I'm not really quite sure how this situation has built up to the point where you can't actually, and I'm talking about within the field of psychology, within the field of mental health, oes i ddweud y sgosion y bydd yma rydym yn ymweld y byddai'n ddiweddol. Yn y rhan o'r actiau a'r ysgrifith, hefyd, fel y rhan o'r ideae'r ideae yw'r hyn o'r gweithio yng Ngheiriad. Ond ychydig mor hynny yn ymdwyllgor, a'r ysgrifithoedd ymdweud yn ymdwyllgor, is that most narcissists are male and that therefore it makes sense that narcissistic abuse is largely something that men do to women. Men are the aggressors, women are the victim, aggressor, innocent victim. So narcissists are typically described as being male and therefore narcissistic abuse is something that men do to women. And then when you look online on the forums, on the, you know, in the cyber sphere of psychology, whether this is Facebook or Instagram or wherever you look, you will see it's mainly when narcissism is raised, it will mainly be female participants talking about men. Now I've been in this field since 2012 and the vast majority of my client base has been female. Most of the people who come to my seminars, it's women. Probably to 80 to 90%. Occasionally, and I really don't know why this is why this is the case because the research doesn't back this as an aside, just so you know, there's very, very few. There are some, but very, very few gay people showing up and talking about this relative to the number of women who are talking about experiencing this in heterosexual relationships with men. So I don't know.  It's usually men. I get very, very few women, very, very few women coming to me and saying, oh, I've got problems with my girlfriend and it looks like this. Some men have come through but very, very few. My point about this is that the filter through which this particular psychological order is perceived currently is highly gendered and it's skewed in an odd way. Now, in the literature, very infrequently, will women be labelled as NPD? Usually, they will get a different diagnosis, though this is changing and diagnosing NPDs is a whole of the tricky thing anyway because why isn't NPD going to show up to therapy to be diagnosed if they are offered a questionnaire? Why would they answer it honestly? They're very easy to trick, by the way, the questionnaires for psychopathy and narcissism. They're available freely online, many of them, and you can trick them if you just do the questionnaire and imagine that you want to be seen as a psychopath. You will be. If you want to not be seen as a psychopath, then you won't be and similarly for narcissism.  But actually it means somebody who anytime they're in contact with another human being, the contact is exploitative, it's poisonous, it's toxic in some way and that's why it's called antisocial. So I'll just say psychopath, we all understand what a psychopath is. Histrionic would usually be sort of determined as an extremely infantile vein reaction seeking and hypersexualised modality of functioning. BPD would typically be emotionally labile, self-destructive, fragile, also very reaction seeking, sometimes hypersexualised infantile vein as well. What else is typically borderline? There's a lot of push-pull in the relational style, push-pull relational style.  I'm going to enter your space and accelerate the intimacy of our relationship if you accelerate and increase the intimacy of the relationship I feel smothered and pulled away. Why are you so indifferent to me when I'm coming towards you? Why are you pulling towards me? Oh, you're smothering me, that's push-pull. So you never really know where you are. The classic view on the internet, and I think it's partly based on the psychological world as well, unfortunately it shouldn't be this way, is a very cosmopolitan magazine, Oprah Winfrey Chat Show view of narcissistic psychopathic men. So the classic view of narcissistic psychopathic men is, in my opinion, a very dangerous, because it gives people the wrong impression of what it looks like, and very simplistic trope. It's a culture-bound trope, and it is American Psycho. I was going to say it by Chuck Palin Hewick, by Brett Eastern Ellis, American Psycho. So you're Patrick Bateman as portrayed by Christian Bale, successful, wealthy, powerful, and predatory. So I'm not going to write all that down because there's too many words. Successful, wealthy, powerful, predatory, alpha male, a guy who is an alpha in his own environment. So why is this problematic? And why is this this, just this, which is the tip of the iceberg, by the way, on this issue? Why is this problematic? This is problematic for two reasons. These tropes, these ideas are kind of archetypal. So what we can see here are culture-bound archetypes. It's never comfortable when a non-American talks about American culture, especially when he's talking predominantly to Americans. But in my humble opinion, these tropes, not this trope, this trope is an American trope, this archetype of the narcissistic psychopath. You know, I like the fact that American Psycho was played by Christian Bale because then we also get the overtones of his character in Batman, the Christopher Nolan version of Batman, that Bruce Wayne. Right the way, you know, the guy riding around in a tuxedo in the red sports car. It's a trope. It's this silly idea of what the ultimate wealthy alpha male looks like. Let's deal with the problems of this trope first. So emotionally labile, infantile, self-destructive, vain, reaction-seeking, hypersexualized, using a lot of push-pull in their relational style and fragility. So there is the proper material on borderline personality disorder, and then there's Richie's hypothesis, my hypothesis of how borderline personality disorder plays out. As I'm talking, if I remember, I'll distinguish between the two because I know some of you have studied psychology, so I'll try not to blur my own personal hypotheses with what's in the literature. The push-pull relational style, that's something that I focus on. That's when I see this, I start thinking borderline. The reason why this I think happens is because of emotional ability, and I think that actually what you have with many borderlines is a counter-dependent personality type, meaning that love is something that even though they crave it, they're terrified of it at the same time. We'll come back to that. This, as an archetype, as a trope, there are many women out there who believe that this is how to behave, that this is actually just what femininity is. There's been a bunch of memes, if you look, if you want to know where people are up to in terms of what they generally think at a culture-wide level, it's good to look at memes. It's good to follow memes on Facebook and on Instagram. There's been a bunch of memes that have come out in the last four or five years that are frequently attributed to Marilyn Monroe. A lot of them are misquotes. They're quotes that she never said that didn't come from her, that other people have ascribed to her, but you'll notice that it is this idea of talking around protecting the notion of womanhood with being infantile, vain, reaction-seeking and sometimes self-destructive and drawing a complex equivalence, drawing an equality and equality, not inequality, an equality between femininity and self-destructiveness. That's a problem with drawing an equivalence between being infantile, cute, childlike, pouting, manipulative and femininity. That's a problem because I think that this has become internalised and that femininity has become equalised with a very toxic notion of what femininity is. All of these things where you see this coming together, right, when I get a client who comes to me and they say, I don't know whether I have PTSD, complex PTSD or whether I actually have borderline. Many people who are diagnosed with borderline and histrionic personality disorder are misdiagnosed because the cluster of traits between complex post-traumatic stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder overlaps very, very heavily and so they get misdiagnosed. What I tell them to look out for when it's a personality disorder to me and all of these, by the way, incidentally I use the American definitions which is the diagnostic and statistical manual which I find to be the most useful. So the abusive exploitative personality types in the DSM and the American DSM are called cluster B and I use this instead of the World Health Organization or the other options because I find it the best and most useful definition. This is not in the DSM. This is my humble opinion. When you're trying to figure out whether somebody actually has a personality disorder or whether it's just a traumatised infantile response to something that occurred to them in childhood because these are the kinds of things that happen when people are sexually abused, all of them.  It's highly likely that they'll be addicted to the act of sex, the physical sensations of sex, but more that their ego is intrinsically linked to them having value as a sexually desirable object. It's a break in the self-perception in the area of sexuality and if I'm not a sexually desirable object, I'm not anything at all. It's not that I'm not lovable. It's that I cease to exist. I drop out of existence if I'm not a sexual object. If somebody actually embraces that and they've had a traumatic break with reality, you can see why clinging desperately to being a sexually desirable object becomes such a thing and can become such a hysterical attachment because without that it's death. If I'm not sexually desirable, I don't exist and in the unconscious, non-existence is equated with death. What I look for is entitlement and exploitation. I would say that if somebody demonstrates all of these but doesn't have the entitlement and isn't erotically compelled to exploit, then this would be post-traumatic stress or complex post-traumatic stress and it's fixable, it's healable. This is somebody who is emotionally immature because trauma freezes and they will have experienced trauma at a certain age and it's frozen their development, it's frozen their maturity, they're emotionally immature, they're emotionally completely illiterate, they don't want to deal with any of their own feelings so they're trapped in a cycle of projecting outward because they can't deal with their own feelings so they become emotionally illiterate. Illiterate, oh my God. What happens when the person who's trying to spell illiterate can't spell illiterate? Illiterate. They become emotionally illiterate. What they're going to do is they're going to keep projecting outwards. Illiterate, there we go, we've got there in the end, which leads to projection. Projection is, most people know this but I'm going to say it just in case, projection is I do not want to accept a part of myself or a feeling in myself because I find it unacceptable to my self image but it is there. So in order to deal with it, I'm going to project it outward and frequently it will be projected onto my intimate partner. Now, if there is entitlement and exploitation and all of this and all of this, I think you're talking about a full blown personality disorder that is in the cluster B. The chances of that being responsive to therapeutic intervention or negotiation or any kind of adult to adult communication is nil. I personally don't think that that can happen if we've gone there. So I don't think that what we're dealing with actually is a huge tidal wave of people becoming narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, et cetera. I don't think that's what's happening but I do think it's nearly as bad as that because if your cultural coordinates are, all of this is my right, all of this is what makes me attractive and sexy and interesting, then the strategies that I use in life and in relationships will be based on this. So that's why that trope is dangerous. Why is this trope dangerous? The trope of Patrick Bateman, capitalist's wet dream is, what did I say, successful, success, wealth, power and his predatory. Okay, Patrick Bateman or Christopher Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Christopher Nolan chose to make Bruce Wayne a kind of a laughable character, a dope, a billionaire playboy dope in his external perception of him. Why is this a dangerous trope? Who does it else does this sound like? Or what was the most popular piece of pornography that was consumed by most women in the Western world in the last five years? 50 Shades of Grey. Who does this sound like? Christian Grey. Why is this a problem? Because you've got women probably, probably, likely over-diagnosing through the cyberspace, through the cybersphere, men in their lives as actually having a full-blown pathological personality disorder that is narcissistic and psychopathic that says that men are like Patrick Bateman. They're successful, they're wealthy, they're powerful, they're predatory, they're alpha males who drive around in red sports cars and bang everything that they can get their hands on. So they would also be hypersexual and highly promiscuous, promiscuous and unfeeling because they are psychopaths, right? But also, I want this. So this is bad and desirable, all at the same time. This alpha male is the ultimate goal and he is my worst enemy all in one. Now, why is that then an issue? Because if I am highly emotionally labile, extremely entitled and have a push-pull relational style, the chances are high because of my emotional mobility, my perceptions will be skewed. This is not, I don't think this is talked about all that much in the literature but I doubt there will be many psychologists who disagree with me that if somebody is very emotionally dysregulated, they have very poor internal boundaries, very low impulse control and their emotions are going up and down all the time, that their perceptions are going to become warped over time. And then they'll start projecting parts of themselves that they don't want outward, parts of themselves that are bad and desirable because good goals don't want Patrick Bateman or Christian Gray. That's only bad goals would want that. That's bad. I'm not allowed to want that. I'm not allowed to want what it is that I truly want. There's something wrong with this. So what happens is projection and I think what we've got is an epidemic of women diagnosing men as being the thing that they really, really should not want because of desire. So I don't want to get too psychobabbly on you, but what this would mean is if you have somebody with a very, very fragile sense of self who possibly has been sexually abused, now sexual abuse to be clear in childhood, it might be actual physical sexual abuse of varying degrees and varying levels that we don't need to get into here, but it can also be a boundary breaking, unwarranted level of sexually flavoured attention from the wrong source. That also is abuse. If a mother or a father is looking at a little girl or a little boy looking at, talking to, talking about them in a way that is inappropriate, that is boundary breaking and it causes huge problems in the personality when they grow up. It's really tricky because that person can't actually then say, well, I was sexually abused. They can only say it was kind of icky for me growing up. Mum would look at me funny when I was not wearing clothes and they can't quite figure out what it is that's gone wrong, but we're told, well, unless you are actually physically assaulted, it's not an assault. It creates problems. I suspect a very, very large number of people are walking round with this as an issue because of boundary broken, hypersexualised attention in childhood that was completely inappropriate. When the entitlement and the exploitation creeps in, the emotional ability creeps in, what can start to happen is if you look at a guy, imagine that you're a girl who has this going on inside and you look at a guy and you like him and you start to feel desire for him, but you're projecting as well. You start to project bad attributes onto him, bad and desirable because it's the same. It's the same. This idea, people say it's outdated. The ultimate man is a bad boy. The most desirable man is always going to be a bad boy. It's not outdated. It'll never be outdated. It's biological because bad in this context is only bad in a... I didn't write it down. Some psychologists are calling this a culture-bound syndrome. When I say some, there are many, many very well-respected psychologists who are saying, we need to stop calling narcissism a personality disorder. It isn't. We need to stop calling broadline, histrionic, psychopathy a personality disorder. They're saying they're not personality disorders. They're responses to trauma. It's a coping mechanism to deal with a hostile environment from childhood, not a personality disorder. There's also many people who are saying it's entirely culture-bound. These terms, that would mean the disorder only has meaning in the culture in which it's found. It has meaning in the United Kingdom. Somebody has a narcissistic personality disorder that has meaning. But in other countries and other environments, it might not have the same meaning. It might not have the same implications.  Bad in this context, what would bad be? Bad may only be bad in a certain cultural environment once certain cultural coordinates have changed. So what I suspect, the reason why bad and desirable and the idea of the bad boys come in is because bad implies taboo. So what's a taboo? What is it you're not allowed to do that's so bad that guys like this or girls who think that guys are like this, well maybe they're not? What is it that they're doing that is so bad, that is so attractive? That's probably a debate for a whole of the day and it's probably already been covered elsewhere in your members' area here by other people. What is it that would appeal to the hypergamic, Rolo's, not psychology's hypergamy, Rolo's hypergamy. Normal psychology or sociological, not a psychological term. In sociology, hypergamy, I'm sure that you know this, is just marrying up. What you've got there in the red pill with Rolo's hypergamy, that is a whole hypothesis that would easily be a PhD standard for a thesis because there's a lot to it. So in terms of Rolo's hypothesis of hypergamy, RHH from now on, Rolo's hypothesis of hypergamy, what is considered attractive? Well because he's using a lot of evolutionary psychology and a lot of ideas around strength and varying degrees of strength as it has been said, there needs to be a mix of alpha to beta depending on where the person who's experiencing the attraction is up to. It's probably going to be based on things that we would biologically associate with strength. So psychopathy and indifference and a lack of emotionality might be associated to somebody with a lot of options or somebody who is indifferent because they are powerful. My point here is to say this, two things really. One, trope number one, this is how many women think they should be in the world and I don't see, I see men encouraging this, I do see a lot of men encouraging this but more often than not, based on my experience with clients, this is encouraged by women. This is encouraged by traumatised mothers who put this on their daughters. They entrain this onto their daughters. When I started with my project back in 2012, my client base was only the daughters of narcissistic mothers.  That is 1000% my mum and when she tried to put this on me, I said no. And then they become, just for your interest, the daughter of a narcissistic mother, the daughter of a narcissistic mother. There are a whole website, there's a website out there called the daughters of narcissistic mothers. It's a pretty useful website if you're interested in narcissistic personality disorder. They will say that if they rejected this doctrine, this ideology, they would then be targeted. They would become the black sheep of the family and the mother would experience that as narcissistic injury. Or you reject my philosophy, you reject my ideology, my way of garnering power in the world that I'm trying to share with you.  The daughter of a narcissistic mother will become a black sheep. There's a whole of the series of problems that comes with that. She will then, that daughter of a narcissistic mother will usually try and invert all of this. She'll try and do the opposite of this, but she probably will have already been hypersexualised because her mother will have treated her like a little adult who's to garner sexual attention from men in order to have value in the world. So she will have experienced that trauma and she will already be emotionally labile. And once somebody has that emotional dysregulation, the trauma of that, they're then into skewed perception and complex post-traumatic stress disorder. The second issue is this trope of the alpha male, the bad and desirable male, who's both Patrick Bateman, oh terrible, his psychopath, that's awful. And yet all of these things kind of very comfortably overlap with the ultimate fantasy man if we assume that 50 Shades of Grey worked because this idea of a man was what the fantasy was. Successful, wealthy, powerful and predatory, an alpha male. Somebody who takes control. And the fantasy in that story is that he ties the girl up and fox her brains out. So he physically literally takes control of her. That's the bad, quote unquote bad because of cultural taboos and yet desirable root of the idea. But my point is that many men are being rubber stamped with this because of desire. I've experienced that. I've experienced being told that I am and treated as though I'm a psychopathic, powerful predatory alpha male. And I was like, honestly, I think I could do with being a bit more like that love. I'm not like that. I'm not secure enough to be like that. I'm not assertive enough to be like that. I wish I was a bit more like the guy you're treating me as, but I'm not. But it was only a year after the relationship I realized that the desire and the fight with that desire was causing that. Here we get something where it then crosses over into issues that can become legal issues that can become life destroying issues. There is an effect and I'm I only found out about this two years ago. It's very new to me. It's called projective identification now. And this is this is where we got to be careful, especially with the current movements that are going on. I wish I could spell that says identification. Identify K Tion. Identification projective identification. You all know everybody knows what projection is. If your mate says to you stop projecting, you know what he means. Projective identification when the you can see this is kind of like if you don't want to take it on as a personality disorder, you can see it as a damaged personality or somebody whose ego boundaries have been cracked. There are gaps in their ego boundaries. The relationship between reality and fantasy is weak. There are boundaries between external and internal week. And the internal boundaries between what they feel and what they think break down. That means if I feel it, I think it, it is true. I feel you're attacking me.  With no linguistic cognitive process that goes, I feel you're attacking me. I feel you're attacking me. I wonder if that's true. Has he ever attacked me before? What's the evidence he isn't? What's the evidence he is? It's straight from you're attacking me to you. I feel you are. So you are. Projective identification takes that one step further. If I need you to be this bad person, the Christian Grey. As far as I know, I've never, I tried to read it. I thought it was awful. I'm quite happy to read that kind of fiction, but that was bad. I don't think it does anything illegal or criminal. So he's not quite a psychopath by the classic definitions. But the Patrick Bateman character does or at least fantasises about it and the story is violent. It kills people or at least he fantasises about it and the story. So there is this criminal element to this.   This is a problem because what you're seeing sometimes and there seems to be confusion there around this issue is people who have been slowly boiled over time to the point where they're acting completely out of character. There's a new term in the cyberspace for narcissism now. It's called reactive abuse. Reactive abuse largely is defined as me winding you up until you go berserk, preferably publicly, so I can say, ha, look, you're crazy. I told you you're crazy. I told my family you're crazy. I told all your friends you're crazy. And now you're being crazy. Look at you proving my point. But it's me that boiled you slowly to that point that gaslit you so heavily that you have an explosive reaction. It's reactive abuse. I force you to react badly. This is projective identification. Do you see how awful you're being?  So pushes and pushes and pushes until there's an explosion and he will catch it on camera or he'll make sure she does it in front of her friends so he can go, told you she was crazy. Same thing that a man will do to a woman. Push and push and push until he explodes and catches it on camera. I'm not saying that that's what happened with Johnny Depp when he married that young girl. But his wife and his previous wife, all of his friends and all of his family and his kids said never before has he acted that way. He's never acted with explosive rage. He's never acted in a predatory or nasty way. And maybe you shouldn't comment because I don't know the full facts. But based on what I saw and the fact that she just happened to be videoing him. She just happened to catch him right as he was exploding and I think he threw a glass on a wall and cut his own hand and was screaming and swearing. Might be what we're talking about here in terms of projective identification. Now, why would somebody do that? Why would somebody do that to a guy who's in a position of power and has a good reputation just to destroy his reputation? Here we go back into the borderline. By the way, to me, this is narcissism. It's all narcissism. They don't want to say narcissism. They want to define narcissism as being a male problem and borderline as a female problem. I think I've seen just as many men who fall into broadly into the borderline category. There's a ton of men now. It's not as common, but there's a ton of men because of the way we're going culturally who act like histrionics. It was just as histrionic as women. Vane, reaction seeking, hypersexualized, acting in this highly, highly feminized way. But this is all narcissism. The only thing that I think is not narcissism is the antisocial personality disorder part because there's no false self. Everything else is the protection of a false self, a fake idea of who I want to project to the world.  Narciss, borderlines and histrionic are vain and protective of their image. The psychopath couldn't care less. It's almost like a defining quality of the psychopath. They'll say they have low resilience. They'll say they have impulse control. They'll say they have a greater tendency to violence. But the reason for all of those things is because they don't care about a self image. So psychopathy probably isn't narcissism. The rest all are. So if you have this borderline trait, this now is Richie's theory of borderline personality disorder, not the literature. I think there is a hyper competitive instinct there that is unique to the borderline personality disorder definition of what a BPD is that is compelled to drag people down. Now, I have had female clients who've told me that they experienced this. They've told me and I think they probably would have acted in for borderline personality disorder. That privately, if they feel like somebody is above them or too good, then what they'll do is they'll work a situation, a premeditated situation to try and prove through projective identification that they're not as good as they are perceiving them to be. They are therefore borderlines do this. There's predominantly a borderline thing.  Being with a borderline is a very, very tricky, very, very damaging situation because you won't be able to keep up with what you're being punished for. They'll punish you for stuff that's only happened inside of their head. They'll also punish you for the vulnerability you've made them feel. I've written a lot here. Let's put it here. So if I am a borderline and I share something with you and I share, maybe I overshare because I have an impulse to generate intimacy too quickly. It's a very strong impulse amongst borderlines to try and accelerate intimacy. The next thing I'm going to experience once you're not there the next day, two hours later, is shame. You know what I'm going to conclude? I am not going to take responsibility for the fact that I feel ashamed for oversharing with you.  So now what happens? Now you will be punished because I accelerated intimacy with you and you are the cause of this negative emotion here. This is an issue. The hypercompetitiveness is an issue because if, and I think in the case of the individual case of your founder of your organization 21 Studios, I think what happened there in that relationship was he was targeted because the lady in question perceived him as being higher status than her. And the whole effort of you guys all know the backstory of that was a compulsion to lay him low, to drag him down. And worse, I'm not convinced she was even conscious of it because the question would be why choose him? Of anybody you would choose, why would you choose that person? And I think it's because of this hypercompetitive instinct. Bring other people down. You see somebody higher status, it's offensive, it creates shame. You must be punished for the shame that I feel.  I need more room. So what do we call, what's the personality disorder that violently and inappropriately punishes other people for making them feel shame? It's the psychopath. It's the psychopath. My pet theory, my personal hypothesis for the spate of school shootings that you're saying the issue you've got now in America is actually a shame. The people who are doing the shootings, and I don't think I'm on my own in that. I think a few people have said that as well. The predominant emotion that drives the shootings is shame. People with poor boundaries, exploitative, entitled personality issues, possibly personality disorders. They can't own their own feelings. They don't know how to process negative emotions. They feel shame and they respond. The only thing that can wipe out this shame that I'm feeling is massive violence. Doubtlessly, in terms of gender, it's going to be men that commit massive physical violence. I think what is happening with the female psychopath is emotional violence, which would manifest as a murderous intent to destroy the previous host. So, if I have been attached to a host and they have caused me to experience shame by discovering that I'm lying about my identity, by discovering that I'm stealing money in the case of Anthony's case, by discovering that his wife was operating under a false identity as a prostitute whilst he was married to her, and then he presents her with that evidence. The end result will be shame and the emotional violence that that will cause will be murderous. And I don't think that I'm being excessively dramatic when I use that adjective. I think that the end result is the same as in mass shootings. It's to wipe out, to crush, to not to crush. It's not even, it's slightly about punishment in the sense of a narcissistic injury and narcissistic rage. I want to see you suffer, I want to punish you, but it's about, it's more to do, it's worse than that. Punishment means if I've punished you enough, then I can be satiated. Shame can't be satiated. It must be wiped out. It's the final solution. It needs to be a very, very extreme response. And I believe it is murderous.  And there are many men who I've coached now and I'm sure those of you who've spoken on the forums who've said the same thing, many men who've told me that it feels like she wouldn't be happy unless she gets what she wants, and ultimately it's my death. She's looking for my death, my destruction. I think there's truth to that. I suspect it's a symbolic death. It's about eradicating shame, not killing a human being, but the end result is the same.  I can breathe again. I can live. So the rage that this produces is huge. It's a very, very powerful instinct. Okay, so that's the problem. I'm going to very, very briefly go through with the solution. The effect on somebody, of this kind of abuse, of being with somebody who's psychopathic, who is borderline, who is histrionic and highly narcissistic, who has projectively identified you as some sort of archetype of the bad alpha male, even when you might not be very alpha male at all, but that's the project of identification at work. The effect on you as the target of this kind of abuse is really, really deleterious in terms of its effect on your personality. There is something called narcissistic abuse victim syndrome, and it's a cluster of symptoms that almost exactly matches PTSD. So, you know, as I said before, a damaged sense of self, sense of self, emotional dysregulation, inclusive of uncomfortable flashbacks. These flashbacks may be actual memories of events that you'll get when you're driving, when you wake up at two o'clock in the morning, when you're going about your daily business, you suddenly vividly remember things happening and it produces a shitstorm of uncomfortable emotion. All the flashbacks may be purely emotional, sudden feelings of overwhelming guilt, overwhelming shame, overwhelming sadness, overwhelming rage. So there are flashbacks there, damaged sense of self, emotional dysregulation, a greater propensity to use God, what is it called? Well, basically it manifests as addictions. The use of coping strategies goes up. People self-medicate, they use alcohol, they use over-the-counter drugs, they use street drugs, whatever it is. Addiction to gambling, to porn, to all kinds of things, just to not feel that pain. The side effect of all of this is going to end up with your serotonin levels going down. If the serotonin levels go down, serotonin drops. Listen, nobody has depression because their serotonin is low. That is a ridiculous, non-scientific logical fallacy. It's called comhoc ergo propto hoc, which means with this therefore, because of this.  It's childish and wrong. What happens is when all of this, when you've experienced massive trauma and you don't know how to process the overwhelming emotions and grief of that trauma, and this starts to kick off, your serotonin naturally will drop. The problem with your serotonin dropping. Now, everything I've said is mainstream, peer-reviewed research backs everything I said up. This is me taking something Jordan Peterson said. I'm running with the ball a little bit further than he did. And I'm going to do the comhoc ergo propto hoc thing again, but in a different context, with this therefore, because of this. So if the serotonin drops, what Jordan Peterson pointed out with his story of the lobstas, or he's talking about the research amongst lobstas when they climb up the social hierarchy, their serotonin levels go up and they posture. They posture big with their back straight and they go, I came up social hierarchy.  Great.    And the lower, the lower. So if you're, this is a hypothesis, I don't know that it's true. I think that what might be happening is as you go up the social hierarchy, your serotonin levels increase, but why we have decreased levels in serotonin amongst people who are depressed is nothing to do with some biological individualized pathologized thing in them. It's because, because of their depression, they're dropping out the social hierarchy because all of this leads to social isolation. And when we're socially isolated, we drop in the social hierarchy. We're now not significant. We're not significant. We're not contributing. We're not connected. And we're not offering value.  It is just as important for you as a human animal to be offering value as it is to receive it. We're tribal creatures. We need each other. And to help each other and cooperate, I suspect increases serotonin levels to be connected with other humans face to face, not through the internet, but to actually sit with them and talk with them. I believe we'll increase serotonin levels as we'll contributing, as we'll being significant. Being known in your tribe, being unique, people knowing your name and knowing what you do, I think increases serotonin levels. If your serotonin levels are up, it doesn't matter whether you really are high in the social hierarchy, you're going to feel good.  It's been said so many times that it's a cliche.  It's no good. You want to feel good. And that is a biochemical effect of, I suspect, of being higher up in the social hierarchy. The project that you have here with what you guys are doing, I think is very important because it can help overcome the effect of the trauma through inhibiting this effect, social isolation. You're in groups and you're working together towards a common goal that should give you significance, the capacity to contribute, the capacity to be connected and to offer value, offer value. If you're not feeling good, think about what you can offer. Think about how you can contribute. These offering value contributing will make you significant and it will increase your connectivity, increase connectivity, you're higher in the social hierarchy, you don't need to be at the top. If we switch from red pill and rollo definitions of alpha and beta males, which you all understand, alpha, beta females, which everybody understands, to the psychology, the evolutionary psychology, the biology psychology of alpha and beta or omega, you don't need to be at the top of the pyramid to feel good. You do need to be connected, offering value and you also personally, on your own, you must feel on a daily basis like you're making progress. So you don't need to be right at the top of the pyramid but you do need to feel like you're involved, like you're contributing and like you're somewhere on the pyramid. I think some people or a lot of people now, they feel so socially isolated, so pointless, so depressed, so anxious, so non-unique, so nonsignificant that they don't even, there isn't a pyramid, there's nothing there at all and they're desperate for tribe style, tribal connections. So this is something that you have here. My advice to you, I'm new to all this, very new to all of this, is to recognise it for what it is and to use it properly and to make sure that you're contributing so that you are still there on the social hierarchy and you're probably going to find that this is a far better way of dealing with the effects of this trauma and of dealing with the effects of low serotonin, of dealing with the effects of depression and anxiety than actually trying to get therapy or trying to take drugs for it. Okay guys, I'm sorry I couldn't be there this year. I've got my own medical issues that I'm working with but I hope you enjoyed that and I'd just like to say thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you. Thank you to Anthony for the invitation. Thank you all for your time and for your attention and hopefully I'll speak to you again soon. Cheers.


Hi, I'm Rob Randall, Chief Executive Officer of Akara. If you have a school-aged children in years 3, 5, 7 or 9, you'd be aware that they took the NAPLAN tests, that's the National Assessment Programme in Literacy and Humorcy, in May this year. Testing children at school is not new. It happens every week in most schools. However, NAPLAN is a national test that is specifically designed to provide a snapshot of your child's learning in literacy and numeracy. Reading, writing and mathematics are basic skills that help us all get on in this world. School work and life become hard if you can't read, write and work with numbers. As a parent, I want my children to be able to read the bus timetable to catch the bus home, or know how much change they should get after buying food at the school canteen. These simple activities rely on literacy and numeracy. And like all parents, I want to know if my children can do better, and I want to know that as early as possible. The results for this year's test will be with you over the coming weeks, earlier than in previous years. Sometime in August or September, the exact timing varies from state to state. You will receive your child's NAPLAN report. In the NAPLAN report, your child's results will be shown against six levels of achievement. The black dot is your child's result. The black triangle is the average result for all Australian children in that year level.  If your child's black dot is well above the black triangle, they are doing better than children in their year level across Australia. And if it is much lower, they aren't doing as well as children in their year level across Australia. If you're happy with what you see in your child's NAPLAN student report, take the time to explain the results to them and encourage them in their areas of strength. If you aren't so happy with what you see in your child's NAPLAN student report, here's a couple of things to think about. Firstly, NAPLAN takes place every second year, so you could go back and look at your child's previous school reports. Is NAPLAN showing you the same thing you see in them? Or is NAPLAN not reflecting what you know about your child? NAPLAN is a snapshot of your child's abilities in literacy and numeracy, so it's good to compare what you're seeing in the NAPLAN report against other school reports before reaching any conclusions.  For some children, tests are a breeze, while others may struggle. Although NAPLAN isn't a pass or fail test, it's still a test. Perhaps your child is normally good at reading, but for some reason, the NAPLAN results show the opposite. And after you've considered these things, you might make a time to have a talk with your child's teacher. Talking to your child's teacher will help you put the NAPLAN results into context and understand what you and the school can do with the results and how to assist your child in the areas that they may need help in. Remember that NAPLAN is only a snapshot of how your child was going in literacy and numeracy at that point in time.  All activities are crucial to the school program and contribute to developing informed, happy children who are confident in their own abilities.


Hi everyone, today we're going to be looking at nested loops in particular how to design a nested loop and then also how to trace it using a logic table. So I'm going to get started with creating a nested loop and what I want to do is I want to recreate this pattern of numbers here. So when we are designing a loop, in particular a nested loop, what we want to think about is what each of our individual loops are responsible for. So in this case, I'll have a doubly nested loop, so an outer loop and an inner loop, just two. And I want one loop to be responsible for the numbers I want to print and the other loop I want to be responsible for how many times I want to print them because if we have a look at this pattern here we're just printing the numbers from one to five but for each of these numbers it's printed a different number of times. So if we were to just focus on printing out the numbers from one to five that's something that we can do quite easily with a regular loop. So that would be a good place to start. So I know that I want to print the numbers from one to five, so I'll have a variable called i that starts at one. We'll continue to increase as long as it's less than or equal to five and then each time I want to plus one. And then I want to print that value to console. So this single loop here should effectively print the numbers one to five. So now we want to design our inner loop which will determine how many times each of these numbers are printed. And I'm going to do that using this table here I've created on the right. So first of all I'm going to write down the values of i that I want to print or the numbers that I want to print. So I know I want to print the numbers one, two, three, four, and five. And then my other column has a look at the number of times I want to print each number. So if we go back to our pattern here I want to print the number one five times. I want to print the number two four times, number three twice, sorry number three three times, number four twice, and number five once. So there are lots of ways to go about designing our inner loop. Lots of different ways to achieve it but I find the easiest way to design it is to try and get the number of times that it's being printed in terms of our i variable. So for each of these well I want to print the number one five times. So I want to rewrite the number five in terms of one. So another way of writing the number five would be six minus one because six minus one is five. And now that I've done that I've got a reference to my i variable. So let's see how that pattern keeps with the rest of our combinations. So when I've got the i value two and I want to print it four times. So if I can rewrite the number four in terms of two I know that four is equal to six minus two. So again that's another i variable here and then I can continue. So I know that I can well three is equal to three but I can also write three is six minus three. So now I've been able to identify a pattern here. So two can be rewritten as six minus four and five can be rewritten as six minus one. Sorry my mistake. One can be rewritten as six minus five. There we go. So when it comes to loops it's all about identifying patterns. So I've identified a pattern here that when I do six minus the i value I will get the number of times that I want to print it. So we know that these are all the same. So now that we've identified our pattern we can say that for each value of i we want to print that value six minus i amount of times. So now we have a value for how many times we want to print our i value. So that's what is going to be our inner loop. We need to design an inner loop that will run six minus i times. So we can say four in k is equal to one. One k must be less than or equal to six minus i plus one to k each time. Let's indent our code and there we go that works well. And this isn't the only inner loop that we can use as long as that inner loop runs six minus i times then we're happy there. So we could do something like we start at six, keep decreasing until we get to i and we minus one each time. Oops, my maths was a bit wrong there. Greater than i. There we go. Yeah so for this loop in particular as long as this runs six minus i times we're happy. So that's what nested loops is all about it's about identifying the pattern and then splitting up the responsibilities between the outer and the inner loop.


This video will explain things to keep in mind when moving from collected data to data in a database. Today we will speak to Technology Officer Ta-Ye-Yoon from the Transitional Justice Working Group. We'll be discussing some of the work that was involved in combining and harmonizing data sets from nine different groups for the Footprints Project. This project details abductions and disappearances perpetrated in or by the North Korean state. The goal with this video is to show grassroots human rights documentation groups the work involved in moving from collected data to data in an electronic database. This will help documenters and activists decide if and when they may need to create a database which will then also help them select the right tool to use. So this is kind of a simple question to start out but why was an electronic database needed for this project? Before the project was started, we had a group of individuals who collected the data that was related to the project and worked on it and kept it. Even if there was a data that we wanted to find, we couldn't know what group or form it was stored in so it was very difficult to find. Especially the individuals who had the data had a very young age, so there was a possibility that the data would be destroyed so it was very important to keep the data. To solve these problems, the purpose of collecting the data and organizing it with the same structure is our Footprints Database. Since it is a digital data, it can be safely kept without being destroyed and because it has the same structure, you can easily come and search for the data you want. Also, through data like the map or the graph, we provide information about the data that has been analyzed. So in order to make the data easier to search, analyze and visualize, you need to create a database. How easy is it to simply enter data into the database? Can you give us some examples of how we had to prepare our data before we entered it into the database? If the user enters the database and searches for the YUN, they will not be able to get information about the person who has been marked with YON. So the search results are half of the search results, so you need to match each and every method. Also, in the case of age, the Korean age standard is different, and the foreign age standard is different, so if you don't choose one of the two, when you search for the 19-year-old, the 19-year-old Korean age and the 19-year-old foreign standard are mixed together, so you can see that the trust in the data search results is reduced. Also, in the case of address, it is data collected from the 1950s, so there were a lot of changes in the address between the present and the present. So there are cases where the address has been converted to another region, and there are cases where the address has disappeared, so the address has been moved to the same place, and the GPS data such as Widow or Kendo are being marked based on the current search results. Lastly, there is the date data. We have a lot of data related to the date because it is a data about the case. But the date can be marked in various forms. So it is very important to write the format in one way. There were a lot of unclear dates, for example, the middle of August of 1950, or from August to September of 1950, there are cases where it is marked as a period. So there were a lot of questions about how to write the format and how to tell the user about the format and how to understand it. But these rules are very important to decide according to the characteristics of the people who contact the database. Before we go, I want to ask from an organizational perspective. Do you have any final advice for civil society groups that are facing this challenge? It is very difficult to make a database, and it takes a lot of time and effort. No matter how much data is recorded, whether it is organized or uploaded, no matter how many times we review the data, we can make a mistake. Even at this moment, new data can be found somewhere, and no one knows what kind of information the data will have, so it is very important to manualize all the work, and even if there is a change in the future, it was very difficult to systemize to make it easy to fix. But I think this work is very valuable as long as we will try our best. It is important to leave a record, but I think it is the most important to keep the record, so that many people can see it. Through the database, I think it would be a good opportunity for many people to remember and know about the case for a long time. For more information, or for follow-up training support, send inquiries to info at accessaccountability.org.


Welcome folks, we have the Dow Industries trading up $108, Nasdaq is down $4, S&P is up $7, Gold Contract down $5, $0.20 trading at $1805, we have Silver down $0.26, $22.84 an ounce, Light Sweet Crude up $0.48, $76.46, A barrel notes and bonds, the 10-year, down $13.6, at $130.06, the 30-year, up $1 full point, plus 11 ticks, at $159.10, and $Kingdala. 271 ticks, trading 95, 934, Euros at 113, the Yens at 114.95, and the British pound is at 134 to 1 US dollar. Well, you know, if we take a look at the spy folks, we have spy wants higher price. Bottom line, you get a sideways move out here today. You rejected 475, you're at 477, yes, you have the contraction of volume, no doubt. This is set up to go to 500, and we're at 477, and the X100. We take a look at the 3Qs, the 3Qs right now. Also, bottom line sideways move out here, you get, you have 5 cents, you get 23 million shares traded. This is going to go first high, and I suspect if I'm right in the context that the spy is going to go for 500, this, more than likely, is going to break its high. What's intriguing right now, the way this is actually set up, is that this may be a small ABC structure on the way up. We'll see how this shakes out. The B point on this would be the 404. Your A point is down there at 377, so it is a very large ABC structure. It's a 25.8B, which would get you a 424 inside of the NDX100, so it's a monster. Gold, gold contract, rejected lower price once again. This gold contract, it's clean, and it's tricky. What we've had here is this. So what you had out here is you rejected lower price out here today. You had lighter volume than you're going against. That being said, though, the bottom line is you see that 133? Yesterday we only did 101,000 contracts. So someone's buying it. They're selling it too, no doubt. We got down to 1789. They rejected lower price. You're trading for 1805. You get another hammer. This thing wants higher price. What was intriguing, if you were in front of a machine earlier this morning when this was happening, the gold equities wouldn't get out. It was pretty cool then. When gold was down actually $18, the gold equities were still up pre-market in Kingdala. So Kingdala once again bottom-lined it out 270.666, and we'll see what's going to break this bottom. The low spike here is from three weeks ago, it's 95.514. We've hit 95.764, we're at 95.936. My take is going for it and coming back to its breakout area, which is that 94.560. Folks, come right back.


How do the stars and moons stay in the sky? I learned to wonder question why. How do you work the land and keep it green? This common dream.


I'd like to talk to you this afternoon about two classes of Americans. And it may not be the two classes you think of, but nonetheless, there are two distinct classes in America and we have to break up. And we have to break up sooner rather than later. This is a bit of a long quote to start a talk with, but I thought I'd leave it up there for a little while so you could absorb it. It's written just about 100 years ago by Liddy Gunmesis and it rings absolutely as true today as the day he wrote it. And it's all about the idea of letting people go if they want to form a different political union or political entity. So at the end, he mentions true national and cultural policy. And so I would ask all of you today to consider, is America a nation at this point? I would argue no. Is it even a country, barely? Or is it, as some of you who heard my talking forward a couple of weeks ago, my friend Ilana Mercer calls it Walmart with nukes? And that's what America feels like very much today. It feels like we're all living in one big federal subdivision, doesn't it? So last night, I mentioned about 100 years ago in the interwar period, Mises wrote his great trilogy, three books, remarkable books, nation-state and economy first, then socialism, then liberalism, all within a 10-year span. And these three remarkable books basically laid out a blueprint for both organizing society in a prosperous and peaceful way and also a warning in socialism about how to destroy it. It turns out it's a lot easier to destroy than build. So Mises lays out this conception of what a liberal nationhood might look like. It's rooted in property, of course, and rigorous self-determination at home and what this means is that he's always stressing the right of secession. Back then, for political, linguistic, ethnic, economic minorities, always have the right to secede. And of course, coming out of the patchwork of the former Austro-Hungarian empire and in Europe, he understood what meant to be a linguistic minority in particular. So for Mises, any kind of nation, any kind of real nationalism, liberal nationalism, requires laissez-faire at home, of course. It requires free trade with your neighbors to avoid the tendency towards war and autarky and requires a non-interventionist foreign policy to avoid war and empire. So when we think of these three books, we can only imagine what the West and what America might look like today if these books had been read and absorbed broadly at the time. If Western governments had been even somewhat reasonable, let's say, over the past century, consuming, let's say, only 10 or 15% of private wealth and taxes, maintaining just somewhat reasonable currencies backed by gold, mostly staying out of education and banking and medicine, and most of all, avoiding supernational wars and military entanglements, if governments had just been somewhat reasonable in the West, we might still live in a more gilded era like Mises once enjoyed in Vienna. But with all the unimaginable benefits of our technology and material advances today. But the truth is that liberalism didn't hold, and we have to be honest with ourselves about it. It didn't hold in the West, and it never took root in the full Massessian sense anywhere, at least not for long, and that's why all of us are here today. If the world had listened to Mises even somewhat, if Western states had committed to prescription of sound money, markets, peace, all of our libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theory might have been completely unnecessary. We might be sitting here today just sort of grumbling about potholes and local property taxes and local schools. Instead, we're here talking about the state as an existential threat to civilization. So two very different scenarios. But again, the world didn't listen to Mises, so that's why it got Rothbard and Hoppe, by the way. So one of the great progressive achievements of the last 100 years, which goes almost totally unremarked today, goes to the title of my talk, the degree to which the imposers, we can call them, have been able to portray themselves as the imposed upon. It's absolutely uncanny. We see it in every aspect of American society and every aspect of our politics today. We see it in the presidential election. We see it with the culture wars. We see it in academia and spades. We see it with Antifa in the streets. So if we think about just the last 100 years, since Mises wrote those three books, the past century in America, progressives of all stripes, of all political parties, I wanna add. What have they given us? What have they given us? They've given us two world wars, Quagmires in Korea and Vietnam, now endless Middle East wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, maybe coming soon, Iran, who knows. They impose these enormous welfare schemes that Amy Schlage has written so much about in the form of the New Deal and Great Society programs which have ruined how many untold lives. They created all these alphabet soup federal agencies and departments to spy on us, tax us infinitely, regulate every aspect of our lives. And they built the military industrial complex and the state media complex and the state education complex. They legislated violations of basic human property rights which would absolutely shock our great-grandfathers if they were alive, all along with the courts nodding along in their acquiescence. And to pay for it all, they gave us central banking. The Federal Reserve System hatched up, schemed right here on this island in November of 1910. So what do they, the imposers call this, they call it liberalism. If you oppose it, they call you a reactionary. To be a libertarian today is to be a reactionary against the state degradations and depredations and impositions of the 20th century. And the political class, either the imposers themselves or their agents, what has the political class gotten us? Well, they managed to ruin peace. They managed to ruin diplomacy, money, banking, education, medicine, not to mention along the way, culture, civility, and goodwill. And if you oppose the imposers and their elites, they call you a populist for it. So call me a populist. All of this, of course, flows from the imposers, from their positive rights worldview, which animates them. It animates everything they do. And that's why they're able to scream at Rand Paul, for example, for denying them healthcare. Once you accept a positive rights view of the world, then anyone who doesn't go along with your program is taking from you. And this is how they see the world, the imposers. So if the 20th century represents a triumph of liberalism, I hate to see illiberalism. But of course, if you want to see it, we all know what the imposers have in store for us now in the fledgling 21st century. And I would add as an aside, a good way to tell maybe a Beltway person from a Rothbardian is to ask them a simple question of whether they consider the 20th century in the West a triumph of liberalism or not. I think most Rothbardians would say it was not. And I think most Beltway types would say it was. They consider the 20th century some sort of victory for liberalism. So what they got us, along with all of these other problems, is of course a huge divide. What they've gotten us is an almost unbelievably an epic divide in society between the imposers and the imposed upon. And so how divided are we, right? And along what kind of lines? I thought this was a nice little vignette, which took place the other day on Twitter. We have Chris Hayes, who is a subhuman who works at MSNBC. It says, well, you know, with COVID, the most responsible way to deal with all these people. That sounds like sign for those people. If we survive this as some kind of truth and reconciliation commission. Wow, that sounds fun. I suspect many of us in the room would be candidates for that. I don't know if there's boxcars outside. And then, so he represents the progressive left, I guess, in American today. And then along comes our friend from the neo-conservative right, the great Bill Crystal, with whom we've all had enough, but we always get more. I mean, this guy does not go away. I mean, he's like when you take the fish oil capsule at seven in the morning. And then at noon, that's Bill Crystal. So he says, how about truth and no reconciliation? The degree of open contempt and hatred that these lunatics have for us, is I suppose in part been exposed by Trump and Trumpism. And to that extent, we owe Trump a degree of gratitude for letting us see them for what they truly are. And I would ask either one of these gentlemen, if you truly believe, let's say 40% of the United States is beyond redemption, irredeemable, what does that mean? What do you propose doing with them? Does that mean some sort of a reeducation camp? I mean, presumably it means that either you separate from them somehow or you vanquish them. And by vanquish, that could be economically, politically, or in the horrific scenario, which we've seen repeated throughout history, even physically. So the divide we have in this country today is not so simple as saying blue and red states or counties or Republicans and Democrats or liberals and conservatives or even by class. It's a little more complicated than that. There's a company out there called Survey Monkey which took in a lot of data after the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And there was a big Washington Post story using this and they grouped it in a bunch of very interesting ways. And I wonder how much people in this room were aware of some of these divides in American culture. So sadly, there's a huge divide along racial lines in voting patterns. If only white people had voted in the 2016 election, Trump would have won 41 states. And if only non-white people had voted, Hillary Clinton would have won 47 states. So I view this as basically a testament to the Democrats' ability to sell some kind of sick victimhood and dependency and to the Republicans' failure to sell any sense of real ownership or opportunity or capitalism. But nonetheless, that's the divide. It's real. How about union members? If only union member households, in other words, a household with at least one union member had voted, Hillary Clinton would have won 40 states. And if no union members, Donald Trump would have won 37. Now when we get into religion, things get even more stark. What about households that claim within them that the inhabitants are either atheists or no particular religion? Hillary Clinton would have won at least 46 states if only non-religious people voted. How about if households which claim Protestant or Catholic membership would have been the sole voters? Trump would have won 45 states. Okay, evangelical voters only. Trump would have won 47 states. People who attend church weekly, Trump would have won 48 states. People who seldom or never attend church or synagogue, Hillary Clinton would have won 43 states. So it strikes me as we go through some of these numbers that these divides are awfully hard to overcome politically. I'm not sure how you do that. How about unmarried people? Hillary Clinton would have won 39 states if only unmarried people voted. Trump would have won 43 states if only married people voted. Another huge, quiet, cultural, and political gap in this country. Now you've heard a lot about urban versus rural voters. It's a motif which keeps coming up again and again. So for purposes of the survey monkey data, an urban county is one with greater than 530 voters per square mile. And a rural county is one with fewer than 90 voters per square mile. Again, only urban counties vote. Hillary Clinton wins 40 states. Only rural voters vote. Donald Trump wins 47 states. The last stat I'll throw out at you is gun owning households. Now I know that none of you own firearms, but there are people who do. They lock them up and just shoot deer with them. They don't have Oozies or anything like that. Modified weapons. Then they know there's no weapons in this room today. Feel comfortable with that statement. If only gun owning households voted, Donald Trump wins 49 states. Guess which one he loses, okay? The only one he loses is Bernie Sanders, Vermont. Because I think up there you just have a gun anyway just because you're in Vermont, but you vote for Bernie. So if Hillary Clinton, if households with no firearms of any kind were the sole voters in America, Hillary Clinton also wins 49 states. And guess which one she loses? West Virginia, another anomaly. The point here is that these kinds of divides and problems cannot be neatly solved by politics, especially national politics. And if you think about them, they don't cleave neatly along geographic lines. This isn't the Mason-Dixon line. These kinds of divides exist in every state. They exist within counties. If you go to California, which we all think of as a deep blue state, go 20 miles inland. You know what it is? It's Trump flags, it's country music, and it's Mexican rancheros. That's what it is. Okay, we don't have the Mason-Dixon line in America in 2020. And more importantly, what we have to understand is even if you could win some national election, you could somehow get 51% of the voters to vote for, you know, I don't know, a candidate like Rand Paul or something like that. It doesn't really matter because hearts and minds haven't changed. Politically vanquished people never really go away. This is what we have to understand. This is why we have to break up. Okay, a couple of years ago, Bloomberg did some polling in the former Soviet Union, now Russia. There are millions of Russians, especially elderly Russians, who still absolutely pine for the Soviet days. When they knew what their job was, they didn't have to pay for their apartment, et cetera. 70% of people in the former Soviet Union, now Russia, have overall generally beneficial views about Stalin. In 2019, okay? They view him as the great reformer who helped save their country from the Nazis, et cetera. In other words, despite all the historical examples that the 20th century provided us, despite the fall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite all the obvious benefits of capitalism, there is still a significant amount of nostalgia for the old system. Politically vanquished people don't just go away, okay? And the Hillary Clinton people thought that the deplorables were gonna do just that. They thought they were dying. They thought they were aging out, and they thought there were fewer of them than there were. And that's what happened in 2016. And that sent the entire country into basically some kind of psychosis, which we're still suffering under today. So I know it sounds difficult. I know that the concept of decentralization is one that's obvious and clear to all of you. I know secession seems like a tough go, but I wanna just throw out to you some happy, happy facts, some things that are happening slowly, right under our noses, some very decentralized impulses which are at work. And of course, they have been absolutely intensified by the COVID issue and by these terrible riots which have been roiling across the United States this summer and now into the fall. As it turns out, all crises happen to be local. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, one beautiful thing about COVID is that it has done further damage to our sort of credulousness when it comes to these so-called authorities, neither the UN nor the World Health Authority nor our own CDC has been able to project any sort of authority whatsoever amongst people. They have been able to drive no consensus. And as a result, we've had vastly different approaches to COVID across international lines and even within our 50 states and even within some states within various cities. So we've had this very decentralized approach to COVID. No central authority was able to sort of seize it and boss everyone around and tell everyone what to do. Of course, outlets like the New York Times tried to do that, but that's just in the United States. So it's been an absolutely fascinating to watch how places like Singapore and Hong Kong and Sweden have been relatively open and places like Shenzhen, excuse me, the province in China where it happened was drastically locked down. Some places like San Francisco have been drastically locked down here. So there's been different approaches in this decentralized effort. And none of this is because people woke up one day and said ideologically, wow, maybe we should try a more decentralized approach. No, it's just what naturally happens in crises. As a matter of fact, even the vaunted Schengen area agreement in Europe, which allows free travel between the member countries immediately broke down. All of a sudden, a German is a German again.  Who knew? As far as I know, I still don't think that Americans can drive or fly into Canada right now, even as we speak with this supposedly liberal Trudeau administration up there. So it turns out that when it comes to a crisis, things really get local very, very quickly.  You have to exist in an analog world. And that means every, you need calories, you need kilowatts of energy and air conditioning coming into your home or your abode, you might need some healthcare, some prescription drugs. And all of this becomes unavoidable in a crisis. You have to be somewhere.  No, I don't know if he happened to be there at the time. But even if the point is that even Jeff Bezos could conceivably be contained in his home by a mob that you can't escape. So all of this idea that we were now on this sort of new global happy plane were sorely tested, I think, by COVID. And I think that the idea of political globalism, the bad kind of globalism is showing its strain. I think it's cracking very badly. Now here in America, let's talk about the great relocation that's happening. This incredible movement of people out of cities. I mean, what's the charm of a New York, a Manhattan, or a Chicago without the restaurants and the theaters and the food and the museums?  So we might find that a lot of younger people are starting to rethink things. So I think this form of de facto secession away from these big cities, which tend to be very, very left-wing in orientation, is a wonderful development to see because some of that political power that big cities tend to hold is going to be attenuated. Atlanta tends to control Georgia. Nashville increasingly controls Tennessee. We see this in a lot of states. Las Vegas controls Nevada. But if people start to move away from these big cities, then some of that political power similarly is going to go with them. So this decentralized impulse, which is really the untold story of the 21st century, we see it in companies and the way they organize and manage their teams. Now we're gonna have all kinds of teleworking, which I think is a mixed bag, but nonetheless it's happening one way or another. If we look at distribution systems, what used to be the old hub and spoke model of getting your products, the JCPenny catalog or something 40 years ago, get you that sweater. Well, now look at companies like Amazon that have a very decentralized sort of system of spiderwebs. So the distribution of goods and services is becoming radically decentralized. How we obtain information, it wasn't that long ago, you had to go 30 years ago, you had to go to your local mall or something and they might have a Milton Friedman's Free to Choose or John Kenneth Gailbreth's affluent society. They didn't have Rothbard. So libraries and universities and professors were almost kind of like the new versions of monks, right? They were the literate ones and you had to go to them to get information, but that's no longer the case. You have something in your pocket, the size of a deck of cards has basically all of human history on it. So that's hugely decentralized. And of course what we're seeing right now in the education revolution is just absolutely phenomenal. I mean, even before COVID came along, we had Khan Academy and all kinds of new platforms springing up and we had the student loan debt crisis and we had parents questioning the value of sending their kids to school for $40,000 a year so that they could get a degree which didn't get them a job.  It turns out that that's not such a good value proposition. And of course, money in banking itself is becoming increasingly decentralized. We have all kinds of payment gateways now. We have things like PayPal. We have things like Bitcoin. And so really it's just that top layer of banking that is happening at major banks. So all of these things are happy facts. And all of these things I think are things we ought to be celebrating and thinking about when we consider the political landscape because I'm not so sure that what matters for our immediate future is whether Trump or Biden wins. I mean, we all know what Biden is and what he will do.  That's what it means to be Trump. But nonetheless, I think some of these impulses which are happening are inexorable. I'm not sure that even Kamala Harris or Joe Biden can stop them. And I think we ought to celebrate that. But what's interesting is that the one thing which still seems awfully centralized in our world is the political world. In other words, in all these other areas of life, all these things I've just been mentioning, decentralization is something that's happening naturally. It's happening by market force. It's happening inexorably. And it's happening by free choice of people. But the one area of our lives where we still accept gross centralization and all the inefficiencies it brings with government. So many things that used to be decided at the regional or at the state and local, excuse me, at the city level are now decided at the regional or the state level. Things that used to be decided at the state level decided at the federal level. And then sometimes even at the international level. That's really the political story of the 20th century is the centralization of politics at higher and higher levels, which is of course anti-democratic even as though all these people are telling us about our sacred democracy. Every level of government that's further removed from you is attenuated by definition is less democratic because your input and your consent so-called is less and less meaningful. But I wonder if there aren't even some hopeful signs when it comes to politics and the decentralization of political power. At an event last fall in Vienna, Austria, Hans-Hermann Hoppe was on a panel. And one thing that struck me about what he said was if you look at the nationalist impulses of the 19th and 20th centuries, the patchwork of former Europe came together. You know, if you think of Germany as all these principalities and regions and Bavaria and Prussia and all this, you know, these things came together. He said nationalism in the 19th and 20th century was mostly a centralizing impulse. That's what nationalism meant.  But he said in the 21st century from his perspective, nationalism movements tend to be decentralized. In other words, they're moving away from this sort of global government model which we all thought was going to be our future in the late 20th century. Remember the end of history? So Hoppe says if we look at things like the Brexit vote, if we look at what's happening in countries like Poland and Hungary, if we look at the Catalan, the Catalonian secession movement in the Barcelona and the Catalonian region of Spain, these tend to be breakaway, decentralized secessionist movements. So that's the difference between some of the national movements of today versus yesteryear. And I think this is coming soon to a city near you in the United States. I mean, this talk is really becoming a reality. Ryan McMakin, who's the editor of Mises Zorg, I saw him earlier, he's here today. Please say hi to him if you haven't met him. Just wrote an article about how even the mainstream publications now are talking quite openly and seriously about secession. And I think that's because on some level, nervously they still think Trump could win. I think that's what's driving it. But there have been very serious people on both left and right, not wild-eyed radicals like me, who have been talking about this for the last several years. Frank Buckley, a law professor at George Mason University. Oh, we can't say that anymore. I'm sorry, it's GMU. It turns out George Mason had a slave or two, sorry. GMU. He wrote a very serious book about what secession might look like just a year ago. And this is a sober, conservative guy. Similarly, Angelo Codavilla, who writes for the Claremont Institute, a retired professor of Boston University, I believe of classics, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe philosophy, wrote an article back in 2016 called The Cold Civil War. You can find it at Claremont.org on their website. Again, a very kind of sober, serious conservative, the kind of guy who still uses the lexicon of things like statecraft, you know what I mean. And they're talking about this. Similarly, people at places like on the left, at places like the New Republic and the nation are talking about this like never before. Gavin Newsom, governor of California, has applied the term nation state to his own state. And of course, if what happens in the fall, in a month, I guess, is that somehow, someway Trump manages to win this election, I don't know what that's gonna look like, I think we are going to see, first of all, an outpouring of grief and psychosis and outright violence from a significant portion of the country that we're just not prepared for. But I think when that subsides, you're going to simply see a blue state governor saying, no, we're walking away. And all that sort of sanctuary city talk will become more and more pronounced. And I think that'll be a beautiful and healthy thing for this country. Now, the flip side, and when I say who wins the election, I should say who's actually installed in January. We don't know anything about these ballots and post to delivery carriers, dropping them in sewers or whatever it might be. But whoever wins, if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are installed, I think what you're going to see is nothing short of a new reconstruction in America. I think you are gonna see outright and open attempts, gleeful attempts in the media class, these kinds of people, to impose themselves on the red states and punish them and punish them. Not only for having the audacity to put Donald Trump in the White House, instead of Hillary Clinton, whom we all knew was gonna win, but more importantly, on a more macro level, for coming along and interrupting that arc of history that progressives believe in so deeply, that arc that we're always improving and we're always getting better, the past is always bad and retrograde. So to have that upended by Trump is a sin which they still haven't gotten over. So if Biden and Kamala Harris win, you are gonna see things happen like, well, first of all, the sales tax deduction for state taxes will be immediately reintroduced so that those blue states can start deducting things again. But I think you'll see it in myriad ways. I think you will see sort of an outpouring, a collective outpouring from the left that wants to use the state as a sort of a laser focus to bludgeon us, the rest of us. And I think that in turn will cause the red state folks and the red state voters to be thinking very seriously about an exit strategy. I wish I could give you something more hopeful than that because as I mentioned before, the problem here is that nothing goes along neat geographic lines. But the lines are there nonetheless when we can't ignore them. So I'll close with this.   Can we change ours without bloodshed? That's the question of the 21st century. I think the question of the 20th century was socialism versus property. I think the question of the 21st century is centralized versus decentralized. So in post-Persuasion America where we seem to live, it's not just a matter of intellectual error. There's more to it than that. It's not just about convincing academics and journalists and politicians that our cause is right and you should agree with us. Because it's also about self-interest and power and they don't see for themselves a path to greater self-interest and a path to greater power in the kind of society which all of us in this room would prefer to live in. And they're not just going to let us have it without some effort on our part. And I swear, oh I shouldn't say I swear, I hope very strongly that that path does not involve bloodshed. But there is reason for optimism. There is a decentralized impulse that is working its way across the world. It's coming to America. And I think that is where we have to put our hopes and our efforts. Thank you very much.


I want to emphasize again on when you say that they're younger than, you know, a lot of young people come to my show and even younger than me and it is extremely inspiring to hear these stories of young property investors, male, female, who are just, you know, taking that leap of faith and that's something that I echo quite often in the show. But for me in particular, like with regard to women's month, I've had four powerful women on the show this month. And the most important thing in the lesson or the key thing is to remember when you set up a real estate business, because that's exactly how you should set it up. You are setting up a real estate business. Think about it. When you go to any bank and you want to sell your concept and you want someone to believe in it and to give you money for it, you need to be able to show that it's going to make some money. Right. So your first thing is you will have learned how to deal. The property model is very old. There's no difference in transacting today as it was a hundred years ago. Buying a house takes long. Getting your title these take three months of transfer, et cetera, et cetera. The long and the short of it, people don't have time. They don't want to waste time. They want to move on and move on fast. Yeah, that's very, very true. I think time is money these days and convenience definitely does rain supreme. And the homeowner sentiment index is a is a proprietary index. That is run by Epsa, where we try to get a better understanding of the thoughts and feelings of regular South Africans around the property market. And what makes this index stand out is that we talk to the individuals who make the buying, selling, renting, renovating decisions. We don't we don't interview at the moment. You put your signature on an offer to purchase. It becomes a valid and binding document. Whether it's it's subject to a suspensive condition that would normally come in with your negotiations. So there are certain pitfalls regarding offers to purchase. For example, whenever you do put in an offer, you would make it according to a time limit. For example, your seller has to subscribe. Press the like button and switch on the post notifications.


Miranda Lambert sure knows how to embrace the good life. The country's sensation previously lived in a lavish estate in an upscale area of Nashville, a dwelling she said goodbye to in 2020. Lambert shared images of her opulent Nashville mansion on social media during the pandemic a few years back. Alongside her husband, former NYPD officer Brendan McLaulen, Miranda spent her days in this stunning five-vedroom, 5.5 bathroom, 5,800 square foot residence, situated in the forest hill section of Nashville. Miranda's currently said to live on a remarkable 400 acre farm, valued at an impressive $3.4 million and it encompasses three houses, four stables, a boathouse and a private lake. However, it was also said that Miranda was wanting a more modest lifestyle and the couple was said to be constructing a new home together. She said, I've relocated and I'm conjuring up a new magical porch. We're in the process of building a house so for now we're living in a cozy cabin at the back of the property. Miranda shared this a while back, so what is Miranda Lambert's home life like? Well, we're about to show you. Miranda Lee Lambert, born on November 10, 1983 in Longview, Texas, found her roots in the world of country music from an early age. Raised in a family that appreciated and celebrated the genre, Lambert's early childhood laid the foundation for her future as a country music icon. Her parents, Richard Lee Lambert and Beverly June Hughes Lambert recognized and nurtured her talent, building an environment where her love for music could flourish. Family's always been a cornerstone of Miranda Lambert's life. She shares a close bond with her parents and brother Luke Lambert. The Lambert family's shared love for music not only strengthened their connections but also at the stage for Miranda's remarkable journey into the country music scene. Miranda's love life, well, it's been a subject of public attention. Her high-profile marriage to fellow country star Blake Shelton in 2011 captivated fans and the couple, known for their onstage chemistry and collapse, became a powerhouse duo in the country music scene. As you may know though, their marriage faced challenges. This led to a divorce in 2015, despite the public drama Lambert's journey in love continued. In 2019, Miranda Lambert surprised fans by announcing her marriage to Brendan McWallon, a former New York City police officer. The couple's relationship added a new chapter to Miranda's love story and their shared life became a blend of country charm and urban resilience. Miranda's appreciation for the Southern way of life is reflected in her properties, including a luxurious 400-acre farm in Tennessee. Lambert and McWallon are not just building a new house, they're creating a haven where their shared dreams and love for the simple pleasures of life can thrive. Miranda Lambert is no stranger to the finer things in life. The renowned country star once called a luxurious estate in high-dollar enclave in music city Nashville, her home, until its sale in 2020. For those who tracked Miranda's life on social media during the pandemic, glimpses of her opulent 5-bedroom, 5.5-bathroom house in Nashville's Forest Hill neighborhood might ring familiar. The sale of this lavish Nashville mansion fetched Lambert over $2.5 million, a big increase from the $1.75 million she originally paid for it in 2015. However, it did fall slightly short of her asking price at $2.9 million. Nestled behind gates, this private residence boasts a perfect blend of seclusion and prime location. Marketed for its warmth and style and incredible views, the mansion features a spacious living room with a raised ceiling and stone fireplace. Multiple porches offer vantage points to soak in breathtaking surroundings. The master suite, complete with his and hers bathrooms, has its own attached porch while every other bedroom in this luxury abode is a suite with its private bathroom. The exterior shows meticulous landscaping and a series of impressive brick retaining walls. This residence was full of white and modern interiors that exuded elegance and charm and spanned 5,800 square feet of space throughout. The heart of this remarkable home was its large attached living space, boasting a double height ceiling that created an eerie and expansive atmosphere, a grand fireplace served as a focal point giving warmth and a touch of classic charm. The space seamlessly connected to the outdoors through French doors offering a perfect blend of indoor and outdoor living. Attached to the living area was a gourmet kitchen that could easily be described as a chef's dream. The kitchen featured two islands, one of which was designed for casual dining with convenient bar seating. The other island served as a functional workspace perfect for meal prep, while a light filled breakfast nook provided a cozy spa for enjoying morning meals. One distinctive feature of Miranda's former Nashville abode was a strikingly designed black painted study library. This room not only showcased her unique taste but also featured an iconic Elvis head statue adding a touch of music history to the modern setting. Upon entering the residence guests were welcomed by an impressive double height foyer adorned with a Juliet balcony that added a touch of old world romance. The bedrooms and Lambert's former home were nothing short of spacious and stunning, providing an inviting retreat at the end of the day. To compliment the southern charm of the property, a stunning wraparound porch greased the exterior. This outdoor space offered panoramic views of the surroundings and provided an ideal spot for enjoying the tranquility of the Forest Hills neighborhood. In 2016 Miranda Lambert invested $3.4 million dollars in her expansive rural estate situated in our south of Nashville. Encompassing 400 acres of farmland, the property boasts picturesque rolling hills, charming rustic living spaces and a large horse barn. It includes three residences, a serene lake complimented by a boathouse and an extensive six-bay garage. The estate features 75 acres of fenced-in pasture land and illuminated walking trails spread out through the woods leading to a pavilion. This pavilion, with seating for 60, serves as a venue for intimate private concerts within nature. Back in 2022 Miranda shared an Instagram post with a photo of her laying across what seemed to be her driveway in front of the extensive land with her dogs. She captioned the post, Happy Saturday y'all, it's National Adopt a Shelter Pet Day. Here are some of my favorite moments with my rescue herd.  Captioning one, y'all welcome cowboy to the farmally, our newest addition just in time for Father's Day. One of my friend, Eric, said a friend of his had a horse that needed to be re-homed.  Well Miranda's property is even bigger than it looks. The main house boasts three bedrooms, complimented by two additional cabins. Adding to the charm, there's a two-stall horse barn and a six-car garage, featuring an extra apartment on top. It's a haven for the couple and their four-legged friends and a place where love for animals and the beauty of Tennessee's landscape come together. Inside her luxury cabin estate is just as impressive, all of warmth and character featuring a ton of rustic wood elements that create a cozy and inviting atmosphere. The living room or great room is a focal point of the cabin, boasting double-height ceilings and a soaring brick fireplace that stands as a commanding centerpiece. The space is adorned with wood-paneled walls and ceilings, embracing a timeless aesthetic that connects seamlessly with the natural surroundings. This blend of rustic textures and finishes creates a harmonious balance, making the living rooms and kitchens both cozy and spacious. The wood accents bring the outdoors inside. In the living areas, plush furnishings and bite relaxation, creating spaces that are as welcoming as they are stylish. The kitchens echo the rustic theme with wooden cabinets and details that contribute to the overall cozy feel. Within those 400 acres is a nice little lake for all her pets to play in, which comes with its own deck and canoe storage. About 75 acres on Miranda's property are fenced in to act as a pasture land for all of the couple's farm animals. When it comes to the two rustic cabins on the property, the larger one has its own front porch, a living room with high ceilings, a small kitchen and one bedroom with an en suite bath featuring double sinks. The smaller cabin boasts an open-plan living room and bedroom with fireplace, kitchenettes and a bathroom with a claw-foot tub. There's also a caretaker's apartment located above the garage. Miranda's home is located near Prim Springs, about an hour's drive south of Nashville, and it holds a special significance to the couple because they got married right here in 2019. Miranda said, I was married before and it was a huge wedding and everything was very public, so was my divorce. I learned then that it's not for everybody else. This is my actual life. With Brandon, I made it a point to keep it as private as I could for as long as I could. Miranda also revealed in the past that she and Brandon were building a brand new property from the ground up. But when looking at photos, it appears to be the same Tennessee property, perhaps just with interior renovations. While that wraps up our look into the homes and life of Miranda Lambert, we got to see how she cherishes her rural living and tons of animals and pets. Before we go, answer this question for me. Do you think Miranda has remained on her original 400-acre property, or do you think it's a completely different home? Let me know down in the comments. Don't forget to subscribe and turn on those notifications so you never miss a video. I'm Kara, follow me on Instagram to chat and I'll see you all next time. Bye. Hey everyone, it's Kara, or Kara the Vampire Slayer as you might know me and given my love for all things house and home, I recently wanted to get more hands on myself and I started tackling DIY projects at my own house. Being a new homeowner, there are plenty of unexpected things to fix and it's cool to learn what you're doing and hopefully be able to fix it yourself. There are also plenty of DIY projects suitable for beginners like me to do and ones that improve the look of your space drastically. Follow me and I'll teach you what I'm learning and motivate you to join me.  Follow me on FixItWithKara and we can chat.


Welcome to the 29th meeting in 2022 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I like to remind members present to switching mobile phones to silent. The first item of business is to decide whether to take items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in private. Is committee content to take these items in private? Yes. Under agenda item number two, we are considering two instruments subject to the negative procedure. An issue has been raised in one of these instruments, which is SSI 2022-326, the Scottish child payment and silly provision regulations 2022. The instrument makes and silly provisions in connection with the amendments made by the social security, miscellaneous amendment and transitional provision Scotland regulations 2022 to the Scottish child payment regulations 2020. The instrument was laid in draft under the affirmative procedure and came into force yesterday. In correspondence with the presenting officer, the Scottish Government acknowledged that it is the second SSI breaching the 28-day rule that has been required to seek to ensure that the draft affirmative instrument works as intended. In respect of this latest instrument, the letter states that it was necessary to breach a 20-day rule to address further issues that had been identified. The short timescales are required to deliver the policy intent and ensure that the required provisions come into force at the same time as the substantive provisions in the draft affirmative instrument. Under section 28-2 of the interpretation and legislative reform at Scotland Act 2010, instruments subject to the negative procedure must be laid at least 28 days before the coming to force, not counting recess periods of more than four days. This instrument breaches this requirement as it was laid on 8 November 2022 and came into force on 14 November 2022. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground to J for the failure to comply with loan requirements? Does the committee wish to welcome the Scottish Government's apology for this breach, though nevertheless indicating that it considers it to be unsatisfactory that this is the second amending instrument breaching the 28-day rule? In particular, does the committee wish to call on the Scottish Government to ensure that its quality assurance processes are sufficient to ensure that subordinate legislation laid before the Parliament is fit for purpose? Under this agenda item, no points have been raised on SSI 2020-22-310. Is the committee content with this instrument?