Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 7. (Read 69319 times)

I want to go back to computer programming so I hope the recent debate in this thread has concluded. Or if there are any remaining discussions, I hope they will actually address my points and not be dismissive.

Libertarian Primary Principle is Respect for Private Property

One of the key points I've made, is that when claiming noble justification for interfering with the property of others, the statists disrupt those most invested and capable to manage the property, thus creating a power vacuum which destroys the property. I had provided the Middle East and the creation of ISIS as one example of the wake of our meddling. Another example of such private property are the children which are the property of the parents. The State is entirely incapable of managing this property and when we turn our children over to the State such as in State schools, we end up with the Millennials (and OMG they are as screwed up as a generation can be... on aspects of appreciating marriage, procreation, responsibility, self-discipline, long attention spans, hard work, etc). Into the power vacuum steps George Soros with his $billions and the SJW groups he funds to spread these Women's Marches, such as Ashley Judd's profane speech, to further pollute the minds of the aimless Millennials (thus enslaving them in SJW indoctrination and causes).


We own our children and are more than just stewards in the analogous sense that we own farm land and are not just stewards even though we don't control everything about that farmland nor will we be assured to control that land forever. If we abuse that land, it will rebel against us and we lose control. At the point the children decide to leave our tribe and disobey their parents, then they are excommunicated from the tribe and on their own in this wild, bad world. Which pretty much means they've destroyed themselves by rebelling unless of course their tribe is batshit insane, in which case they've rescued themselves (which I claim is my case as I rescued myself from my batshit insane+selfish parents and family tribe). I also think most Westerners are now batshit insane with this "we are noble" because we know what is best for you and your private property so we are going to meddle.

(I should note that my parents were not always selfish (maybe only 80-99% of the time). And not all of my family tribe was selfish. And instead of batshit insane maybe I should just say they don't have a clue about the issues I've been writing about in this thread, so perhaps we can just say they are ignorant instead of insane. And I am not blaming my parents or my family tribe. I am now responsible for my life. I've taken back 100% ownership rights in myself by now, finally casting off the God religion's ownership of my emotions.)

I know that CoinCube doesn't seem to fully appreciate (or at least he didn't seem to acknowledge this level of control the parents can potentially have) that if we parents control a whitelist and blacklist on all the stimuli of our offspring in their formative years (but obviously not controlling all the stimuli), then we have a great impact on their ideology for life. For example, he is ostensibly a product of his parents' decision to send him to (ostensibly SJW-infested, since nearly all are) private schools. His 2 degrees are a result of this decision (as well as ostensibly his hard work, personal self-discipline, and other good qualities he has striven for and achieved), as well his disrespect for private property when it involves females. So thus he doesn't believe that children actually end up the property of their parents' decisions (or by default the property of the State schools if the parents punt). But if he realized how much control the parents actually have if they want to, then he might have an inkling that the kids really don't independently choose their future (although the genetic makeup of the child and the reaction to stimuli does formulate the resultant amalgam), the parents do (or by default George Soros does if the parents punt). The parents will still have to work within the genetic makeup of the child, and manage the property to its best utility as one would do with any form of property such as farm land which has certain naturals characteristics. And this is why I say I think it is so critical for a tribe to be able to excommunicate those aberrant members, because if the tribe becomes dysfunctional then the potentially conformant children have an incentive to rebel.

And yeah that makes me angry. I didn't ask for this war. You all are the ones who are meddling and disrespecting the private property of others. You all are creating the war. Stop it! Or face the consequences.

(Massive suffering and struggles in my life are embodied up in the damage feminism, irresponsible parents, and SJWs have done to my tribe and life, so yeah while I am recovering from TB and feeling like shit and realizing I wouldn't even be in the Philippines had my tribe and country not so alienated me because I refused to conform to the SJW meddling, leftist groupthink. However I own my own decisions and mistakes.)

What is the alternative? If we don't manage our property well, it is a power vacuum and George Soros will come squat on our property and corrupt it to his control.

Note miscreanity seemed to feel that most youth will rebel at some point and most will return to their tribe. Well you'd want that with the males. You want them to be fighters and to think independently, and for them to go out into the world and realize their tribe is the best. But for the females, remember females are easily destroyed in a FALSE LIFE PLAN and otherwise emotionally destroyed (look my sister is dead because she couldn't handle our family tribe's destruction of her emotional stability but being male I survived thus far). They only have a very limited time to reproduce and they need to be focused on it. So the parents have a duty to protect the females from that which can destroy them. That is what is really noble IN FACT.

But really why would the males rebel if they are in the most competitively successful tribe that gives them everything they could possibly want from a tribe? I think males defect when the pitiful tribe sucks such as the socialist hell of the Western nations. And where the strongest males are, the females will follow. So really I think I understand damn well how to compete and obliterate these other cultural evolutionary strategies, but the question is at age 52 do I want to? Do I have enough youth and energy remaining?


P.S. If SJWs were even clued in they'd stop worrying about bad parents and meddling in the private affairs of others, and worry more about the elephant in their Millennials dorm room:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/student-loan-petition-to-white-house/

The first video states, "if God doesn't exist, then there is no 'evil'".

The point being claimed is that if the categorization of evil is open to differing opinions, then evil is not objective and thus doesn't exist. And that the only way evil can be objective is if there is a God to define evil.

For example, I can claim the SJWs are evil because they are creating a power vacuum of self-destruction. But since that outcome is a natural result of human nature, others might argue it is not evil, just natural.

Fundamentally the argument being made is that nature is subordinate to God. And underlying this is an emotional need of the believer that there is something noble or grand plan or heaven at the end of the rainbow and not just this callous nature of winners and losers.

And it is precisely that emotional need which I claim is the addiction and delusion that drives religion.

As I said, I posit I understand CoinCube's position better than he understands his own psychology.  Because I had to reason my way out of that delusion and addiction. So I learned to analyze why I was drawn to it. It was a form of comfort, when I didn't like the natural results I was getting in my life. It can also be a way of handling guilt for being happy and successful when others are not.

The video then employs hyperbole to try to make its case. For example, it says that if evil is subjective then cannibalism is rational as a form of a strong animal. But a strong animal wouldn't eat its own, because it would incur mutual self-destruction. Lions don't eat other lions. Humans have big brains and understand they must work together to maximize their resilience.


Then the video goes into more simplistic nonsense about how evil wells up from inside of us and this is what causes wars. Whereas, real evil such as SJWs hating nature and wanting to create utopia is what causes power vacuums that lead to wars. The problem isn't due to that the evil spontaneously welled up, but that the SJW doesn't understand his/her own mistake about reality.

It claims that suffering (i.e. winners and losers) is necessary to have a relationship with God, when there is a simpler reason it is necessary because winners need to be rewarded and losers need to be penalized so that nature anneals to fitness and resilience.

The video then spirals off into how we can't use our big brains to learn, adapt, and become more resilient, and instead we need to be dependent on God and accept our failure as an offering to God (very pagan I say). It is just the pagan ritual sacrifices reconstituted in a slightly obfuscated meme.

The video then goes into selfishness as being evil. Just as how the capitalist does not have constant marginal utility of wealth (i.e. the more wealth they have, the less rapidly they can grow the wealth and the more difficult it becomes to defend the wealth), selfishness is rational only to the point where it is irrational. There is a natural balance and our big brains can compute this without any need for God to tell us to be unselfish.


Btw, when I was attempting to be a born-again Christian, I would reason to myself that if I didn't have to trust an unfalsifiable God, then there would be no risk in being a God believer and thus no reward should be expected in the absence of risk. Thus for reward to exist, I reasoned risk had to be present. That for me was more rational argument than the one being presented above. Nevertheless, I have decided it isn't rational because we don't prove an affirmative with a negative. An incalculable and inestimable risk is never a reasonable reward, i.e. the commensurate reward is indeterminate.

Religious people think they have a noble duty to change others. I only believe I need to challenge your views, and then let everyone (readers, you, and myself) decide for themselves.

So just from that, I posit I understand your position better than you do.

I have not wanted to demonize anyone for their choice of religion, except when it crosses the line from being a non-confrontational, personal belief system into "noble" confrontational politics that wants to deprive me of my natural diversity and independence (e.g. as a man), i.e. when it becomes a culture war and especially when the opposing viewpoint is implying I am deplorable being against what is "noble".


I've been wanting unload on SJWs and know-it-all American cultural police mayonnaise spreaders, in a way that makes the difference in ideology very concrete for those willing to read carefully and think deeply. Apparently you just took the brunt of my exhale.

Sometimes words shared in open source are more powerful than a gun. So this isn't drama. Also you might consider that I am putting my ideology out there so men that agree with me, might be inspired to be involved with software projects I am working on. I am simultaneously doing promotion of myself and genuinely so from my true thoughts and ideology.

Of course I realize many others might disagree with me, but I feel that being genuine is necessary for me to have the trust and reputation with strong men. And I think strong men are the successful men. So that is the demographics I need to focus on.

The only way it could not be, is if you could prove it is a testable truth. But of course you can't, because God will forever be unfalsifiable. I had already refuted you when you tried to link God to health and other benefits and explained the benefits could be due to the control over defection which concludes nothing about whether God truth appendage is valid.


I didn't disagree that religion is a form of top-down control.

I reject that I have to agree that God is true or that God being true has anything to do with why religion achieves some of the benefits of top-down control over defection (and also some of the defects of it being an otherwise irrational faith mind control).

Afaics, you are still stuck emotionally on needing for their to be absolute moral truths that are "noble" fixes for what you hate about nature. Sorry IMO you are just deluding yourself, creating power vacuums with Frankenstein outcomes... And thus not understanding what I am writing:

---

I am just claiming nature is truth. Morals appear to a nebulous, mind control lie that man created. Ethics based on falsifiable outcomes of best adaptation would apparently be a rational field of study. In other words, if a company has a code of conduct based on measurable outcomes that increase its success, I would consider that to be rational.

Morals as values not based on rational assessment of outcomes enables Frankenstein outcomes such as how SJWs are patting themselves on the back while they leave power vacuums in their wake and sending society into an intense phase of creative destruction in Stage #5.


Huh   I have written numerous times (mostly in private to you and others) that I wish to leave the Philippines at my soonest opportunity to do so. I keep mentioning how it is dangerous to stay here given 70+% of the population has a LTBI (latent TB infection) and thus my risk of reinfection is unacceptably high (given the medications might not work the next time I am infected). I don't want to play Russian roulette with my life. I've suffered enough!

I am not going to rally any men. I have stated I hope there are a few strong men out there who will be interested in the ideas presented. It doesn't mean I want to be involved with them or organize anything with other men. If anything, I wouldn't involve with other men who have their own values from their formative years. I am not about to try to get into indoctrination and re-education of adults (indoctrination of children is always done, so much better it be done by the parents than the SJWs and the State). I would at most do something if I had more offspring and I have told you numerous times that I probably will do nothing about more offspring because I am coming 52 this June.

I told you and others that I recently decided to make this a priority issue of discussion because I have to make a decision whether to give my 27 year old gf a child or not. And I am heavily leaning towards not, but at least I want to understand what I would require if I did. And this is all part of my analysis of whether she would be fit to my requirements for making a family again.

And again I think not. I don't want teenage kids when I am 70.

But I am open sourcing my thoughts.


I already told you upthread that I am not focused on eliminating women's suffrage at the governance level.

I would rather be focused on what the women I am involved with actually do. I made an upthread post explaining to you that I would also leave it up to the self-directed autodidact choices of each individual offspring as to what was best fit to them as a person.

But in terms of forming a community, it would have to be built via the offspring, not from an existing pool of adults. It is clear it would require a multi-generational strategy and I mentioned this upthread.

You are just not comprehending all my comments holistically. You are forgetting many things I've written. You apparently need it all compacted into one essay so you can read it over and over and assimilate all the points holistically.


Of course, I see a lot of challenges to establishing a new cultural strategy.

But doing things the easy way is not acceptable to me if the easy way is failure directed.

As I said, I'll probably choose to just focus on my career and intellectual stimulation and not burden myself with such a grand challenge at too late of an age.

I have done my very best to share and explain my views. I have clearly failed not only in changing your views but also in facilitating even a basic understanding of my position.

Unfortunately I have exhausted the time I can afford to invest in this.
I am sorry I failed to help you.

You have not.

For example, you have not responded to the point about how your "noble" ideology creates a power vacuum.


You haven't even demonstrated that you've understood what I have written. When you don't understand the significance of items that you read, it can point to lack of comprehension (haven't you ever noted that when reading a research paper and not understanding the significance of a sentence then later realizing it was why you ended up not understanding the paper)

Am I supposed to apologize because it is intellectually over your head?

By your own admission, it apparently took you a long time to overcome your preconceptions and understand my "Rise of Knowledge" essay, which was very carefully written.

Any way, I see you are giving up.

Blaming your laziness and/or slow mind on my illness is asinine.

It actually requires commensurate effort on your part, to the effort I put into writing all these comments in this thread over the past days.

I have responded to all of the interesting points you have raised. Your writings lately have been atypically incoherent and rambling presumably due to your illness so I have tried to keep my replies brief and to the point.

You seem to be spending a lot of effort trying to psychoanalyze my motivations. Perhaps you would be better served focusing on the logic of my arguments? My reasoning can be found in the links below.

I acknowledge that I could be mistaken but my position is undeniably rational. Your inability to acknowledge that tells me that you either do not understand my argument or are unwilling or unable objectivity consider it.

The Foundations of Contentionism:
Cycles of Contention
The Rise of Knowledge
Entropy is Information
The Math of Optimal Fitness
The Limits of Science
Religion and Progress
The Nature of Freedom
The Beginning of Wisdom
Morality and Sin
Knowledge, Entropy and Freedom

Two of your older writings are included in the links above. These works are among those that helped me to reach the conclusion I have. I truly hope you make a speedy rapid and full recovery.

Perhaps try watching what was linked to (the link was added after you quoted it).

You think you were rational (this is a common pattern of delusion and all addictions), but first of all my analysis (logic and thus opinion) is that "agnostic" was the same SJW (diversity devouring, power vacuum creating) religion/ideology/worldview you are following now. You've just adapted your desire for power vacuums to a God religion to make yourself feel more noble and honorable, but you actually ignore all the falsifiable facts. How rational is that?

Obviously you were agnostic because you felt that by being "objective" about social issues (as SJWs in academic settings preach that they are), you were being the most noble and honorable. But then you started to notice some inconsistencies, so you tried to correct those by switching over to the God religion.

The common theme is refusing to honor nature and creating power vacuums under the illusion of noble achievements.

Afaics, there is no logic involved in your decision other than finding a way to continue the SJW indoctrination that you were ostensibly mind controlled and enslaved with in your formative years of SJW education. You haven't responded to any of the falsifiable facts.

I was under the delusions too. I understand first-hand how powerful they are. But I didn't have a very firm indoctrination as a child. I avoided being subjected to what other people wanted me to think. Later in life I tried to find stability and comfort by embracing for example what I felt my beloved grandfather believed. But I didn't have the indoctrination to overcome that you've apparently been subjected to. So you serve as evidence of my thesis herein that we can't really choose our philosophy in most cases as it is decided for us in our formative years. And thus I think (my opinion) I understand why it will be nearly impossible for you to not be mind controlled and not be enslaved. An opinion is not a statement of fact. It is an argument. I think my logic is sound. I haven't yet seen someone refute my logic in this thread.

I don't hate you for your predicament. I just get angry at SJWs for using the State as a proxy to destroy my diversity (but they will reap what they have sown over the next couple or several decades in Stage #5). It is war and I have to fight and make it to Stage #6. And also because they think they are so noble and honorable, and they look at others as so deplorable. So of course doesn't it make you angry if someone accuses you (even passive aggressively by implication) of being a deplorable when you think they are also hypocrites?

And btw not that it matters, but the 19th Amendment is the bastardized country, not the Constitution. The forefathers did have have 19th amendment in our Constitution. And the amendment was achieved via corruption of the original Constitution, culture, values, etc.., not by a legitimate adherence to it. Our forefathers were not that stupid. The mistake of our forefather is thinking that any large scale system of governance could remain resilient. I am convinced that any stable group strategy must have the ability to cast off conflicting members rather than compromise. That doesn't mean it is resilient against all threats, but that it remains stable until it dies due to lack of fitness and inability to change. And with enough variants of such stable group strategies, then the species remains resilient. And this is I think were we are headed for Stage #6. The nation-state was necessary for aggregating capital for the Industrial Age, but it has lost is reason to exist. And btw, this is why when Armstrong mentioned the USA would break up, it immediately seemed plausible to me.

My life experience has been one of being subjected to the realities of nature. So it is not surprising that is the ideology that comes naturally to me. As I have explained honestly and without malice to miscreanity, I really tried to find rationality in the God religion. And I have already explained in great detail upthread why it fails rationality from my perspective.

For me it feels good enough to know that the human species is diverse and that we are all out there trying to find the best strategy for fostering the optimum progression towards higher levels of entropy. Within that, we can find the justification for love and empathy. I don't need to go controlling everyone else (but maybe I need to control my but not your offspring) and destroying diversity in order to feel good about the reality of nature. It seems most other humans today just don't feel comfortable without some grand accomplishments such as "absolute independence and freedom for every human" (which is of course is egalitarian, a uniform distribution, static, and thus absolutely impossible).

@CoinCube, the reason we've gotten such a bad feeling going on between us now, is because of your insistence of using the State to interfere with other people's children. I find that to be deplorable. Sorry to say. You say it is the Constitution, but I don't care if it is the Bible. It doesn't mean I have to like what I think is wrong and deplorable. (and I don't think the Constitution says anything about having social workers fucking with other people's children and mandated SJW-infested State schools, etc....)

Again I respect @Winter's point that we shouldn't demonize the person, and instead have good arguments. I have presented my arguments. Yet when you tell me "this is the Constitution, take it or leave it". And "I will fight" for the right to use the State to interfere with the children of others and otherwise imply I am a deplorable because I am not "noble" to protect women and children from nature, I will get angry yes. Because it is disingenuous for the reasons I have explained.

The videos provided by miscreanity are quite good and I recommend people following this discussion watch them.

Actually that's exactly what I am claiming at least for myself. I can only speak for my choice not the choice and motivations of others. When my children come of age I intend to tell them why I made the choice I did. Why I was an agnostic for most of my adult life and why I ultimately changed my mind. I have reached my decision via a rational and independent assessment and feel it is absolutely the most logical choice to make. Ultimately it will be up to my children to make their own choices as they come of age and I will encourage them to do so.

I understand what you wrote I simply disagree with it.

We disagree on what constitutes ultimate truth. Within your framework of entropy we also disagree on what is necessary to maximize entropy.

No.

Please re-read what I wrote and TRY to understand it.


You obviously do not understand what I am writing.

Self-actualization has nothing do with dependent variables, i.e. if we could self-actuate it then it wouldn't be a dependency and the entropy would be higher (as for example why statistically very few escape from their formative years of indoctrination by which ever religion or cultural mechanism is in place in that person's upbringing). If religion and other means of cultural indoctrination were as open to self-actualization as if they did not exist, then they wouldn't be effective (and society would devolve in random noise which is why we can't move directly to infinite entropy!). Certainly you can't argue that people are choosing God religion based on a rational, independent assessment. You are playing semantic games and I am using math. Please go remember what an independent variable is in relationship to the equation of entropy. Please stop conflating qualitative subjective opinions about physical slavery and my objective analysis of the mathematical independence of the actors.

You like other SJWs want to paint some special significance to a particular manifestation of dependency (i.e. control) and say "this is slavery and we ended it", as some smug accomplishment. And I am pointing out that some form of dependent control is always involved, thus slavery is always present. You want to paint some subjective significance to some arbitrary manifestation of dependent control. Go on lying to yourself to appease your emotions (a manifestation of your enslavement and non-objectivity), but it isn't a rational and objective assessment.


I have accurately conveyed the concepts. But unfortunately I can't force someone to comprehend what is written.


Edit: as I had explained, I observe SJWs justifying their destruction of diversity of control and promotion of a power vacuum (i.e. how you for example apparently feel so good+smug about using the State as a proxy to fuck with other tribe's women and children) by claiming they have eliminated slavery and bettered humankind and society, when in fact they are lying to themselves. Physical slavery was economically necessary until it became unnecessary due to technology. The power vacuums being created and the destruction of diversity is unsustainable and Stage #4 will collapse into Stage #5, which will be payback time and then your smug, dysfunctional, and increasingly ignored Constitution will collapse into dust.




And I advise you to make sure your cult doesn't require the control over other cult's women and children, if your cult intends to survive into Stage #6.

Because the State proxy by which you pound diversity to death and appease your unrealistic emotions is going away folks...kiss it goodbye...

SJWs are worried about everything except reality and being adaptable. There is nothing wrong with nature, the people are fucked.

What you are describing here is a failure of potential or a limitation of self-actualisation.

Using the word slavery is a particularly poor choice of wording as it implies and absolute and fixed limitation on freedom rather then a gradual increase in self-actualisation over time.

Is this conversation so threatening or what you feel to be the definitional errors of others so infuriating that you feel compelled to sacrifice communication in the name of rhetoric? Is it not better to simply point out what you feel to be the errors of others and use wording that accurately conveys the concepts you are trying to convey?


I see so let me see if I understand your perspective. You feel that by accepting God as true and by accepting religion as a mechanism for optimising cooperation and health I am joining a philosophical cult?

You acknowledge that some kind of philosophical cult is a requirement for all individuals (each with its own top-down control and organization) but but you reject the religious explanation because of it's claim of moral truth?

In its place you promote the cult of maximizing entropy which you claim is moral truth.

From this truth you hope to rally a group of like minded atheist white men in the Philippines and form a cooperative and vibrant community where men are strong and control their women. You oppose coercion and do not feel force should be used to compel women to join or stay in your community. You believe women will voluntarily rush to give up their emancipation and join your community as the attraction of a true community of strong men will be overwhelming?

Do you foresee potential problems establishing your new community?

Why Stage #5 will be so destructive:


The universal surveillance is going to be massive corruption that takes the world down into the depths of chaos.

I've been defining it more broadly (<--- click this link!) as an inability to effectively have freewill due to a loss of independent control over one's choices.

Making choices which do not achieve premeditated goals is not a causal (and thus not an independent) relationship and the person is not in control. Making choices which achieve goals, but those goals were coerced or driven by mind control is not being in control. By control, I mean in an entropy equation, where the potential outcomes are independent.

I am choosing to use the term slavery, because SJWs abuse the term to incorrectly claim that they have achieved the elimination of slavery.


For example, the subsidization of Basic Income is not taking away control from a person any more than myself breathing air does (they are both resources). The existence of Basic Income may have ramifications that reduce freewill, but it is not a direct form of slavery.


As I already stated, your apparent bias to want to frame everything in terms of the importance of non-existent absolutely true morals (from my perspective my opinion that is a manifestation of your lack of freewill because you are enslaved in God religion delusion), leads you to put entries on the table which I assert are irrational, incorrect, and myopic.

I have tried to explain on this page why the noble morals that people claim are really Stepford Wives delusions, e.g. the power vacuums that do-gooder Westerners leave in their wake.


How many times have I told you both publicly and in private messages that top-down control doesn't mean there is only one top authority. A diversification of cults each with their own top-down control, is consistent. Never do we have in the universe a falsifiable example of a single top-down authority for any phenomenon. Even you noted that religions are not all the same.

Btw, I applauded your introduction of contentionism. You really show the mathematical principle (supported by examples from evolutionary biology) of why we must have some slavery. We can't go directly to infinite entropy although entropy remains unbounded in unbounded spacetime, as we'd lose all information and life and cease to exist (and I have even expounded to explain why future and past would become undifferentiated without any such friction). So it isn't a mystery why slavery must always exist. It is a feature of the ability to exist. Just as we must have some friction in order to have a quantifiable speed-of-light.


Afaics, the only absolute and thus noble goal is to adapt to maximize the increase in entropy in the universe.

Within that we may be able to find harmony with human relations and the physiological phenomenon of love.

I think we humans instinctively know that we require slavery and top-down control, and thus we prefer to choose what we think are loving and empathetic forms of control, e.g. religion and the "caring" socialist State. But I was never able to rationally convince myself of a fatherly idol called God or of the caring nature of the entity that has a monopoly on violence (Weber's definition of the State). Here is an example of @CoinCube irrationally lying to his own SJW-enslaved emotions:


It is none of your business that other parents choose to do with their bodies and their children. If you choose to make it your business, then you enslave yourselves in SJW slavery. If you want to conquer their culture, then go kill them all and/or take their women and children as your own. Otherwise you are just using the State and SJW-activism as a proxy for creating a power vacuum.


FTFY. I had already replied to that Bruce Charlton thesis.

And I explained my stance to @micreanity that religion is just another form of parental/tribe coercion and control over the freewill of sheepeople.

Religion derives its P2P spread and power of coercion due to the importance of our adaption to the Dunbar limit and the priorities we place on those relationships. That the religion virus spreads throughout the population is orthogonal to the mechanism by which religion is empowered.

If we want to destroy the importance of those relationships within our Dunbar limit, then we need to replace that structure of control with another power structure, else we will have a power vacuum as we do which is an infanticide, society-wide brothel that I assert will completely collapse in Stage #5 with the Millennials generation. The Millennials are entirely enslaved in the following linked effects of the ideology the boomers embraced:


My Gen X tried to hold on to the culture of our grandparents, but the Millennials (who didn't know our Gen X grandparents) will take us over the cliff into Stage #5.

---

Edit: I archived this entire thread and I noticed someone else has also been archiving it (last was Feb 2):

https://web.archive.org/web/20170215012700/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.0;all

Of course not all religions are the same

A Tale Of Two Talks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/tale-two-talks-reality-free-speech-america

Are we defining slavery here as top-down control? If that is the case each column of the the original table had a form of slavery too. What exactly do you feel is inaccurate in the original table and why? Also it would help if you would provide your definition of slavery.  

As we discussed in The Math of Optimal Fitness top-down control can never be entirely avoided. Thus the only choice we have is the type and nature of of top-down control we function under. Here we again see the the importance of a universal superstructure or framework as the essential foundation that maximizes freedom. Rejecting all top-down authority does not gain you freedom it simply dooms you to more top-down control and ultimately less freedom.


I agree we want to be something we have yet to become. We seek a march to noble virtues. At some basic level we recognize that we are flawed and seek spiritual growth and ultimately spiritual purity.  

Religion goes far beyond relatives and Dunbar limits. It is the primary mechanism of bottom-up spontaneous accretive cooperation. As I covered previously Religion is the proximate method of Group Selection in humans.

I don't understand this at all. In addition to artificial procreation, someone still has to invest 18+ years to nurture and develop the infant to adulthood.

To clarify one of the points of my prior comment, we Westerners somehow think we can usurp the existing parents or system (e.g. Islam) ignoring the fact that we are usurping individuals who were invested in the action, and we replace it with nothing but a power vacuum. This is the case both in individual examples of the State and social workers messing with families, and in the Middle East where afaik we carved up a region and assigned country boundaries which made no sense in terms of tribal and religious boundaries. We have left so much destruction in our wake in the Middle East, creating ISIS, so much collateral damage to 1000s if not millions of women and children. Worse yet, is the power vacuum we've left in our wake which will lead to millions of abused/trafficked women and children.

Even the State usurping the parents via the mandatory State schools and leave in the wake of the SJW indoctrination a power vacuum wherein the parents have absolutely no control over their kids and they run amok and the family concept is obliterated. Fathers can't even beat their kids any more, when it is really necessary. I remember my ex got so pissed off at me some 6 or more years ago bcz she said my kids feared my discipline (which was a good thing and actually the kids were just trying to find a way weasel out of being self-disciplined and were playing their mother like a fiddle), so I stopped being a disciplinarian. And now look what happens. My son comes here and I try my best to be close and encourage him to do good, and [redacted because I can't write personal stuff about others in public]. I should beat the shit out of him, for being such an undisciplined dumb ass, but nooooo I dare not do anything. Shut my mouth and watch him self-destruct. Yeah good job Westerners! Just keep going the direction you are...yeah you don't do evil. Your God authority makes you so good. Spreading the democracy power vacuum all over the world for the sake of women and children and God  

We Westerners are notorious for running around the world and telling everyone else how to run their own lives. But then all we do is talk and destroy stuff and we don't actually build anything and get involved on a personal level any more.

If you really are serious about usurping other parents and cultures/religions, then go all in and adopt ever single one of the kids and spend the rest of your life married to all of the women as a polygamist.

It is that sort of hypocrite crap that makes me hate Westerners.

They've always got to stick their nose in everybody else's business, even when they claim to be anarchists and they still can't stop themselves from being responsible for the morals and choices of others, yet it is so convenient to do it from their armchairs when they don't really have to actually follow through and not leave a power vacuum in the wake of their stinking brown noses.


The America I admired was the isolationist John Wayne, Wild West independent man and family stereotype. I don't know to what extent that ever really existed, but that is my personal archetype.

Afaics, we don't choose. I observe we are indoctrinated into it as a child and afaics the reason it works for repressing women and keeping their fertility high is because of the groupwise social coercion inertia aspect of it.

I'm sure you know how difficult it is to go entirely against ALL of your own relatives (and nearly impossible for a woman solo!). We do that now to some extent because the State has become our guardian, but to go complete off on your own PERMANENTLY abandoning all of your relatives and having nothing else is only something a very few people (such as perhaps Jesus and myself) have done.

We seem to want to convince ourselves that we don't do slavery and mind control, because we want to think ourselves as not bound to certain damned facts. It as if we humans can't accept our human nature. I think we are embarrassed by what we are. We want to be something we are not, some march to noble virtues. I guess we don't want to think of ourselves as animals with primitive instincts.


Well adapted to what? What metrics are you measuring adaption to? The unknown future?

Maybe you mean they aren't infected with a monolithic mayonnaise of being subjected to the cultural torture of SJW-infested State schools.


My idea is the State exists to manage power structure between those who are not relatives and exceed our Dunbar limit. The State was necessary to optimize Stage #3 and #4, but now heading for Stage #6 it appears to be losing its raison d'être. Religion and local culture exist to organize the relatives and tribe that fit within the Dunbar limit. In short, top-down versus bottom-up organization.

Religion can thus spread like a virus P2P; whereas, a State spreads only by top-down conquest. However, religion and culture boundaries can provide natural boundaries for States, because States function as cohesive entities (and attempts to organize States which straddle these natural bottom-up boundaries are not stable and require much force to sustain, e.g. Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Middle East).

Our discussion is now starting to dovetail with the discussions in the Economics Devastation thread and other threads CoinCube has started.


Note how all the Stages on CoinCube's table (as edited as I proposed) all have a form of slavery.

My thought is that women can't change their hormones and thus can't change their nature. Many women may already understand these damned facts. It doesn't mean they can change their nature, just because they understand it. Remember women are found of saying "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". We men may understand our own nature, but it doesn't mean we want to or even could or should change our nature. I am not trying to change my nature, but rather understand how to harmonize my nature with maximum adaption.

Men only seem to learn how to handle themselves with age and experience (certainly in my case!), which is apparently well matched to the fact that older men are a better procreation and stability marriage match for younger women (I didn't write romantic match since that Hollywood nonsense is apparently a source of maladaption in our society now). Also violence/risk taking in youth probably (statistically) filters out the strongest/best adapted men.

Note my observation is women don't learn to handle themselves as they age. They lose the reproduction drivers, but in my observations (which may not be a representative sample) they retain the need for drama all the way through their lives. Men don't lose their underlying nature, but their experience and thoughts overpower their declining testosterone.

These damned facts we are discussing here, have apparently been known for 1000s of years. I strongly doubt young men are going to become wiser than they were in the past. Some cultures may become better adapted to the teaching and maximizing the rate of acquisition of wisdom and/or minimizing the defection/failure rate.


Why does a man need to submit to an authority to have both empathy and the experience of what is necessary for cultural evolutionary success?

I submit that I have never submitted to an authority (I might have faked it or temporarily acceded but that isn't submission). And I hope by now, I am learning to understand very well women and their situation and what I need to do to maximize their success (as I perceive it per my writings herein).

I wonder if a man who thinks he needs an authority to control him, hasn't really admitted the evil he has done? When I got in touch with my own evil, it horrifies me. For example, I have been harsh on CoinCube, and I think part of the reason is I want him to get in touch with his own evil instead of thinking that he has avoided it because he submitted to an authority. Submitting to an authority can be horrifically evil. I think if we aren't horrified with our own evil, then we are probably not close to seeking wisdom.

The Stepford Wives thought everything was hunky dory.

Hey but I would caution readers to remember I might be insane and my kalfkaesque life and mental state might resemble a Franz Kafka hallucination. Seems he and I shared an ailment:



Edit: I don't think I agree with this concept that we need to rescue or protect the women and children which are not our own wives or own offspring. It is none of my business what other people are doing. If I for example want to take over, I can go conquer and take those women and children as my own and then take responsibility. But I don't agree with using the State as my proxy to do a personal responsibility that I am unable and/or unwilling to do. That is Frankenstein outcomes chickenshit cucking. Family and gender relations are a personal or tribal matter. I say to Eric Raymond, that if you don't like Islam, then you go over there with your gun and do something, but don't advocate using my tax dollars (i.e. USA military) to fight for your bleeding heart. I have no business fucking with those other people and their system. They have their culture of slavery and we have ours. Eric appears to want the defection, infanticide society-wide brothel form of slavery to be enforced everywhere. Hypocrite.