Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 9. (Read 69297 times)

Only perhaps the Mormons have managed to keep their women sufficiently repressed to keep all the key metrics up in the high 90th percentiles as per my grandparents' culture and generation.

...

Just because we basically force our white women to get a college education...

I would say I was trying to figure out what I was doing wrong that was causing harm to the world and trying to figure out how the world could be headed towards good, because mostly all I was seeing around me was evil or failure (and this depressing perspective also contributed to my rigor mortis). But the rules didn't seem to help resolve any of that (and rendered even me more powerless and incapacitated). It was also to fulfill a love and respect for my beloved grandfather who said Jesus was the granite he stood on when everything else was sinking sand (product of familycide divorced hippie boomers and running away to the clusterfuck of severe poverty and feral disintegration into a brothel as JAD alludes, etc, etc). After his death in 1996, I taped that leaflet from his funeral on the wall above my computer screen, because I was knee deep in sinking sand all around me. But you know, I continued to sink and by January 2017, I was up to my lips in sinking sand and about to suffocate.

What I see now is that my grandfather actually failed miserably with his offspring (actually I knew that when I was 15 but nobody would let me say it and they always told me to understand my parents ... how many times are we supposed to understand people who are not even trying to change? which brings up back to the point of helping people who aren't trying to figure it out which is I am also sure is how they viewed me but it also how I viewed them!). So as much as I admire him, I now realize he failed. And as I told CoinCube in private several weeks ago, I don't want to end up a statistic (of how males fail in life, if they lacked a father around) so I am fighting back NOW with my mind.

Ignoring natural laws and reality wasn't working. Sorry. God and "love" was a way to become less detached with the hard realities and hard decisions that should have been made and instead were allowed to fester in this nebulous delusion.

God will remain unfalsifiable.

Well expressed. Thank you.

Why can't I believe we are all part of holistic system (obviously we are) without the necessity of believing that a fatherly figure has it all under management? Why does the unfalsiable God idol have to enter the picture? That fatherly God certainly didn't have it figured out in my case and I don't want to hear that BS again about how he was testing me and how all the stupid decisions were part of my destiny, etc.. That is encouraging me to continue to fail in some nebulous concept instead of using my brain to figure it out.

What specific experience do you feel I might ignore that is in the Bible if I don't submit to this supernatural, metaphysical father figure?

And in particular, I want CoinCube to read this one:

http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-reason-that-women-need-to-be-subordinated-for-successful-reproduction/
http://blog.jim.com/science/falling-testosterone/

Yes the world was different in the past especially prior to WW2. In those days higher education in women was not associated with higher marriage rates and very few women pursued higher education.

However, we are talking about the world of today are we not?

Today more women than men pursue higher education and such education is associated both with an increased chance of marriage and with a higher probability of that marriage lasting.

This is one of your "damned facts"

This particular fact is at at odds with your current worldview that women should not be educated so I am not surprised to see you reject it.

On the spot you you have developed a new rationalization calling this fact a "temporal reactionary aberration". You have presented no data to support your theory that this is temporary. Indeed a look over the last ten years shows the divergence is growing and the marriage percentage of educated women is increasing and decoupling from that of the uneducated.



(Note the chart above covers a period of over 45 years and thus includes more than one generation)

People are waiting longer to get married and so more single twentysomethings in Generation Y will go on to marry in their 30s than in previous generations. Today, 5% of men and 10% of women aged 25 are married, compared to 60% of men and 80% of women 44 years ago.

Most of the Baby Boomer generation married at some stage, with 87% of men and 92% of women tying the knot at least once. But husbands and wives are expected to become a minority, making up 41% of the population, by 2031. The fastest growing group will be those who remain single, and analysis by the Marriage Foundation, using the latest Office for National Statistics data, suggests that only half of today’s 20-year-olds will ever marry—52% of men and 53% of women.

Generation Y’s attitude to marriage is shaped by their parents, the Baby Boomers, who gave marriage a bad name with their divorce-happy habits.

Here are the facts:

* According to the U.S. Census Bureau there has been a significant increase in the number of women who have never been married, particularly in the 20-34 age bracket (Millennial women.)

* A survey of Gen Y women revealed that 59% feel that “living together” is a legitimate lifestyle and a majority said it is okay to remain unmarried even if they have children.

Here are a few additional facts that may appear to be unrelated to marriage and our changing ideas of what constitutes normal and/or healthy family units:

* 37% of 18-29 year-olds have been unemployed or under-employed during the recession.

* More than 1 in 3 young workers say they are living with their parents.

* Only 58% of Millennials say they pay their bills on time.

* Only 21% of Millennials say they are married, (half the percentage as their parent’s generation at the same age.)

We may be witnessing the unbundling of love and sex.

It was a recent visit to Wal-Mart that started me thinking about the idea of unbundling sex and love.  Boomers and the pill started it but Gen Y seems determined to finish the job.  What Boomer could have imagined a product bundle of lubricant, condoms, and discount movie tickets? (Trust me…I saw it on the shelf!)

Public disenchantment with marriage is reflected in national surveys. Half of American adults believe society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children, according to the recent Pew report.

And opinions on this issue differ sharply by age — with young adults much more likely than older adults to say society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children. Fully two-thirds of those ages 18 to 29 (67 percent) express this viewpoint, as do 53 percent of those ages 30 to 49. Among those ages 50 and older, most (55 percent) say society is better off if people make marriage and children a priority, Pew found.

Asians are marrying later, and less, than in the past. This has profound implications for women, traditional family life and Asian politics

WITH her filmy polka-dot dress, huge sunglasses and career as a psychologist, Yi Zoe Hou of Taiwan might seem likely to be besieged by suitors. Yet, at 35, she is well past Taiwan's unspoken marriage deadline. “It's a global village,” she shrugs. “If I can't find a Taiwanese guy that accepts my age, I can find another man somewhere else.” Maybe—but since she still wants children, Ms Hou is also wondering whether to use a sperm bank or ask a male friend to be a sperm donor. She represents a new world of family life for Asians.

Well expressed. Thank you.

Why can't I believe we are all part of holistic system (obviously we are) without the necessity of believing that a fatherly figure has it all under management? Why does the unfalsiable God idol have to enter the picture? That fatherly God certainly didn't have it figured out in my case and I don't want to hear that BS again about how he was testing me and how all the stupid decisions were part of my destiny, etc.. That is encouraging me to continue to fail in some nebulous concept instead of using my brain to figure it out.

What specific experience do you feel I might ignore that is in the Bible if I don't submit to this supernatural, metaphysical father figure?

Digging to the full report:


And additionally note that even though my X generation has improved the relative ratios for marriage between educated and non-educated (which I've hypothesized is a temporal reactionary aberration, and no data has been offered to refute my hypothesis), our rate of marriage is still much less than it was for non-educated before 1950, so this supports my point that we are losing the cultural war.

Might I ask elaboration on your attempt to embrace Christianity? What did you try to do, how did you try it, etc? If there are links to previously written explanations, that might be more expedient.

When exploring the bible, the details are important for historicity. Egyptian chronology is undergoing upheaval due to inconsistencies in traditional dating compared with timelines in other regions of the world - see Donovan Courville and David Rohl. Should those revisions bear scrutiny and find acceptance, biblical accuracy will be profoundly vindicated.

Experience is arguably the greatest educator. A youth trying everything but a proven successful method will, more often than not, eventually realize the optimal path was the one from the voice of experience. What happens then? Does the now experienced youth return to his father with new wisdom and make amends, or does he simply continue on his way and disregard family?

Assume God is real. He has a fatherly role, and keeps earth safe from destruction catastrophic enough to wipe out all of mankind. Similar to a game designer, he attends to every detail of the world - every character, every creature, every stone and all of the algorithms running the show; He lines up the living dominoes and sets them cascading on their way. He creates a human and esteems man as his own child. This human is given a choice between temptation and obedience. Man chooses temptation and is sent packing, not as unjustly cruel punishment but to become experienced in understanding.

Now what happens when man has gained wisdom and understanding? Does he acknowledge that not all in this world is knowable or falsifiable, or ignore family and wander the world looking for what he already has? The communication and relationship are what the bible is getting across. I would argue that the greatest lesson is not explicitly in the book: it comes from the experience of living as described in it.

This is not to scream "repent and believe" but to describe the message in the noise; your belief is your choice. In my view, there is far more to the bible than laws about behaviors and sage wisdom. The parts combine to make something greater than the whole. Not to mention that so many stories from Genesis onward point to Jesus, how his life and ministry were to unfold, especially Isaiah 53.

In the first study the data came from The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 consists of men and women who were born in the years 1957–1964 and were ages 14 to 22 when first interviewed in 1979 with later data collection and follow up.

Historically, college-educated women had been less likely to marry compared with less educated women.¹⁴

...

¹⁴ Paula England and Jonathan Bearak, “Women’s education and their likelihood of marriage: a historical reversal,” fact sheet prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families, April 2012, https://contemporaryfamilies.org/womens-education-and-marriage-release/.

For most of the 20th century, women who completed higher education were far less likely to be married than their less-educated counterparts. Then in 2010, the Council on Contemporary Families (CCF) reported new research showing that although college-educated women were still more likely to never marry at all than women with lower educational levels...

Historically, women who graduated from college were far more likely than any other group of women — whether high school dropouts, high school graduates, or women with some college – to remain single their entire lives. As late as 1950, a quarter of white female college graduates 40 years of age had never married, compared to compared to only 7 percent of their counterparts without a college degree. (See this CCF Report)

Voter ID, immigration reform, crippling the State Department and disabling Soros should win us 2018 and 2020. Maybe 2022 and 2024 After that, will have to cancel elections or disenfranchise women. Probably will have to cancel the 2024 election or disenfranchise women for 2024, which is going to be hard.

There is no guarantee that a leftist as bad or even worse than Obama or Hillary won’t seize the throne in 2020, and inherit those executive powers expanded by the Trump administration, along with the benefit of hindsight with Trump’s gameplan to power recorded in history.

I provided data from three separate sources that all say the same thing. If you think the data is incorrect the onus is on you to present data not opinion or personal anecdotes.

Just the facts please.

Apparently you did not read the entire page carefully and look at the cited reference. Up until my X generation started to heavily influence the statistics, indeed college educated women were much less likely to marry.

...

My X generation is fighting valiantly against the tide, but we are losing the cultural evolutionary war. Our generation is not the most populous. That study was very narrowly focused on my X generation and was not a complete sample of the population at large.

Apparently you did not read the entire page carefully and look at the cited reference.

Let's look at each claim in turn.

1) Highly educated women get married less.

This is untrue women who get a college degree are more likely to get married then women who do not complete high school.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment-5.htm

2) Highly educated women get divorced more.

This is also untrue highly educated women get divorced less much less.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/19/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/amp/

3) Highly educated women have fewer children.

Only this claim is true. But even this does not not hold true across all of society. There is less data to work with here but in the Health and Religion thread I reviewed the indicators that some religious groups defy this trend. In these education appears to result in more not fewer children.

"Damned facts" do not help us understand the world if they are untrue or not understood in proper context.
 

More damned facts:

(Various links from blogger James Donaldson)

Highly educated women get married less, get divorced more, and have fewer children than less educated women.

Women in the workplace:

...

My problem with the God religion is it sent me down a path of trying to follow some rules which I did not understand the goal, other than to serve some nebulous God and "love". And therefor my mind and competitive motivation was not (fully) engaged. My mind was sent off on tangents of trying to find superstitious correlations such as the puzzle in the Bible about the Abomination of the Desolation and its relationship to the possible year of the return of Jesus. And thus the period in which I tried to embrace Christianity from roughly 2006 to 2012 or so, was the most destructive period of my life where I made the absolute worst possible decisions, was very unproductive in my career, and destroyed my life. So yeah, I pretty much hate the God religion. I prefer to use my intellect.

Rebuttals and discussion is welcome. Let's try to be respectful to all sides.

Religions typically have many silly rules which do not clearly establish their relevance to the goal of maximizing cultural evolutionary strategy. Judaism for example has 100s of rules in the Torah. Christianity for example tells us to never have sex without marriage, but doesn't explain clearly that the reason for this is because promoting a women's hypergamy is so destructive to a successful cultural evolutationary strategy. IMO, if the Bible was more direct to the point of relating rules to cultural evolutionary strategy and loose the superstition then it would make a lot more sense to smart, strong men.

And afaics, we don't need an unfalsifiable God for that.

I'd prefer to ridicule or laugh at those doing wrong (or even be silent) while utterly obliterating them in the competitive race of cultural evolutionary strategy, not because I wanted to be vindictive but because I've found that the weak can eat me up and devour me (waste my time, etc). Strong men shouldn't need to make any blahblahblah, as their actions (e.g. proliferating their offspring of strong men) will make it so. Religion is weak because it requires a lot of blahblahblah to weak people who will never be entirely on board. A few words are enough for those who are truly trying to improve, as they are motivated to figure out what those words mean.

Nevertheless religion may be entirely necessary because the world will probably always have many more weak people than strong. Jesus said he spent his time with the weak, because that was were the low hanging fruit was where the most good work could be done. Nevertheless, I think still that finding the potential gems in the haystack of the weak will be more efficient with fewer words.

I've found that helping people too much usually destroys them. I believe in rescuing (even weak) people in moments of extreme distress where they could not possibly recover with their own effort alone. But I don't believe in helping weak people who habitually put themselves in extreme distress nearly all of the time, i.e. clearly not even trying to improve. In my view it is acceptable to help those who have an infrequent recurrent extreme distress if they are genuinely trying to figure it out.

I have been pondering the thought of what would a culture of strong men do with weak offspring. Would they outcast them from the group?

I have thought that nature is stochastic thus even weak men are necessarily for resilience, i.e. Taleb's anti-fragility.

Thus we will always have the bell curve and I do think any strong men have to find a way to co-exist with weak mean, even if it is a contentious interaction.

I am resigned to that when I die, I cease to exist except for my legacy. I do not feel any urge to know what is unfalsifiable.

My gruff verbiage in that case is an attempt to be brutally frank. I think to be strong requires significant frankness about the characterization of weakness. Also I wanted to have the maximum impact while being succinct.

Also it is offensive, preemptive, pre-reaction to way Marxists and others who don't understand or agree with damned facts, tend to ridicule us when we try to use milder and calmer language to express these damned facts.

It reflects that at this point we are in a war, and we are losing. We had better get our act in gear with actions. And not JAD's preference for a Trump dictator, because that isn't a viable solution. The solution must be decentralized and it must be an ideological shift in the thinking and actions of strong men. And to maintain that culture with male offspring, I think we require exposing the offspring to harsh realities of life, because words alone are not enough. And thus gruff verbiage may also need to be part of the mix of the education of male offspring.

miscreanity this was one of the most articulate and well written posts I have read on this forum. Thanks

When Hunter S. Thompson was 22 years old, he was contacted by a friend looking for advice on the meaning of life. His response was bizarrely profound, especially for his age, packing the punch of a heavyweight philosopher or seasoned-author... This letter was written April 1958:


April 22, 1958
57 Perry Street
New York City

Dear Hume,

You ask advice: ah, what a very human and very dangerous thing to do! For to give advice to a man who asks what to do with his life implies something very close to egomania. To presume to point a man to the right and ultimate goal — to point with a trembling finger in the RIGHT direction is something only a fool would take upon himself.

I am not a fool, but I respect your sincerity in asking my advice. I ask you though, in listening to what I say, to remember that all advice can only be a product of the man who gives it. What is truth to one may be disaster to another. I do not see life through your eyes, nor you through mine. If I were to attempt to give you specific advice, it would be too much like the blind leading the blind.

“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles … ” (Shakespeare)

And indeed, that IS the question: whether to float with the tide, or to swim for a goal. It is a choice we must all make consciously or unconsciously at one time in our lives. So few people understand this! Think of any decision you’ve ever made which had a bearing on your future: I may be wrong, but I don’t see how it could have been anything but a choice however indirect — between the two things I’ve mentioned: the floating or the swimming.

But why not float if you have no goal? That is another question. It is unquestionably better to enjoy the floating than to swim in uncertainty. So how does a man find a goal? Not a castle in the stars, but a real and tangible thing. How can a man be sure he’s not after the “big rock candy mountain,” the enticing sugar-candy goal that has little taste and no substance?

The answer — and, in a sense, the tragedy of life — is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you. Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes. This goes on and on. Every reaction is a learning process; every significant experience alters your perspective.

So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day? How could we ever hope to accomplish anything other than galloping neurosis?

The answer, then, must not deal with goals at all, or not with tangible goals, anyway. It would take reams of paper to develop this subject to fulfillment. God only knows how many books have been written on “the meaning of man” and that sort of thing, and god only knows how many people have pondered the subject. (I use the term “God only knows” purely as an expression.) There’s very little sense in my trying to give it up to you in the proverbial nutshell, because I’m the first to admit my absolute lack of qualifications for reducing the meaning of life to one or two paragraphs.

I’m going to steer clear of the word “existentialism,” but you might keep it in mind as a key of sorts. You might also try something called “Being and Nothingness” by Jean-Paul Sartre, and another little thing called “Existentialism: From Dostoyevsky to Sartre.” These are merely suggestions. If you’re genuinely satisfied with what you are and what you’re doing, then give those books a wide berth. (Let sleeping dogs lie.) But back to the answer. As I said, to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.

But don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean that we can’t BE firemen, bankers, or doctors — but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal. In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires — including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.

As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES. In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires).

In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he KNOWS he will enjoy. The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man MUST function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of life — the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.

Let’s assume that you think you have a choice of eight paths to follow (all pre-defined paths, of course). And let’s assume that you can’t see any real purpose in any of the eight. THEN — and here is the essence of all I’ve said — you MUST FIND A NINTH PATH.

Naturally, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. You’ve lived a relatively narrow life, a vertical rather than a horizontal existence. So it isn’t any too difficult to understand why you seem to feel the way you do. But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.

So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else. But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life. But you say, “I don’t know where to look; I don’t know what to look for.”

And there’s the crux. Is it worth giving up what I have to look for something better? I don’t know — is it? Who can make that decision but you? But even by DECIDING TO LOOK, you go a long way toward making the choice.

If I don’t call this to a halt, I’m going to find myself writing a book. I hope it’s not as confusing as it looks at first glance. Keep in mind, of course, that this is MY WAY of looking at things. I happen to think that it’s pretty generally applicable, but you may not. Each of us has to create our own credo — this merely happens to be mine.

If any part of it doesn’t seem to make sense, by all means call it to my attention. I’m not trying to send you out “on the road” in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it. There is more to it than that — no one HAS to do something he doesn’t want to do for the rest of his life. But then again, if that’s what you wind up doing, by all means convince yourself that you HAD to do it. You’ll have lots of company.

And that’s it for now. Until I hear from you again, I remain,

your friend,
Hunter