Pages:
Author

Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 3. (Read 69297 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
November 09, 2017, 09:17:02 PM

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason...


The problem with your argument is that it is locked in the trap of rationality.

Yes it is often rational for women to seek hypergamy and it is often rational for a woman to cuckold their husbands with a higher status male. Similarly it is rational for men to sleep around, cheat on their wives, and father children beyond their ability to support.

This rationality is ultimately self-destructive. The only long term solution is to elevate the nature of the participants. The problem vanishes among the superrational.

See: Superrationality and the Infinite for my prior post on superrationality.

I have seen you post arguments that women are ruled by their base desires and cannot be superrational. This is probably true of many women as it is true of many men who face an equally difficult struggle. Controlling our primal urges versus letting them control us is a lifelong struggle for all of us male and female alike. Sometimes we fail.

Ultimately the rational face inevitable decline at the hand of their own choices. In this case the consequences are already showing themselves as rational "empowered" females increasingly find themselves unable to find quality husbands and fathers and rational "empowered" men increasingly refuse marriage and fatherhood. Both thus find themselves uncompetitive. The minority that embraces superrationality will expand to take their place eventually becoming the majority a process that is already well underway.

Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth

Biblical Definition
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/10/07/what-does-the-word-meek-mean-in-the-bible-bible-definition-of-meekness/
Quote
Meekness, according to the Bible, is being humble and gentle towards others and willingly being submissive and obedient to the Lord. It is not being selfish and arrogant, loud or obnoxious. Rather, it’s having a quiet but confident trust in the Lord and being willing and able to do whatever it is He commands.

full member
Activity: 714
Merit: 117
November 09, 2017, 07:19:32 PM
Where does the term Dark Enlightenment come from? Inspired by the pugnacious writings of Mencius Moldbug, the prolific blogger who serves as the movement’s unofficial center of gravity, the neologism is the creation of philosopher Nick Land. In 2012, Land wrote an impressively thorough manifesto titled simply The Dark Enlightenment, which boldly articulates the movement’s central thesis: “For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative.” The essay continues, ”[Neo-reaction] conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption.”

Dark Enlightenment is something I was still missing, even though I am usually up to date with these new models. Label is mind boggling, but I still have to verify the content, to check if there is poison hidden inside.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
November 09, 2017, 05:05:35 PM
[…]

Also defunding the Left is leading us into a real civil war. Shit will turn much more violent soon. When their $ spigot is turned off, people become desperate.

Defunding the SJW roach motels:

https://www.wired.com/story/grad-students-are-freaking-out-about-the-gops-tax-plan-they-should-be/



The cancer of misallocating resources and the type of “men” raised to perpetuate it until there are no more resources:

So I'm more about marriage being the place where males and females really work together in perfect sync for child rearing. Its whats meant to been. I don't buy its just the Men losing out in this...in fact feminism is an attack on natural desires and urges of 95% of woman. A lot of middle-aged bitter women in the west now with shrivelled up ovaries knocking back white wine alone at night swamped in their sorrow.

You know Asia. In Korea women have the power, holding the family and purse strings of husband tight. Women in the West have really given up their power base. imo. The amount of times I see middle class women in coffee shops chilling with others moms and talking about micromanaging their kids education and spending their husbands money. If reincarnation happens I want to come back as an attractive Korean woman....easy life.

There is no such thing as marriage being a place where males and females work together in perfect synergy for child rearing. That works for a while, maybe even until the kids grow up a bit, but ultimately most females succumb to the options they have available to them now. Men waste their best years on a woman, only to be fucked over at some point. Women are there for hypergamy and then after their child bearing years to continue spend other people’s money like drunken fucking sailors and fuck up the society with nonsense.

To the extent that Korea is a maternalistic clusterfuck, then they too will collapse. A male dominated Caucasian society could obliterate them in the knowledge age, but the Caucasians are too busy destroying themselves. Korea was a very poor rural country until just a recent several decades, so what worked for them in that rural society is carrying over as they go middleclass probably somewhat analogously to the transformation of the USA in the 1900s, but look how we ended up now. Of course in the initial decades of industrialization, the ill social effects have not yet entirely destroyed the society as the case now in the West. This is why the East is rising and the financial capitals will move from London and New York to China and Singapore.

Religion has not kept the Caucasians competitive and did not help them maintain their dominance and control of their females. Religion thus does not seem to be a solution. Religion was a scattershot paradigm of trying to keep the average males in tow. But the knowledge age may not need the average males. We cast them into the soup of the clusterfucked NWO society. I am not speaking about God, but about religion here.

There is absolutely no way to protect women from everything and not destroy the natural incentives that men and women need in order to successfully maintain K strategy reproduction. The women marry the State when they marry a man, and they lose all their fear. Without fear, a woman does not need a man. She may for a while be enamoured with his status, but that will fade and she will move on to “discover herself”.

Any “man” who wants to protect all women, is a destroyer of everything. And he is not a man in my opinion. Protect you own woman and your own daughters from men you do not approve up. If you try to protect other men’s women, then you have destroyed society.

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason that men should attempt to fuck around (and get stymied by men who protect their own woman and daughters) but women should have great fear when they do attempt to fuck around.

https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/why-we-need-the-double-standard/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/masculinity/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/why-female-status-limits-fertility/
https://blog.jim.com/war/why-feminists-support-islamic-rape-jihad/
https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-enlightenment-debunked/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/


Again. If you try to protect all women instead of letting individual men protect some women (and thus all women losing fear of men), then what you get is the clusterfuck described in the above linked essays. Also women need to need men and need violent men to capture and “rape” them, because this how evolution maximally evolves. That is why women have a hypergamy instinct. Why do you think the emasculated men and the women of Europe are welcoming the rapefugees. The men have to compete to protect the women, but the betamales want to protect all women as a way of insuring they keep some women away from the alphamales, but that just clusterfucks the society and end up with wannabee Jeremy Meeks type of PUA fucking the women until they are old and childless and entirely wasted.
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 251
November 08, 2017, 01:02:43 AM


lol. That Survivor clip was very telling. Personally while I understand the bitterness among men particular white men at the current state of western culture I take a more traditional Christian view of the importance of the family unit and the differing roles within it. The lie of 'satan' or just call it evil or just the fucking progressive bullshit that circulates as common wisdom is that yes male and females are very different but they are supposed to!!! Different roles has been sold as inequality when anyone can see the income inequality meme is such a lie. So I'm more about marriage being the place where males and females really work together in perfect sync for child rearing. Its whats meant to been. I don't buy its just the Men losing out in this...in fact feminism is an attack on natural desires and urges of 95% of woman. A lot of middle-aged bitter women in the west now with shrivelled up ovaries knocking back white wine alone at night swamped in their sorrow.

You know Asia. In Korea women have the power, holding the family and purse strings of husband tight. Women in the West have really given up their power base. imo. The amount of times I see middle class women in coffee shops chilling with others moms and talking about micromanaging their kids education and spending their husbands money. If reincarnation happens I want to come back as an attractive Korean woman....easy life.


You might find him too low brow but I love Gavin Mcginnes viewpoint, underneath the humour he hits some real truths...plus he's hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTKjOZuvTCY
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
November 06, 2017, 08:49:04 PM
Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here. This is intended for the high IQ audience of Eric's blog.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5457696




I voted "most of them". I agree with ESR's comments:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424645

Quote from: ESR
Quote
>Out of curiosity, why do you believe this ideology worthy of a lengthy series? Nothing against it, I’m just wondering what the trigger was.

Because they have a flavorful mix of dangerous truth-telling and utter bogosity going on.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424636
Quote from: ESR
...Furthermore, if it were actually true, the DE would be entirely a noisome fever-swamp of bad ideas, rather than just rotten in spots.


I haven't read it but I assume that dark enlightenment was a very interesting book.  If people will be enlightened despite how things were delivered, may it be in a darker way,  I would prefer learning it on that way.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
October 26, 2017, 12:46:08 PM
Great youtube channel that falls along the lines of this thread. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdHT7KB1gDAXZYpPW71fn0Q
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
October 24, 2017, 09:51:53 PM
I’m starting to realize why I prefer the self-deprecating, badass Linus Torvalds to the politically correct hack ESR:

Are you a Libertarian or a minanarchist? Why are you even promulgating these questions? We do not ask the free market questions, we observe outcomes. Politicization is “Oh he is so vile, but I must defend him because of my superior virtues” masturbation in front of power vacuums.

And by pandering to the popular notion that the guy is vile, he obscures that it is purely a free market outcome that women demand vile men. He enables continued ignorance while protecting himself by couching his essay in some politically correct speech.

It’s similar to what the Trilema dude wrote about the Core devs. Politicizing instead of focusing on doing important work or analysis.

Making sure he jumps on the side of political correctness by declaring the man vile whilst simultaneously declaring himself virtuous yet recognizing that its just human nature both from the standpoint of the way women and men operate in certain settings of power structure and especially in a decadent society which fosters such. Unnecessary moralizing pandering to the tyranny of the mob power vacuum while judging a man for being the sort of jerk women want (i.e. that the free market of human nature demands) yet placing himself on a quicksand pedestal of political correctness, whilst implicitly encouraging the decadence by pandering to political correctness.

James A. Donald explained more scientifically without the leftist bullshit:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/in-defense-of-hugh-hefner/

The entire point is that if we succumb to peer pressure and appeasing the majority, then we lose our own objectivity and relevance.

I do not want ESR as a role model having to constantly worry about his pandering and how he (mis)judges even history due to his self-important ideological bias:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/



(In due respect, some of Eric’s code such as gif and gpsd apparently widely used)

P.S. on politics vs. research:

Btw, not that it changes the point of what other people perceive to be offensive to their own politics, my pursuit is not politics because I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do or leverage the collective to do so. I am doing research on (e.g. WTC, Zionists, theology, etc) and challenging others to also do so.

I am not pandering to any constituency.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
April 12, 2017, 02:49:21 PM
And YES!, I can do many things! One of them pretty things, is:

Putting a list together of one's activities and the (hypothetical) comment on it provided, ain't research. That's an analysis.

Lol, you missed the research. And you are too dumb to assimilate the significance.

Bitch go back to inserting your tampon. It is was you were made to do.

Only a dumb bitch would insert an off-topic tirade that you did in a thread which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You were incorrect then and making trouble without understanding the research that had been done.

And you are still continuing to do what dumb bitches do.

(I am making a copy of this in the Dark Enlightenment thread as poignant example of how dumb bitches only know how to disrupt the workplace and can't actually produce anything technological)

Dalrock complaints that women ruin everything.  They want to enter male spaces and make the space feminine, as a power play, not out of any interest in the things of value in that male space, which they inevitably destroy.

This is a key issue in gamergate, where feminists demand that the games should be no fun and no one should play them.

Women want to rule, even though it makes them unhappy – it is a fitness test.  They are looking for men that can defeat them, master them, and put them in their proper place.

Natural selection wants men to fight against subordinate status so that they will win.  Natural selection wants women to fight against subordinate status so that they will lose only to worthy men and and thus get impregnated by those worthy men.

When women push their way into male spaces and then set about destroying those male spaces, they are looking for worthy men who will uphold the space and put them in their place.  It is a fitness test.  They hope to find the lord of this space who will not put up with a woman’s nonsense.

What women really want is to be allowed into a male place on subordinate and unequal terms, to be allowed to speak only if spoken to, and any male wishing to speak the them has to get the permission of their owner first.  They will fight like hell against this status, but if they win, they are unhappy, and if they lose, are happy.  Women are like poorly behaved dogs.  The dog will push to be leader of the pack, a job he can never perform, and does not really want.  He wants a master to follow while making his master follow him.

A woman is like a badly behaved dog, a dog that will take his master for a walk, rather than the master taking the dog for a walk, but the dog is much happier when walked by his master, rather than walking his master, much happier with a firm master.

Women casually interrupt anyone, including their boss, and talk right over him.

When I say that fertile age women are sex obsessed, I don’t mean that they think about the sexual act itself as much as men do.  If you skim through a romance novel, there are nine hundred pages where the male love interest demonstrates how aloof and alpha he is, a hundred pages where he breaks down, gets weepy, and shows his soft inner core of twu luving betaness, and one page where he tears the lady’s clothes off with his teeth and the couple finally at long last get some action.  As men understand sex obsession, women are not sex obsessed.

The female equivalent of the male executive groping his secretary’s ass is the female executive shit testing the CEO.  And observe.  Female executives shit test their superiors all the time, paying very little attention to the menial drudgery of merely running the business.  In this sense, women at work are seriously sex obsessed.

In this sense, it is sex all the time, work very little of the time.  The company is boyfriend and family.

For girls, shit testing men is like men looking at girls boobs. Women want to go into engineering to shit test men. Men want to go into engineering because as little boys they loved toy trucks and video games. Girls go sex crazy at ten and stay sex crazy till menopause.

When the boss talks to a male executive, it is about how to get production up and costs down. When the boss talks to a female executive, she demands that he inflate her self esteem, or else she is going to charge rape, sexual harassment, and discrimination. If the boss passes the shit test, puncturing her self esteem, he will get laid like a rug, but the company may be put out of business. If he fails the shit test by inflating her self esteem, gets no sex, but the company survives. Men want to become executives so that they can tell other men what to do. Women want to become executives so that they can shit test the hell out of the CEO.  If your boss is a woman, she is much more comfortable if you don’t really give her decisions.

Just listen to the conversation between a youngish female executive and her male superior. It is all shit test, all the time.  She demands he inflate her self esteem.  Work concerns cannot get in sideways. It is a romance novel with the company as boyfriend. In place of the normal transition, puberty swiftly followed by romance and marriage, puberty is instead followed by the job, but they act like the job is romance and marriage, rather than production of value. Used to be that women did not directly enter the male economy except as a producer within a family unit. They still don’t really enter the male economy, just go through the motions, but with the company playing the role of the family unit.

When the boss talks to a male executive, he tells him what he wants to tell him, and asks him what he wants to know. When he talks to a female executive, acts terrified. His words to his supposed subordinate are flattery, appeasement, and endless peace offerings, for which he receives no peace, like a courtier speaking to an oriental despot who might remove his head at any moment for any reason or no reason at all.   Which is why, despite hypergamy, you are apt to get more action than your boss does.

Feminizing the workplace usually does not result in turning it into a sultan’s harem, alas, turns it into a soap opera and a romance novel, one thousand pages of drama for one page of ripping her clothes off with your teeth.  More work would get done if it did turn into a sultan’s harem.

Feminism is driven by sex. They are always talking about rape and sexual harassment because they are always thinking about sex. They are not thinking about careers in engineering because they like the C language, but because the boys in engineering have a status hierarchy in which girls are at the bottom, so they want to shit test those boys by demanding equal, indeed superior, status.

The false life plan
Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.

The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.

So girls followed that plan. With the result that the male plan (get a career and what you need to support a family, and a good wife will show up) stopped working. So males stopped working. And here we are.

Girls should be taught the female life plan, in domestic science classes, and in the stories they see on television.

Women have a natural tendency to hypergamy, resulting in the mating patterns of chimps, the ghetto, and some primitive tribes. Successful civilizations come down hard against this mating pattern, which necessarily requires that they come down hard on females, the uncontrollably lustful sex, systematically treating them as in substantially greater need than men of control, protection, and protection from their own selves, treating them all as Medeas, Pandoras, and Eves. The very least we can do it tell girls that the life plan that leads to this outcome, leads to the outcomes that it does.

Of course a civilization that could tell the truth on this question, would be capable of denying the vote to inferior groups, categories, races, and individuals, so would probably be capable of applying greater control to those groups in need of greater control.

I was talking to a mother about her highly “successful” lawyerette daughter, remarking that this child had reached an age where marriage had long been unlikely, and children were now becoming unlikely. The mother was outraged at such horribly reactionary crime think. I never got around to discussing the fact her very high IQ lawyerette daughter had spent her youth, her beauty, and her fertile years fucking stony broke losers, many of them low IQ, many of them loser criminals. (Successful criminals know that politeness is cheaper than violence and you need to be particularly pleasant and respectful to police, even if violence is sometimes necessary, so successful criminals don’t clean up with girls the way dumb loser criminals on their way to jail do.) Her mother attempted to introduce her daughter to more suitable males, but her daughter complained that these males of her own economic class simply did not turn her on.

Our culture lacks the eighteenth century role model of the gentleman, the man who is polite, respectful, conventional, but still capable of deadly violence, which contributes to females despising high status as high status is measured among civilized males, for a perception of high status more appropriate among chimps or in the ghetto. They need to be taught to respect and admire the kind of male that is likely to be able and willing to marry them. Males are socially controlled to behave in a manner perceived by females as low status and feminine, so the extent that males comply with socialization, females don’t want to have sex with them. We need to adjust socialization of males to make socialized behavior more attractive, which is to say, more masculine and less feminine, and adjust socialization of females to encourage them to associate with socialized males. A broader role for private violence by the affluent and respectable in upholding order, and a lesser role for police violence in upholding order would help considerably. Hard to change the nature of females, easier to change the organization of prosocial violence for the maintenance of order, so that females come to perceive the males that they ought to be interested in as the males who will win a violent conflict.

As I remarked earlier, the female’s pussy perceives status in ways appropriate to our ancestral environment, rather than our more recent environment, and there is not a lot that can be done about this other than reduce those differences between the ancestral environment and our more recent environment that tend to mislead females. Just as we need to avoid foods that are simultaneously sweet and fatty, so we need to avoid making civilized men into eunuchs. High socioeconomic status males need to be scarier, if women are going to breed with high socioeconomic status males. Excessive repression of private violence has led to dysgenic sexual choices by women. Partly we should solve this by preventing female sexual choice, but another part of the solution is more selective and less repressive repression of violence by high socioeconomic status males. High socioeconomic status males need to be able to get away with more manly behavior, including more of the primitive behavior that females understand as manliness. In addition to stronger guidance and restraint on female sexual choice, we need less feminization of high socioeconomic status males to reduce dysgenesis driven by female choice.

Not only are females educated to follow the false life plan, males are educated to be unattractive to females. Education becomes a genetic sink, reducing the reproduction of the most highly educated males and females, not only by wasting their time during their most important reproductive years, but by teaching them behaviors that make them less likely to reproduce and more likely to fail in their attempts to reproduce. We should teach, particularly in sex education, behaviors that make them more likely to succeed in reproduction. We need manlier men and more feminine women, but especially, we need manlier men. What is needed for women is primarily to deny them their most strongly preferred sexual choices to prevent them from rewarding unproductive and anti social behavior.

Consider the reality show star Kate Gosselin, woman has eight children by a decent, reasonably attractive husband, who loves her and loves his children. Acts like a complete shrew towards the only man who will ever love her and her children. Ditches him. Is shocked to discover that no other male wants a woman past her prime and encumbered with eight children.

Kate Gosselin was videotaped continually treating her husband like dirt, as the man she reluctantly settled for seeing as all her preferred choices would not return her phone calls.

She then divorced him, depriving him of his much loved children, depriving her eight children of a much needed father, and herself of a much needed and entirely irreplaceable husband.

And I have seen a similar dynamic in every divorce that I have observed, though of course with considerably fewer children. In every divorce that I have observed the wife was utterly and spectacularly out of contact with marriage market realities. The result of the divorce is that the man, who very much did not want the divorce, was much better off, free of a hateful and unfaithful shrew, and the wife was very much worse off. As the wife goggles fell from his eyes, he usually found a considerably younger replacement.

At the age of thirty eight, with eight children and a notorious shrew, Kate Gosselin’s chances of marrying even a homeless obese seventy year old alcoholic are about equal to her chances of being kidnapped by terrorists and becoming the wife of the sultan, but she specifically requires her new husband to be rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. (Her previous husband was not rich, not six foot tall, and only ordinarily fit, which is presumably why she divorced him.)

Meanwhile her husband, Jon Gosselin, the father of her children, having lost the wife goggles, promptly got a hot twenty two year old girlfriend to replace his aging thirty eight year old wife, and if the girlfriend is lucky, might marry her. But then, having been burned once, maybe not.

The typical marriage is Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin: The wife has a hugely inflated idea of her marriage market value (based on her F-buddy market value when she was considerably younger) and this poisons the marriage.

Now theoretically, if a woman is chaste, men will only approach her that are appropriate to her marriage market value, and she will avoid getting an inflated perception of her value, but no man believes that a chaste women is likely to remain chaste, because, they are not likely to remain chaste. So a woman faces a storm of approaches that would never happen if the boys had to ask her dad before approaching her, and if her dad said yes, they would get not a date with the opportunity of physical contact, but merely the opportunity to court her for marriage. These approaches lead Kate Gosselin to believe that she is entitled to marry a six foot tall physically fit millionaire, and that life, her husband, and the male dominated society is being terribly unfair to her in not giving her what she is entitled to have.

And another of my proposed sex education videos, this one for females only, since it depicts male polygyny.

Scene: An office. A young handsome man in a business suit strides through the office, and everyone’s reaction shows that he is the boss, or very important. He guestures at an attractive thirtyish woman to follow him, and strides on without bothering to check that she is following him. Because of his long swift strides, while she is wearing a tight dress and high heeled shoes, hard for her to keep up. He arrives at the executive toilet, and furtively looks around. Then goes into the toilet. She arrives at the toilet, hesitates a moment, furtively looks around, and follows him into the executive toilet. The camera follows her into the toilet. She goes into one of the stalls, closes the door behind, and we immediately hear the sound of panties being pulled down, followed by her gasp. The camera circles around and we see above the stall door the head of the woman, and the head and shoulders of the boss, still fully dressed on the upper parts of their bodies, obviously having sex. After a bit the woman says:

“Grunt. My husband. Grunt. Is going to. Grunt. Divorce me.”

Boss bursts through the stall door fleeing her, without bothering to open the door first. The image freezes, with flying shattered parts of the stall door obscuring the view of the most vital parts of the boss and the employee. His pants are a few inches down, her skirt is up, her panties are around her thighs.

Freeze image fades, replaced by a patriarchal father figure who directly addresses the camera, explaining that men are polygynous, and will therefore have sex with women well below their sexual market value, but when they do so, one of the factors important to them is how easily they can get rid of the woman once they have finished using her. When a high value man has sex with a low value woman, he fears that she will cling.

Patriarchal father figure fades, and once again we see the toilet. Woman, now fully dressed, walks to the door, opens it, revealing the toilet symbol and an audience of office workers, presumably non executives. End video.

The purpose of the video is to inform Kate Gosselin that replacing her husband is likely to be less easy than she imagines, something that no woman is likely to learn from our present schools, movies, books and television shows.

Because male attractiveness and fertility fades far more slowly than female attractiveness and fertility, most divorces advantage the male and disadvantage the female, but most divorces are female initiated, and most females initiating divorce have expectations as unrealistic as those of Kate Gosselin. This is part of the false life plan – that females supposedly remain fertile and attractive for as long as men do, so concentrate on your career, girl, the way men do.

Tags: Jeremy Meeks
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
April 03, 2017, 02:01:01 AM
Satoshi our great NWO master:

What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

Wink

If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?

What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.



@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet.

Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away.

That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).

There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

End of story.

I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos.

P.S. thanks to all for the discussion.

No one believes you.

Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny.

Love of money, is the root of all evil.

Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful.

I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
April 02, 2017, 08:27:13 AM
My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18394149
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.



Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.

We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.

Once again you ruin your analysis by conflating morality and opportunity cost. Morality is your hammer and everything is a nail. Humans aren't doing everything they do because they are weak. They are acting rational from an opportunity cost analysis. Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of rational localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational. Morality is not a solution, because it is never absolute truth and is always manipulable as well. Gold is an inferior measure of value because for example regional distribution/control of mines is not equitable or non-manipulable (well everything fungible is manipulable as I explained in my recent mini-essay). I explained in that essay that I am working on a solution that will supercede morals and absolute values.

You are correct that voting would make Bitcoin another fiat system. But it isn't because humans are weak. It is because of the economics of voting. See my prior post.

...

Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational carried out by individuals acting in error because their frame of reference or time horizon is excessively limited.

And the only solution is to remove the constant marginal utility (i.e. non-diminishing utility of economies-of-scale) of the power of aggregate action. Morality is yet another economies-of-scale aggregate action, which is thus just as flawed as any other. Here is a real world example of winner-take-all economies-of-scale.

I am not arguing against the importance of top-down organization, and I've pointed out this distinction to you numerous times that if top-down organization doesn't have a constant marginal utility of economies-of-scale, then it is self-limiting and multiple top-down structures are in fact a decentralized structure.


I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.


The solution is the Inverse Commons.

I am designing a blockchain to enable the Inverse Commons on a much greater scale. Because Bitcoin's long-term failure mode is aggregation into one whale who controls everything (precisely as predicted in the Bible), because of the constant marginal utility of a stable reserve in finance.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
April 02, 2017, 06:12:07 AM
member
Activity: 102
Merit: 10
March 30, 2017, 01:14:05 PM
You wanted to understand money and the knowledge age.

Here is all the dark enlightenment readers will ever need. Make sure you click the link in the linked post, which will take you to my main elucidation.
I probably did not fully understand what was being said, but in our hard life, people do not need dark enlightenment. We very rarely look into our souls and therefore it is possible that the repair can absorb us.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
March 30, 2017, 11:51:04 AM
Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

I believe what Nash meant is that if there exists a deflationary currency, then the private fractional reserve issuers of long-term loans would have a problem. This is because those who demand exchange to a currency at par to the deflationary currency, demand more over time of any currency which is inflationary or less deflationary.

A deflationary decentralized currency makes private banking non-viable. My blockchain consensus design checkmates Bitcoin's, because PoW can't be deflationary, because the miners either have to be paid with minting and/or transaction fees.

Any way, private banking is going away naturally because private banking is only really viable for fixed capital loans wherein the bank can calculate NAV and cash flow reliably. The knowledge age is incompatible with such financial computations.

Checkmate on Bitcoin, MP and his $billions. I had warned him last year. His control and wealth is going away. Ditto all the banksters. They will own the death of the fixed capital investment age (i.e. industrial age and capex projects), but the knowledge age will bifurcate away from their influence. I predicted all this many years ago.

As explained above, the mathematical topological space of information is exponential vast, such that having the right answer is exponentially more valuable than having an unbounded quantity of random noise:

The end of democracy

...

Interesting that the above essay is essentially the same as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay (which predates his by a few years) in that it is pointing out how knowledge or leadership is non-fungible and how it becomes the post-industrial age economy.



not sure i was aware you were in this thread at that time. Also the dialogue gets easier when there is a collective understanding of a stable [fungible] unit of value.

Money is an information system which attempts to optimize the allocation of our perception of value, so that production is maximized.

But as I have explained and posited upthread, the demise of fungible endeavors in the knowledge age, is reducing the efficacy of fungible finance. Finance won't die overnight, but I posit an inexorable trend is underway.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
March 28, 2017, 12:48:16 PM
You wanted to understand money and the knowledge age.

Here is all the dark enlightenment readers will ever need. Make sure you click the link in the linked post, which will take you to my main elucidation.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
March 26, 2017, 06:49:36 AM
Shelby; If you would need to assess the relative seniority of me and Mircea Popescu, which criteria would you use?

Hi Risto. Please excuse my atrocious ignorance, naivete, and cluelessness w.r.t. the underworld of darkhigh finance. This is a strange new terrain for me. I feel like a child who is struggling to take his first steps without stumbling onto my face.

In particular I would really like to understand what is different if anything about your perspective/approach compared to MP's economic philosophy and assessment of the value of humanity. MP seems to think those with the most wealth should be in control of the monetary system yet he hates democracy and mass marketing because he sees those as ways of enslaving the stupid masses in a farcical, house-of-cards, debt-based economic system. Perhaps it can't be any other way? My technological approach with my attempt to find an improvement to Satoshi's design, has been to try to find a design in which nobody is in control.

So I would judge your ability to enlighten me on these issues—either in public or private communication—as the critieria.

Without publicizing any specific event, your actions indicate you are wealthy.

He wrote about you:


Quote from: zylche
What do you think about the developers frequently receiving threats by bitcoiners? Or the guild and certain developers trying to push for a centralised validation services?

Bitcointalk is a collection of mostly poor, mostly uneducated, mostly bizarre folk you wouldn't have on your lawn/daughter/whatever. The various shit they do is representative of Bitcoin in the sense Jeremiah Wright is representative of xtians or Cornel West is representative of academia. Specifically about threaths... I get threatened all the time on teh Interwebs. I've never managed to care (yes I'm aware "the FBI takes internet threats very seriously", but I've never managed to care about that, either).

People will always try to push for centralised something or the other as long as they figure they'll have more market share of the centralised thing than they do now. As various failures are pushed aside to rot into irrelevance they're certain to try and find some sympathetic ear to enforce protectionist measures for them too (que Winklewhoever doods ranting about "regulation"). That topic is best served here.

In short I don't think either are suprising or important.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
March 24, 2017, 03:55:31 PM
Deflationary crypto-currency will correspond with a change from debt-based, industrial age to investment-based, knowledge age.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
March 23, 2017, 04:23:29 PM
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
March 23, 2017, 08:27:50 AM
Pages:
Jump to: