nonsense, and half of us bought into it and took it seriously.

"The animals make no difference on global warming." lol, the bias is just absurd. It's only the number one driver of deforestation in the world.

Trump does have have high IQ. Spewing bullshit doesnt require high IQ, it requires a lot of baffoons to listen to you.

I would have thought he would tell us before he went, like maybe to give him suggestions and whatever for the conversation.

They are doing the podcast? When?

No, look at it. This is just existence. It is possible to capture infinity! That's what infinity is. The affirmation of itself is what infinity is. But notice further more, that this entire construct, this entire thought, this entire space of existence which you are currently emerged in, is merely one more of such self-affirmation. It is a self-affirmation loop. You have manifested this whole idea, it has manifested itself. This is what infinity is. It is impossible, but Infinity is Impossibility itself. It has no limitations, this is the demonstration of it's limitlessness. Anything that you bound yourself by will be a bounding. But all things are bounds, unless they are not. Infinity can do whatever it wants, it can do the impossible, it can do the possible, it can do neither and both. There is no such thing as difference itself, unless Existence says so, and even when it says so, there is no such thing, unless it says so. This is infinity, look at it.

The benefit is Infinity. The meaning of survival is Infinity.

You will never able to capture infinity. Your very existence is infinity capturing you.

It's one way of looking at existence that way. But all the sets of problems that you are trying to solve are emergent in the first place. There is a complex web of forms of existence which then result in the solution that could be described as existing with the least amount of friction, in a conceptual sense, within the emergent environment. Ideation of symoblism, externality, subjectivity and eternity are all emergent. There are infinite possible expressions. In other words, you are not truly construct aware. If you knew, you'd realize how profoundly infinite existence is. It is indescribable, and it is infinitely describable, and it is neither. The problems that you are so immersed in are a fabrication, the entire framing of what is perceived as existence is a fabrication, a result of dynamics that build upon each other, as they self-express themselves. And even this is one more way of reality self-asserting itself. Existence can assert itself so profoundly boundlessly that it becomes meaningless to attempt to capture it. And furthermore, it is so profoundly boundless that it becomes meaningful to attempt to capture it.

All motions are an act of self-affirmation in this sense. All forms of existence are simply the assertion of it's own existence. This is simply one way to look at existence, but it's still a construct. Remember this will always be circular, in that in the end you ground the idea of the self-affirmation of existence as a result of the idea of the self-affirmation of existence.

Excellent conversation. I hope we'll see something similar when he talks to Leo.

This isn't even funny. Is this really all the effort he puts into his comedy? Puerto Rico is a island of garbage? Latino's have lots of babies? It honestly doesn't surprise me. I see the same, vile dehumanization on the part of progressives. It's just more obvious to see with the republicans because of how much more primitive they are. This is what our species is right now, and it's a sad look.

We know this is not true though. Democracies are far more stable than pretty much any other political system. Mob rule is avoided through constitutions. There are limitations to democracies, but the limitations of dictatorships are simply far greater and lead to far greater risks. Even if you have a philosopher king, it is a matter of time before someone takes their place who is not interested in representing the will of the people. You also underestimate how impossible it is for a singular individual to actually get an accurate and unbiased grasp of what is good for the people. Just the presence of an unaccountable monopoly of power can turn the entire society into a system in which the most powerful individuals strive to take that position. Given that the most powerful individuals can exert most pressure on the system, they can position themselves such that they will end up being the "philosopher king". This is what you observe in these types of systems.

Only sub-90 IQ people would ever care whether or not someone is a cuck.