Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 13. (Read 69319 times)

I am simply knowledgeable about who is the puppet maker who installed Trump in office and why.


And I am knowledgeable that until men stop overeducating their females, they are doomed to naturally selecting themselves out of the competition for fertility as well as sliding gradually to the left as more and more sons (and daughters) are picked off from within.

But there is nothing productive that can come from arguing with a loud mouthed idiot who doesn't even take the time to read and understand before he puts his foot in his mouth. You are just like a woman, all drama, and focused on personalities instead of  knowledge and facts.

And you will whine just like a woman if you try to say any of this to my face, because although I won't hit a woman, I presume you do not have a vagina. Just keep talking shit mofo.

Good...good... Let the salt flow through you...

Lots of NeverTrumpers knew Trump would win because Hil's turnout was being brutally suppressed by meme magic.

Being salty about it is what makes you a NeverTrumper.

You could just be grateful we dodged the bullet of an 8th consecutive Bush-Clinton-Obama (IE CIA-MIC) administration.

But because you are a miserable, wretched person, you can't bring yourself to embrace the wholly undeserved miracle that avoided Madam Inevitable's ascension to the Iron Throne.

So you never miss an opportunity make Perfect the mortal enemy of Good Enough.

Sad.

Dark enlightenment is full of hifalutin words. It should be better if they just express their ideology and concept in a much simple manner. I have a headache reading between the lines. Though the real meaning at the end is very simple yet it was expressed in a very complicated manner. But its fun getting the main idea and how it was built. I would salute the writer for his creativity in writing.

When you argue that defection limits cooperation you appear to be confusing two distinct entities. Defection and rebellion are not synonyms. Cooperation involves a mutually beneficial exchange that improves the well-being of both participants. Defection is an interaction that benefits one party at the expense of another. Defection always implies violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction.

Top-down control fulfills its mandate when it maximizes cooperation and minimizes defection. Top-down control also uses fear, violence, and forced interaction. Top-down control is thus only morally justified if the use of those things results in an overall increase in cooperation and a reduction in defection.

The amount of top-down control required to maximize cooperation is inversely proportional to knowledge. As knowledge advances the of top-down control needed to maximize cooperation shrinks. However, humans are morally flawed resulting in recurrent excessive concentrations of power and a general refusal to cede power. The human condition is thus marked the gradual progression of technological and moral progress with either no accompanying change in top-down control or a counterintuitive increase in top-down control. When this happens the top-down control itself limits cooperation and becomes a form of defection. The situation is like a pressure cooker that eventually explodes in a rebellion resetting the top-down control to a more appropriate level.  

Defection and rebellion are thus entirely separate phenomenon. The first is evil and always morally unjustifiable. The second is not only just but a moral obligation once a superior solution to top-down failure becomes available.

A visual example may help:
This is rebellion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ldlEbbphs
This is defection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7gG3XVqW0

You often repeat the "we just need decentralization paradigms" argument. That is only half true. Yes we need decentralization paradigms. This is the growth of knowledge above. However, decentralization paradigms are only half of what we need. The other half of what we need is a top-down control that maximizes cooperation alongside new decentralization paradigms. Your anarchist tendencies recurrently lead to you gloss over this second part. You acknowledge that top-down control cannot be avoided then seem to stop thinking about it.

The reality is we need top-down control just as much as we need decentralization paradigms. That may be a bitter pill to swallow for an anarchist. The need for top-down control does not go away just because we don't like it or don't want to think about it.

I notice you tend to brush off this issue with comments such as "I don't want to fix the world" and "Trying to fix society is evil." these come across as avoidance. Adopting a lets just do decentralized anarchy and let the cards fall where they may approach is not a rational position.

Religion indeed is top-down control, but that statement is meaningless without context. We both need top-down control and will always need top-down control. Thus ultimately the relevant question is what kind of top-down control is religion.

That answer of course varies depending on what kind of religion we are talking about. The primitive idols worshiping pagans had horrific gods. These religions were tools of extreme top-down oppression and their extinction is welcome. See my post on Pagans and Human Sacrifice if you are interested in more on this.

However, belief in God especially individual belief in God coupled with a fear of God is something else entirely. A society where all individuals genuinely believed in and feared God would have very little defection. What defection did occur would be the result of ignorance not malice and even that would decline with time as knowledge progressed. An individual restrained only by a genuine belief and fear of God has complete operational autonomy he would willing choose only cooperation and never defection limited only by his knowledge of what actions constituted genuine cooperation.

Belief in God is top-down control. It is the purest manifestation of such control enabling a maximisation of freedom. Rejecting God leads ultimately to higher levels of defection and consequentially less freedom.

Nope. I and Armstrong correctly predicted he would win. I even wrote a detailed blog a month before the election explaining exactly why he would win (turnout demographics) and I was correct.

I just also knew that Rothschilds was controlling Wikileaks and engineered Trump's victory for a reason.

And within 2 - 3 years, you'll know I was correct again.

Asshats who are hanging their hats on Trump, aren't dealing with the fundamental issue that destroying them which I am trying to explain in the recent posts. Trump can't save you. Sorry.

Ah ha ha ha hah hah ha ha!

You are yet another bitter NeverTrumper.  That is too perfect.   



I wonder what your excuse will be when he's reelected.

The Dark Enlightenment gave us the leader we need, and yet you whine because he's not the leader you want.

Why don't you go march in a protest or something?  Maybe if you ask nicely your child-like bonobo bride will knit you a p-hat.   

The one term wonderlust will eat the global collapse:

Dark Enlightenment 101 Remedial Class now in session:





https://heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-bitter-bitch-march/

That is the best, most concise description of BitcoinTalk I've even read.  

It's very satisfying to see the children of the Ron Paul rEVOLution have grown up into the unstoppable Trumpenreich, and credit where credit is due to the Dark Enlightenment's work on weaponizing the radical center into the myriad forces of the alt-right.

Two years ago, if anyone told me the neo-feudalism/neo-royalism embraced by the #B-A crowd would become all the rage with techbro hipsters and edgelord dwellers, resulting in the defeat of the Hil-Beast, I'd have wanted to believe them but stopped myself from doing so under the rubric of "too good to be true."

I'm starting to trust our wonderful Satoshi Timeline's probability amplitude is being protected via retroactive tachyon emissions from Omega Point.

In other words, Honey Badger cannot die because he is omnipotent and represents the unalterable path to Singularity.

Praise Kek and pass the ammunition!

And I didn't claim it would. Why are you always focused on top-down force. I am designing a decentralized paradigm, which will know are more resilient. Of course we do have to also weigh the potential for divergence if there aren't the proper incentives for it to converge on any ordered outcome.

Afaics, you are stuck in old paradigms. Difficult to teach an old dog like you a new trick apparently.


You keep claiming that minimizing defection is maximizing cooperation and afaics that is a non-sequitur.

Minimizing defection actually limits cooperation and promotes top-down failure modes which are rigor mortis. Some coordination results from top-down control, but massive amounts of aliasing error (relative to fitness) also. Satoshi's PoW design suffers from this problem and my solution to fixing it is involved with increasing decentralization and removing that aliasing error.

Maximizing cooperation is a coordination problem. This has to do with Coasian costs. It is an economic and technology issue. For solutions, we need decentralized paradigms such as open source. Religion isn't objective open source. It is unfalsifiable, top-down control.


You are closed-minded and made up your mind before you came to the discussion.

Whereas, I have experimented, failed, and attempted to entertain all points of view over the many years. I am attempting to entertain yours but you aren't giving me much meat to chomp on.

I am willing to listen to cogent arguments. You aren't making detailed cogent arguments, rather just pronouncements.

Societal organization issues are very complex and very difficult. Humans have a very difficult coordination dilemma. We just end up punting and choosing some extant strategy, because creating a new one is unfathomably difficult to achieve. I may be too old and just opt to coast for the remainder of my life.

I was hoping to hear from some who have skin in the game. Not old folks or those who will never raise children. You have skin in the game and I understand the difficulty and the need to make a choice based on probability of success. I don't fault you for that. I do fault you for judging me as evil because of my open-mindedness. People who think they have an absolute truth are closed-minded. There are no absolutes in our universe. Even when I entertain the concept that limiting the role of females is a superior multi-generational hypercompetitive group strategy, it doesn't mean I think it is absolutely true. I believe in a competition of strategies. We won't have a total order.

I've been exposed to strong and weak women in my life in various facets. And my experience has universally been of observing them destroy things. I tried emancipation and giving the keys and watched that crash and burn. Etc.. Whereas, I have observed some stable men in my life (not all though and certainly not including myself).

It is not autism when it is intentional political incorrectness. Autistics don't know they are offending others, i.e. they don't even have any wiring to perceive the feelings of others.  Please learn your concepts before putting your ridicule foot in your own mouth.

I've never seen this much autism in a one place 

I'm personally afraid of Supernatural being in memory, in all honesty as more comes into video games sponsoring that way of life I tend to oppose it whilst there.

Not much would influence this into practice, but this haunt sort of creates reverse hype for my interests only to forget the material.

Optimizing voluntary cooperation in no way limits self-selection.

Competition is good but the promotion of competition over cooperation is not.

I agree we are repeating ourselves and not moving towards consensus. I propose we wind down this discussion as an intractable philosophical difference.

This is 3rd or 4th time I am repeating to you that it is self-selection where those who remain are stronger. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

You are trying to fix all of society. I am not. I am just trying to compete. Competition is good. Trying to fix society is evil.


No it does not. Study history. Read 1 Samuel 8. Even the Lord knows it wouldn't.

Hypothetical perfection is not relevant, except in the minds of ideologues (who are thus very dangerous).

Personal jibes aside your advocated belief system equates voluntary cooperation to weakness. It therefore commits you to an strategy that is not competitive over a multi-generational time horizon. Short term it may suffice.

Fear of the LORD would necessitate opposing socialism if socialism trespasses beyond its proper role. Your slippery slope argument is false.

As I pointed out in prior discussion, this is appropriate for maximizing "cooperation" between weak enslaved men. It is a crab bucket mentality. It is thus very compatible with sliding into socialism, SJWs, etc..

Yes so many humans turn to religion because they are so weak. (And then why are we surprised that religion has contributed to megadeath and atrocities  )

But religion is not the only competing culture and it has not won against everything else. Even within religion, it has fractured in so many different belief systems.

Sorry there is no absolute truth other than the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I told you this a long time ago.

Indeed it is very difficult to minimize defection (which is not the same as maximize cooperation!!) over large groups without some top-down enforcement. Did I ever deny that?

I argued that a small, elite group of hypercompetitive culture could self-select for greater individual discipline, but that the discipline would have to be enforced on the females otherwise they would gradually degrade the entire culture from within. Because women do not have multi-generational evolutionary strategy in their set of priorities.

As for maximizing cooperation, the technological paradigm shifts are what move that forward. Individuals are always going to anneal to the economics of nature, regardless of what group enslavement strategy you employ. Religion isn't moving anything forward, rather it is a coping mechanism for the economics that are.

But even though I respect your free will to go into the religion delusion and even to pursue that evil, I wasn't really in the mood to start judging you until you judged me to be evil (I can hear your unspoken thoughts). See how that works? Matthew 7. Oh but the Jews don't accept Jesus' sermon.


You know that makes me angry. Don't make accusations without documenting them. Open source or exit the discussion.

I am here to learn. How can I learn if you don't point out specifically your issues.

There is a very deep discussion going on primarily between CoinCube and myself which I am moving from the Martin Armstrong thread to this Dark Enlightenment thread where I think it is better fit. Note that JAD (James A. Donald) is listed as a primarily leader of a faction of the Dark Enlightenment movement as documented by a chart on I believe the first page of this Dark Enlightenment thread.

Before reading what I want to add below, you must first read the prior discussion from the Martin Armstrong thread starting from the following linked comment post to page 155 of that thread where I have linked to this post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17601898

After reading the above linked post (and all comments that follow it), please make sure you pay special attention starting from the following linked comment post (and the comment which follows it and the follow ups to page 155 of the thread):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17617026

So basically my understanding is that CoinCube and I basically agree that we must be part of a society and culture, and defection from a multi-generation strategy has dire implications for that culture. We have 180 IQ genius Freeman Dyson pointing out that we moved past the stage of evolution where genetic transfer was dominant (man has won the species competition) and we are now in an accelerated form of evolution controlled primarily by culture wherein culture can dictate the genetic engineering within the species of humans. Read the pages of the above linked thread for the details.

As best as I can ascertain so far, it seems CoinCube and I diverge on the fundamental weakness that drives defection and cultural evolutionary extinction events. CoinCube seems to think that only religion can guide humans towards individual self-improvement, and he seems to especially see his role as a sheepdog protecting all the women of the world from all the weak men. He thus seems to lean heavily towards collective social justice (i.e. being a SJW social justice warrior) even though he seems to simultaneously want to disclaim that he has a propensity for social justice worship. I'm starting to entertain the possibility that this is because of crab bucket mentality, in that perhaps he isn't comfortable with his ability to compete and thus wants to pull down all males towards the mean (justifying this by pulling the weak males up towards the mean and thus rescuing many females and children from suboptimal outcomes). CoinCube and I had been on very amicable terms, but this issue I think has strained our relationship, because I view SJWs as evil and he apparently views my philosophy as inherently evil. So I think it is important we get to the bottom of this.

One of the controversial themes from the above linked discussion is whether women should be repressed (while also giving them free will to defect with consequences of banishment from the tribe).

I believe CoinCube would for example want to cite how for example religious communities can uplift and hold educated females to good behavior and high fertility, and he might for example cite something like the following as an example (not specifically for himself but just pulling this out as example that could be cited):

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/10/24/how-orthodox-judaism-elevates-the-status-of-women/

As I read that woman's perspective it reaffims my stance.

The women aren't doing it because of a fear of God, rather because it has become their social network and security blanket. Women are rationalizing based on their near-term emotional, love, child rearing, and social aspirations. They aren't doing it because of any God, that is just rather just a symbolism that everyone pretends is the reason they are invested in the social order. They are actually invested because it works as a culture to meet the needs of the men and the women.

It is a reasonable cultural strategy for the near-term, but it is not a multi-generationally stable (competitive) strategy because even as CoinCube has noted in his writings that that Jews have a high  propensity to fall into SJW movements and culture.

Educating the women is going to make that much more likely. And they will serve as role models to their little boys that women are the same as men. The women are naturally prone to outside mind control, as even noted in the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. They will naturally turn towards social cause oriented vocations. A little funding from George Soros and they are on their way to seeding activism within their culture. She didn't quite say activism, but the more educated they are, the less control you have over them falling into that. And even she points it is important to her that she feels she has this control. Thus orthodoxy is really being diluted by education of the women. It is only a matter of time as it becomes more and more subverted by SJW activism.

Also the more educated these daughters, the smaller the pool of eligible men that will fulfill their natural hypergamy (these was covered in great detail by JAD and Eric Raymond in the linked discussion above). The Jews are a tribe with many highly educated men, so there is a better situation than in the general population, yet the ceiling is still there if it is exceeded.

There is simply no good reason to highly educate the women and give them very stressful vocations outside their primary role to be rearing the children and caring for the elderly in the community. Even that woman describes how her work week is so stressful. This stress will come out sideways in the kids and in the decisions and thinking made by the females.

We don't give females high testosterone because they are too valuable to be risked (one man can inseminate all women of the tribe, but a tribe with only 1 fertile women is near to extinction), and the same with giving them stress of a high education and intense work loads.

If you go against nature, then don't be surprised when have Frankenstein outcomes. If you build your house next to active volcano, then don't be surprised when you have lava in the living room.

But me thinks that CoinCube is closer to female than male. I doubt he has a high testosterone. (Please don't judge and moralize me again, because I will turn that mirror around hard on you! The Bible tells you not to judge and let nature/God do the judging. I have had plenty of failures so there no lack of data for you to judge me with, but that is besides the point as I have to live with my failures, not you.)

Eric Raymond has no children. So until he develops a strategy for his own child rearing, I can see him straddling the fence as social justice sheepdog because he has no skin in the game. Or perhaps I just don't know his stance or justification for how he admits damned facts yet criticizes JAD for understanding that there are limited options for dealing with the issue. What is Eric's proposed strategy? Make women educated and strong? Teach them to defend themselves with guns? That is not addressing the core issue. It is side-stepping, because he has no skin in the game.