...
New Armstrong articles that should be of interest to many of us:
His comments on the Dow breaking 20,000, I agree with his comments that it could go quite a bit higher (esp. if it reaches 23,000 and the masses jump in):
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/stock-indicies/dow-jones/dow-breaks-the-20000-barrier/
^^ Worth thinking about, stocks are somewhat resistant to INFLATION. ^^
Armstrong does not comment (today) on "Trump Derangement Syndrome", instead mentions that it is not only the USA interested in a Wall:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/immigration-risk/
* * *
Trump is off to one hell of a start. My wife watching the news in Spanish (Univision) said that various MEXICAN politicians are going NUTSO re Trump.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" seems even more virulent South of the Border
Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 224. (Read 647062 times)
...
Anything which correctly maintains your culture is by definition not evil.
...
Conquest should be for cultural gains, i.e. incorporating the best genetics from external cultures. This can even be an entirely decentralized form of conquest, i.e. each young male off on his own grabbing some female(s) who are pliant (also serves as an outlet/goal for their natural hormonal surge at the young age).
I won't get any where towards that goal with bearded orthodox Jews, because they have their rationality clouded by all these pagan religious customs and rituals.
Anything which correctly maintains your culture is by definition not evil.
...
Conquest should be for cultural gains, i.e. incorporating the best genetics from external cultures. This can even be an entirely decentralized form of conquest, i.e. each young male off on his own grabbing some female(s) who are pliant (also serves as an outlet/goal for their natural hormonal surge at the young age).
I won't get any where towards that goal with bearded orthodox Jews, because they have their rationality clouded by all these pagan religious customs and rituals.
I think any women involved should always be free to leave the culture I propose and go try their luck as Westernized, white women (but of course they would be ostrasized from the geographically decentralized community that follows the culture I propose and would essentially destroy their life by doing so as example to all those who foolishly wish to follow them). So to be clear, I am not advocating slavery. Every member of the culture I propose must retain their free will (and I think this is absolutely essential for any strategy that has an hope of being a lasting set of rational beliefs based in facts that wins and spreads out over many generations).
There are two arguments here one of slavery and one of freedom. They are mutually incompatible. To help illustrate why it helps to examine the nature of evil. There are two kinds of evil. The first is self-destructive evil. This is the most obvious type of evil and your examples above (drunkenness, failure to work out, etc) fall into this category. Self-destructive evil is a form of irrationality self-harm due to ignorance or lack of self-control.
Far more insidious is the use of evil use to strengthen oneself or ones people. Hitler's plan of enslaving the Slavic race and exterminating most of them to make way for German settlers if actualized would have been this type of evil.
Arguing that whatever strengthens your local culture is good effectively redefines evil as good. It is an argument for the right of the strong to enslave and kill the weak.
You will indeed find this argument to be incompatible with Judaism or any Christian denomination for that matter. These faiths require adherents to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They forbid such evil even if it "strengthens" the society.
Quote from: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268#comment-1789162
No. People with emancipated women get fewer kids. We have more children than very poor people with equally emancipated women.
...
Women should not be educated past puberty, and before puberty should be taught about being wives and mothers. They should be under the authority of their fathers until they are under the authority of the husbands.
...
Women should not be educated past puberty, and before puberty should be taught about being wives and mothers. They should be under the authority of their fathers until they are under the authority of the husbands.
White men destroyed themselves because they fail to understand how to raise their daughters. They don't understand that women have no disciple. They view marriage as a compromise where the man has to do a bunch of nonsense that the woman's lack of discipline requires. This is a slippery slope which leads down the road of leaning ever further left in politics and culture. And eventually destroys the society.
James A Donald's thesis that we should just enslave our women is very similar to the argument of Himmler when he argued that education for non-Germans be restricted to elementary school just enough to teach them to write their names and obey Germans. This was not an irrational policy for the Germans as a mechanism for maintaining control and eventually exterminating or "selectively reducing" a conquered people. However, it is entirely incompatible with self-determination, freedom, and ultimately progress. The strategy of enslaving women to force them to do what men want is morally identical. It is not irrational but it is very evil.
Ultimately embracing a strategy of might makes right as long as it is good for the local culture is one of stagnation. To use the analogy up-thread it transforms the world into a prison of competing gangs a zero-sum game. Such strategies will ultimately lose out over time to strategies of cooperation. In the end we are one species.
The solution is not to enslave other cultures or enslave our women or anyone else for that matter but to allow for the matching of of social rewards to healthy behavior so people willingly choose to do the right thing both for themselves for society as a whole not via force and oppression but via voluntary cooperation.
Mr. Donald' strongly disagrees with that concept that the emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling, blasphemy laws, the divine right of kings, woman’s suffrage and participation in the workforce represented progress. He is stuck in a primitive mindset failing to understand the actual nature of progress.
His mindset is that Cycle #2 in the table below is ultimate progress and that everything that follows is bad. This is a rational view for someone who is highly optimized for warlordism and violence and wishes to engage in such things. However, it is a worldview that offers nothing but stagnation and ultimately slavery.
Cycles of Contention
| Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | ||
| Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | |
| Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | |
| Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | |
| Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
Your other argument the one for freedom of choice but not freedom from consequence is a much healthier view and I urge you to continue on this line of thinking . You have to choose. Freedom of choice is entirely incompatible with Mr. Donald's primitavism above.
Your hypothetical of a sustainable multi-generational social structure built around a set of beliefs that are taught and followed on a voluntary basis requiring compliance but permitting freedom to leave has never existed and will never exist outside of the context of God and religion.
Now finally I am being a leader. I hope there are some other men who wake up (and inspire some females to adopt a winning culture). Okay back to work. Enough talk.
These are damned facts (unspeakable, politically incorrect truths).
...
The white men are destroying their own cultural advantages of hard work and discipline by raising their daughters as princesses.
James A Donald is a bit harsh, but he is correct:
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/ <---- make sure you understand what makes women truly happy (even if they don't know it!)
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/
https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cure-for-iq-shredders/
Eric Raymond the 160 IQ genius admits it:
Reconsidering sexual repression
The true meaning of moral panics
Status signaling and cruelty to betas
...
...
The white men are destroying their own cultural advantages of hard work and discipline by raising their daughters as princesses.
James A Donald is a bit harsh, but he is correct:
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/ <---- make sure you understand what makes women truly happy (even if they don't know it!)
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/
https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cure-for-iq-shredders/
Eric Raymond the 160 IQ genius admits it:
Reconsidering sexual repression
The true meaning of moral panics
Status signaling and cruelty to betas
...
| [1] | More importantly, what use of a Chinese gf when she acts like a spoiled bitch when her bestfriend says her bf always does "such and such" so then your Chinese bitch expects you to do the same so she doesn't lose face. https://www.chinalovematch.net/magazineArticle.aspx?urlname=Never-Marry-A-Chinese-Woman http://www.china-mike.com/chinese-culture/understanding-chinese-mind/cult-of-face/ |
The Chinese Steemit blogger @sweetsssj also confirmed the above facts about spoiling women and female hypergamy:
Quote from: https://steemit.com/relationship/@sweetsssj/china-s-leftover-women-single-and-not-necessarily-successful
Even though there are more men than women in China, there are still far fewer eligible men that fit the minimum expectations of women. As a result, there is an intense competition for the few alpha males that do live up to these expectations.
As such, a culture of women looking to marry rich men has become quite predominant. Whether it's young women being concubines to rich businessmen, or young girls who will only date 2nd generation rich guys,the story is the same. Women expecting something that most men simply can't give.
Is this potentially a reason why women want more financial freedom，especially as fewer men are able to outright provide them with that financial security? A very real possibility.
...
Princesses and Princelings
China has had a single child policy in place since 1979. Only recently has this been lifted. As a result, the entire generation Y has been brought up being the only child. Boys have been favoured because of the strong patriarchal ideology, but when all is said and done, the boys and girls are treated as princes and princesses as they are the only child. This obviously has very deep consequences when the society as a whole expects their sole child to be the absolute best and deserve nothing short of the best. A popular saying Princess Syndrome refer's to the girls who behave like Princesses and have been spoilt all the way through to adulthood. Princelings are the male equivalent. With this kind of princess mindset, girls from this generation find it difficult to accept anything less than the best treatment because they themselves grew up very privileged. This of course exacerbates the situation that men already find it hard to provide the very basics, let alone the extra's which may end up costing even more.
Luxury goods, extravagant living and general decadence is something alot of generation Y girls have grown up to expect. Providing these to a girl is out of the realm of possibility for a normal man, and only possible to the top alpha males in society. With so much pressure from society on what is considered living a good life, the expectations of these princess have largely become inaccessible to them should they marry someone with a normal background. Once again, this barrier results in women having to risk searching until they find the ideal man, or build up some financial security themselves whilst they look for that ideal partner.
As such, a culture of women looking to marry rich men has become quite predominant. Whether it's young women being concubines to rich businessmen, or young girls who will only date 2nd generation rich guys,the story is the same. Women expecting something that most men simply can't give.
Is this potentially a reason why women want more financial freedom，especially as fewer men are able to outright provide them with that financial security? A very real possibility.
...
Princesses and Princelings
China has had a single child policy in place since 1979. Only recently has this been lifted. As a result, the entire generation Y has been brought up being the only child. Boys have been favoured because of the strong patriarchal ideology, but when all is said and done, the boys and girls are treated as princes and princesses as they are the only child. This obviously has very deep consequences when the society as a whole expects their sole child to be the absolute best and deserve nothing short of the best. A popular saying Princess Syndrome refer's to the girls who behave like Princesses and have been spoilt all the way through to adulthood. Princelings are the male equivalent. With this kind of princess mindset, girls from this generation find it difficult to accept anything less than the best treatment because they themselves grew up very privileged. This of course exacerbates the situation that men already find it hard to provide the very basics, let alone the extra's which may end up costing even more.
Luxury goods, extravagant living and general decadence is something alot of generation Y girls have grown up to expect. Providing these to a girl is out of the realm of possibility for a normal man, and only possible to the top alpha males in society. With so much pressure from society on what is considered living a good life, the expectations of these princess have largely become inaccessible to them should they marry someone with a normal background. Once again, this barrier results in women having to risk searching until they find the ideal man, or build up some financial security themselves whilst they look for that ideal partner.
In China, the situation is contrasted by parents who take responsibility for their children throughout their life, not just till they're 18. In-fact, parents will worry about their children's financial condition all their lives. Most of my friends who have stable jobs will also accept parental subsidies. In one extreme case, the mother of a person I know, sold two houses just to hold a big wedding ceremony. This is an act of kindness and mutual affection through which the depth of the relationship between the parent and child is evident. In China, blood relationships and family play the most important role in people's lives.
And recently she laments how it is destroying the men:
First let me clarify, I don't think there is anything wrong with gaming. It's a perfectly valid hobby and a great way to socialise. But what I hate the most is when gaming becomes a form of escapism from real life responsibilities such as working a job, or planning a career. Sure, there are professional gamers out there who are dedicated to being the best they can be and even making a living, but i'm not talking about those people! I'm talking about the ones who spend all day grinding MMORPG's, going raiding, farming etc. It's as if their virtual achievements give them a sense of accomplishment that eclipses the importance of real life responsibilities.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, with the way society is right now though I honestly can't blame them sometimes 
if you remember my post about dating girls in the UK that's what I'm thinking of, it makes me want to just hide and play computer games as well.
if you remember my post about dating girls in the UK that's what I'm thinking of, it makes me want to just hide and play computer games as well.She isn't quite understanding that her culture is failing. China is destroyed.
because women do not have self-discipline when it comes to their emotions (note my grandmother on my father's side was extremely self-disciplined and she even taught me the most about self-discipline but even she was vulnerable when it came to her emotions)
She is of special note because she married my grandfather at age 16 if I am not mistaken (he met her at a local dance) and she had lamented to me she wondered what would she would have achieved if she had attained more education (I think only high school graduate if I am not mistaken).
But her intellect was apparently to all of us and she was a master at everything around the house. She was the one who inspired me to be a Macgyver, because she could fix any appliance and jerry-rig any contraption and she could unravel any knot no matter how convoluted and she was a master at crossword puzzles (and pretty much any puzzle for that matter afair).
I've now suddenly grown to appreciate her even more. I had adored my grandfather because (being a son of a Baptist minister who always gave bags of groceries to the poor) he was so unselfish and so loving to everyone. And he was my actual father and did everything with me in my youth. So I had always been trying to emulate him, but I think this actually was one of my downfalls because I think as great as he was, he didn't have the right culture to pass on to my Dad, as evident by how it turned out for my father (having a strong mother and a weak father).
My grandfather and I had many discussions about morality and I thus I am happy to see it all starting to come clear to me by now. Even back then I was questioning the arbitrary goal of morality. But I didn't understand what to replace it with. Now I think I do. The morality that matters is the one that makes your culture win.
I have always wanted to honor my grandparents and felt like an utter failure for not being able to find a path that would enable me to do so.
From 1985, that is her in the center with the white blouse:
Btw, that is my father and his sister on the left side, both highly educated. My attorney father graduated top of his class at LSU which was a top law school at that time (I think even until now). And his sister has multiple degrees and traveled the world such as to Egypt (and her second husband sitting there was a prominent geologist but you can see the incision on his leg to get a vein for his open heart surgery).
I note that my Aunt Jackie who was probably as smart if not smarter than my father (who I think has a higher IQ than me), had a very bizarre life because again females are not engineered to be organized about being leaders of successful culture. Of all the grandkids, my sister is conspicuously missing from the photo, which is a harbinger of what was to come (dead by 2006 by a combination of drugs and other forms of self-destruction culminating with a murderous, lunatic husband).
I think you can see my grandmother had some sort of Southern French or Italian ancestry. My grandfather is where the Shelby family name originates and that is coming from some where in what is now the UK. And I am mixing with German and Cherokee native from my mother's side. My cousins (the ladies in the photo) were mixing with I think some Eastern European ancestry.
Edit: to recap, I hated my family because they gave me a losing culture. They didn't make me competitive. Also because they judged me and switched from thinking I was a darling to a black sheep when I began to question everything and began to do unstable activities such as travel to the Philippines. I had to go out into the world and try to find my own way. I committed major blunders experimenting without sufficient knowledge of truths. I even hated white people thinking they were all nutcases with Frankenstein outcomes (although really I still love all people but extremely disenchanted at that time not knowing how to explain what had happened to our culture in the USA). Now I come full circle to loving my grandparents and understanding their failure. They had a good set of values, but they didn't know how to protect it.
I am not sure if I know James A Donald's precise thesis, but what I think I know of what he wants, leads me to some disagreements with him.
I believe he thinks we can have societal change across all white men in the USA and that we can forcibly revert woman's suffrage and sexually repress women on a large societal scale. If so, I believe he is not realistic, nor would that be an optimal strategy. The Mormons are perhaps closer to what I think may be realistic and optimal (although I don't claim to know much about them). A set of beliefs that are taught and followed on a voluntary basis is more powerful, decentralized paradigm shift.
So in other words, I think any women involved should always be free to leave the culture I propose and go try their luck as Westernized, white women (but of course they would be ostrasized from the geographically decentralized community that follows the culture I propose and would essentially destroy their life by doing so as example to all those who foolishly wish to follow them). So to be clear, I am not advocating slavery. Every member of the culture I propose must retain their free will (and I think this is absolutely essential for any strategy that has an hope of being a lasting set of rational beliefs based in facts that wins and spreads out over many generations).
In other words, the woman is free to disobey her husband, disobey the teachings of the culture, but she must then leave the care of her husband. The thorny issue is what happens to the children in that case, because surely the State can become involved if the woman chooses to involve the State. Note this should rarely happen, because the men and elders will be plenty wise enough to see the tell-tale signs of such flaws in a female early before she is permitted to marry and bear children within the culture, and because the other women within the culture will ostracize her which is nearly impossible for a woman to overcome (women are social and consensus building creatures). But in the unlikely event this unexpectedly happens, the children and their age will have a big impact. If they kids demand to stay with their father and the culture they were raised within, then the State is going to have a difficult time to override this. If the women succeeds to in exiting the culture with her kids, then the man may have to pay child's support via State mandates, but this will be fought tooth-and-nail with the best possible attorneys so that only the minimum is paid. In this very rare circumstance, the kids will suffer immensely, but that would be their mother's fault. The man would move on with another woman within the culture.
Note in such a culture I would propose that women have absolutely no access to the Internet, mass media, and other propaganda that can pollute their minds, because women do not have self-discipline when it comes to their emotions (note my grandmother on my father's side was extremely self-disciplined and she even taught me the most about self-discipline but even she was vulnerable when it came to her emotions).
Let any man try to disprove that! Islamist fundamentalist men are sort of pecking around down the correct cultural path, except they made the mistake that all these brown tribal cultures make which is they take advantage of the situation to become unproductive men because they've enslaved their own women. And they do not incorporate genetics from outside their culture nor do they allow their men to be exposed to and integrate with all the knowledge of the world. No culture which makes the men less competitive will win out. Also note I am asserting that women can't be reasoned with, and this is well known by any men who have experience in relationship with a woman. Women are creatures of habit, social context, emotions, and hypergamy. Even the most rational women are calculating their stance from those contexts. Note women can and do have high IQ (although their distribution is more flattened and has less exceptional outliers than for men), so that is not the issue. Women were not engineered for the role of being the leaders of the culture. When we allow them that role, we get Frankenstein societal outcomes.
Men who default from the culture will be equivalently ostracized and of course will lose the battle for the kids against the woman who decides to remain within the culture. Couples who default, are to free to go and good riddance with the door hitting in the ass on the way to their rediscovery of the wonderful aspects of the external deviant cultures.
Also there is a another wrinkle. I am contemplating that it would be ideal for men to honor nature's desire for women to be hypergamous (this is to be improve the gene pool), and thus men should allow the insemination of their wive(s) with the semen of men who are not themselves and raise these children within the culture in addition to the children he fathers. He should select for the best genetics. Thus women who abandon the culture, will find it impossible to extract child support from a man who has not fathered the child. I know that sounds crazy, but it makes the most sense because it is congruent with nature. The most important thing we men transfer is not just our DNA but more importantly our philosophy and culture. The 180 IQ Freeman Dyson is correct in his rebuke of that asshat Richard Dawkins.
I have made a backup copy of that email exchange below:
Dyson explains that in the future we are moving to cross species engineered evolution, where man can accelerate mutations and thus exchange of knowledge (and cultural evolution) becomes a very salient aspect to biological evolution. So the point being that is supports my point that men's primary goal shouldn't only be the transfer of their own DNA, but more so of their knowledge of evolutionarily superior strategies.
I thank CoinCube for focusing me in on the importance of culture and individual defection (which is inherently a groupwise and societal phenomenon). Of course, I have arrived at a different conclusion than his religion tangent.
I think all the benefits CoinCube cites for Health due to religion, are actually due to the suppression of women's R strategy sexuality and thus men's R strategy as well. All the bad effects and slide towards evil follows from that catastrophic mistake in white man's culture in the 19th century. All because white men value their genes and their little daughters in the wrong way. If they really loved their daughters, they would give them a culture that can succeed. White men have punted on their cultural leadership responsibilities and with disastrous results.
So r0ach please stop blaming the Jews. Soros is just giving us what we sowed.
My message to all white men is: Aren't you tired of losing?
I believe he thinks we can have societal change across all white men in the USA and that we can forcibly revert woman's suffrage and sexually repress women on a large societal scale. If so, I believe he is not realistic, nor would that be an optimal strategy. The Mormons are perhaps closer to what I think may be realistic and optimal (although I don't claim to know much about them). A set of beliefs that are taught and followed on a voluntary basis is more powerful, decentralized paradigm shift.
So in other words, I think any women involved should always be free to leave the culture I propose and go try their luck as Westernized, white women (but of course they would be ostrasized from the geographically decentralized community that follows the culture I propose and would essentially destroy their life by doing so as example to all those who foolishly wish to follow them). So to be clear, I am not advocating slavery. Every member of the culture I propose must retain their free will (and I think this is absolutely essential for any strategy that has an hope of being a lasting set of rational beliefs based in facts that wins and spreads out over many generations).
In other words, the woman is free to disobey her husband, disobey the teachings of the culture, but she must then leave the care of her husband. The thorny issue is what happens to the children in that case, because surely the State can become involved if the woman chooses to involve the State. Note this should rarely happen, because the men and elders will be plenty wise enough to see the tell-tale signs of such flaws in a female early before she is permitted to marry and bear children within the culture, and because the other women within the culture will ostracize her which is nearly impossible for a woman to overcome (women are social and consensus building creatures). But in the unlikely event this unexpectedly happens, the children and their age will have a big impact. If they kids demand to stay with their father and the culture they were raised within, then the State is going to have a difficult time to override this. If the women succeeds to in exiting the culture with her kids, then the man may have to pay child's support via State mandates, but this will be fought tooth-and-nail with the best possible attorneys so that only the minimum is paid. In this very rare circumstance, the kids will suffer immensely, but that would be their mother's fault. The man would move on with another woman within the culture.
Note in such a culture I would propose that women have absolutely no access to the Internet, mass media, and other propaganda that can pollute their minds, because women do not have self-discipline when it comes to their emotions (note my grandmother on my father's side was extremely self-disciplined and she even taught me the most about self-discipline but even she was vulnerable when it came to her emotions).
More importantly, what use of a Chinese gf when she acts like a spoiled bitch when her bestfriend says her bf always does "such and such" so then your Chinese bitch expects you to do the same so she doesn't lose face.
https://www.chinalovematch.net/magazineArticle.aspx?urlname=Never-Marry-A-Chinese-Woman
http://www.china-mike.com/chinese-culture/understanding-chinese-mind/cult-of-face/
https://www.chinalovematch.net/magazineArticle.aspx?urlname=Never-Marry-A-Chinese-Woman
http://www.china-mike.com/chinese-culture/understanding-chinese-mind/cult-of-face/
Let any man try to disprove that! Islamist fundamentalist men are sort of pecking around down the correct cultural path, except they made the mistake that all these brown tribal cultures make which is they take advantage of the situation to become unproductive men because they've enslaved their own women. And they do not incorporate genetics from outside their culture nor do they allow their men to be exposed to and integrate with all the knowledge of the world. No culture which makes the men less competitive will win out. Also note I am asserting that women can't be reasoned with, and this is well known by any men who have experience in relationship with a woman. Women are creatures of habit, social context, emotions, and hypergamy. Even the most rational women are calculating their stance from those contexts. Note women can and do have high IQ (although their distribution is more flattened and has less exceptional outliers than for men), so that is not the issue. Women were not engineered for the role of being the leaders of the culture. When we allow them that role, we get Frankenstein societal outcomes.
Men who default from the culture will be equivalently ostracized and of course will lose the battle for the kids against the woman who decides to remain within the culture. Couples who default, are to free to go and good riddance with the door hitting in the ass on the way to their rediscovery of the wonderful aspects of the external deviant cultures.
Also there is a another wrinkle. I am contemplating that it would be ideal for men to honor nature's desire for women to be hypergamous (this is to be improve the gene pool), and thus men should allow the insemination of their wive(s) with the semen of men who are not themselves and raise these children within the culture in addition to the children he fathers. He should select for the best genetics. Thus women who abandon the culture, will find it impossible to extract child support from a man who has not fathered the child. I know that sounds crazy, but it makes the most sense because it is congruent with nature. The most important thing we men transfer is not just our DNA but more importantly our philosophy and culture. The 180 IQ Freeman Dyson is correct in his rebuke of that asshat Richard Dawkins.
I have made a backup copy of that email exchange below:
Quote
As part of this year's Annual Edge Event at Eastover Farm in Bethlehem, CT, I invited three of the participants—Freeman Dyson, George Church, and Craig Venter—to come up a day early, which gave me an opportunity to talk to Dyson about his recent interesting and provocative article in New York Review of Books entitled "Our Biotech Future" in which he had written the following:
"The Darwinian interlude has lasted for two or three billion years. It probably slowed down the pace of evolution considerably. The basic biochemical machinery of life had evolved rapidly during the few hundreds of millions of years of the pre-Darwinian era, and changed very little in the next two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established evolve very little. With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them.
"Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. It was an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer. The epoch of Darwinian evolution based on competition between species ended about ten thousand years ago, when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Since that time, cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driving force of change. Cultural evolution is not Darwinian. Cultures spread by horizontal transfer of ideas more than by genetic inheritance. Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization. And now, as Homo sapiens domesticates the new biotechnology, we are reviving the ancient pre-Darwinian practice of horizontal gene transfer, moving genes easily from microbes to plants and animals, blurring the boundaries between species. We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.
I also sent the link to the article to Richard Dawkins, and asked if he would would comment on what Dyson termed the end of "the Darwinian interlude".
Early the next morning, prior to the all-day discussion (which also included as participants Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov, and Seth Lloyd) Dawkins emailed his thoughts which I read to the group during the discussion following Dyson's talk. [NOTE: Dawkins asked me to make it clear that his email below "was written hastily as a letter to you, and was not designed for publication, or indeed to be read out at a meeting of biologists at your farm!"].
Now Dyson has responded and the exchange is below.
—JB
RICHARD DAWKINS [8.27.07]Evolutionary Biologist, Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science, Oxford University; Author, The God Delusion
"By Darwinian evolution he [Woese] means evolution as Darwin understood it, based on the competition for survival of noninterbreeding species."
"With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them."
These two quotations from Dyson constitute a classic schoolboy howler, a catastrophic misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution, both as Darwin understood it, and as we understand it today in rather different language, is NOT based on the competition for survival of species. It is based on competition for survival WITHIN species. Darwin would have said competition between individuals within every species. I would say competition between genes within gene pools. The difference between those two ways of putting it is small compared with Dyson's howler (shared by most laymen: it is the howler that I wrote The Selfish Gene partly to dispel, and I thought I had pretty much succeeded, but Dyson obviously hasn't read it!) that natural selection is about the differential survival or extinction of species. Of course the extinction of species is extremely important in the history of life, and there may very well be non-random aspects of it (some species are more likely to go extinct than others) but, although this may in some superficial sense resemble Darwinian selection, it is NOT the selection process that has driven evolution. Moreover, arms races between species constitute an important part of the competitive climate that drives Darwinian evolution. But in, for example, the arms race between predators and prey, or parasites and hosts, the competition that drives evolution is all going on within species. Individual foxes don't compete with rabbits, they compete with other individual foxes within their own species to be the ones that catch the rabbits (I would prefer to rephrase it as competition between genes within the fox gene pool).
The rest of Dyson's piece is interesting, as you'd expect, and there really is an interesting sense in which there is an interlude between two periods of horizontal transfer (and we mustn't forget that bacteria still practise horizontal transfer and have done throughout the time when eucaryotes have been in the 'Interlude'). But the interlude in the middle is not the Darwinian Interlude, it is the Meiosis / Sex / Gene-Pool / Species Interlude. Darwinian selection between genes still goes on during eras of horizontal transfer, just as it does during the Interlude. What happened during the 3-billion-year Interlude is that genes were confined to gene pools and limited to competing with other genes within the same species. Previously (and still in bacteria) they were free to compete with other genes more widely (there was no such thing as a species outside the 'Interlude'). If a new period of horizontal transfer is indeed now dawning through technology, genes may become free to compete with other genes more widely yet again.
As I said, there are fascinating ideas in Freeman Dyson's piece. But it is a huge pity it is marred by such an elementary mistake at the heart of it.
Richard
FREEMAN DYSON[8.30.07]Physicist, Institute of Advanced Study, Author, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe
Dear Richard Dawkins,
Thank you for the E-mail that you sent to John Brockman, saying that I had made a "school-boy howler" when I said that Darwinian evolution was a competition between species rather than between individuals. You also said I obviously had not read The Selfish Gene. In fact I did read your book and disagreed with it for the following reasons.
Here are two replies to your E-mail. The first was a verbal response made immediately when Brockman read your E-mail aloud at a meeting of biologists at his farm. The second was written the following day after thinking more carefully about the question.
First response. What I wrote is not a howler and Dawkins is wrong. Species once established evolve very little, and the big steps in evolution mostly occur at speciation events when new species appear with new adaptations. The reason for this is that the rate of evolution of a population is roughly proportional to the inverse square root of the population size. So big steps are most likely when populations are small, giving rise to the ``punctuated equilibrium'' that is seen in the fossil record. The competition is between the new species with a small population adapting fast to new conditions and the old species with a big population adapting slowly.
Second response. It is absurd to think that group selection is less important than individual selection. Consider for example Dodo A and Dodo B, competing for mates and progeny in the dodo population on Mauritius. Dodo A competes much better and?has greater fitness, as measured by individual selection. Dodo A mates more often and has many more grandchildren than Dodo B. A hundred years later, the species is extinct and the fitness of A and B are both reduced to zero. Selection operating at the species level trumps selection at the individual level. Selection at the species level wiped out both A and B because the species neglected to maintain the ability to fly, which was essential to survival when human predators appeared on the island. This situation is not peculiar to dodos. It arises throughout the course of evolution, whenever environmental changes cause species to become extinct.
In my opinion, both these responses are valid, but the second one goes more directly to the issue that divides us. Yours sincerely, Freeman Dyson.
"The Darwinian interlude has lasted for two or three billion years. It probably slowed down the pace of evolution considerably. The basic biochemical machinery of life had evolved rapidly during the few hundreds of millions of years of the pre-Darwinian era, and changed very little in the next two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established evolve very little. With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them.
"Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. It was an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer. The epoch of Darwinian evolution based on competition between species ended about ten thousand years ago, when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Since that time, cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driving force of change. Cultural evolution is not Darwinian. Cultures spread by horizontal transfer of ideas more than by genetic inheritance. Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization. And now, as Homo sapiens domesticates the new biotechnology, we are reviving the ancient pre-Darwinian practice of horizontal gene transfer, moving genes easily from microbes to plants and animals, blurring the boundaries between species. We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.
I also sent the link to the article to Richard Dawkins, and asked if he would would comment on what Dyson termed the end of "the Darwinian interlude".
Early the next morning, prior to the all-day discussion (which also included as participants Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov, and Seth Lloyd) Dawkins emailed his thoughts which I read to the group during the discussion following Dyson's talk. [NOTE: Dawkins asked me to make it clear that his email below "was written hastily as a letter to you, and was not designed for publication, or indeed to be read out at a meeting of biologists at your farm!"].
Now Dyson has responded and the exchange is below.
—JB
RICHARD DAWKINS [8.27.07]Evolutionary Biologist, Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science, Oxford University; Author, The God Delusion
"By Darwinian evolution he [Woese] means evolution as Darwin understood it, based on the competition for survival of noninterbreeding species."
"With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them."
These two quotations from Dyson constitute a classic schoolboy howler, a catastrophic misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution, both as Darwin understood it, and as we understand it today in rather different language, is NOT based on the competition for survival of species. It is based on competition for survival WITHIN species. Darwin would have said competition between individuals within every species. I would say competition between genes within gene pools. The difference between those two ways of putting it is small compared with Dyson's howler (shared by most laymen: it is the howler that I wrote The Selfish Gene partly to dispel, and I thought I had pretty much succeeded, but Dyson obviously hasn't read it!) that natural selection is about the differential survival or extinction of species. Of course the extinction of species is extremely important in the history of life, and there may very well be non-random aspects of it (some species are more likely to go extinct than others) but, although this may in some superficial sense resemble Darwinian selection, it is NOT the selection process that has driven evolution. Moreover, arms races between species constitute an important part of the competitive climate that drives Darwinian evolution. But in, for example, the arms race between predators and prey, or parasites and hosts, the competition that drives evolution is all going on within species. Individual foxes don't compete with rabbits, they compete with other individual foxes within their own species to be the ones that catch the rabbits (I would prefer to rephrase it as competition between genes within the fox gene pool).
The rest of Dyson's piece is interesting, as you'd expect, and there really is an interesting sense in which there is an interlude between two periods of horizontal transfer (and we mustn't forget that bacteria still practise horizontal transfer and have done throughout the time when eucaryotes have been in the 'Interlude'). But the interlude in the middle is not the Darwinian Interlude, it is the Meiosis / Sex / Gene-Pool / Species Interlude. Darwinian selection between genes still goes on during eras of horizontal transfer, just as it does during the Interlude. What happened during the 3-billion-year Interlude is that genes were confined to gene pools and limited to competing with other genes within the same species. Previously (and still in bacteria) they were free to compete with other genes more widely (there was no such thing as a species outside the 'Interlude'). If a new period of horizontal transfer is indeed now dawning through technology, genes may become free to compete with other genes more widely yet again.
As I said, there are fascinating ideas in Freeman Dyson's piece. But it is a huge pity it is marred by such an elementary mistake at the heart of it.
Richard
FREEMAN DYSON[8.30.07]Physicist, Institute of Advanced Study, Author, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe
Dear Richard Dawkins,
Thank you for the E-mail that you sent to John Brockman, saying that I had made a "school-boy howler" when I said that Darwinian evolution was a competition between species rather than between individuals. You also said I obviously had not read The Selfish Gene. In fact I did read your book and disagreed with it for the following reasons.
Here are two replies to your E-mail. The first was a verbal response made immediately when Brockman read your E-mail aloud at a meeting of biologists at his farm. The second was written the following day after thinking more carefully about the question.
First response. What I wrote is not a howler and Dawkins is wrong. Species once established evolve very little, and the big steps in evolution mostly occur at speciation events when new species appear with new adaptations. The reason for this is that the rate of evolution of a population is roughly proportional to the inverse square root of the population size. So big steps are most likely when populations are small, giving rise to the ``punctuated equilibrium'' that is seen in the fossil record. The competition is between the new species with a small population adapting fast to new conditions and the old species with a big population adapting slowly.
Second response. It is absurd to think that group selection is less important than individual selection. Consider for example Dodo A and Dodo B, competing for mates and progeny in the dodo population on Mauritius. Dodo A competes much better and?has greater fitness, as measured by individual selection. Dodo A mates more often and has many more grandchildren than Dodo B. A hundred years later, the species is extinct and the fitness of A and B are both reduced to zero. Selection operating at the species level trumps selection at the individual level. Selection at the species level wiped out both A and B because the species neglected to maintain the ability to fly, which was essential to survival when human predators appeared on the island. This situation is not peculiar to dodos. It arises throughout the course of evolution, whenever environmental changes cause species to become extinct.
In my opinion, both these responses are valid, but the second one goes more directly to the issue that divides us. Yours sincerely, Freeman Dyson.
Dyson explains that in the future we are moving to cross species engineered evolution, where man can accelerate mutations and thus exchange of knowledge (and cultural evolution) becomes a very salient aspect to biological evolution. So the point being that is supports my point that men's primary goal shouldn't only be the transfer of their own DNA, but more so of their knowledge of evolutionarily superior strategies.
I thank CoinCube for focusing me in on the importance of culture and individual defection (which is inherently a groupwise and societal phenomenon). Of course, I have arrived at a different conclusion than his religion tangent.
I think all the benefits CoinCube cites for Health due to religion, are actually due to the suppression of women's R strategy sexuality and thus men's R strategy as well. All the bad effects and slide towards evil follows from that catastrophic mistake in white man's culture in the 19th century. All because white men value their genes and their little daughters in the wrong way. If they really loved their daughters, they would give them a culture that can succeed. White men have punted on their cultural leadership responsibilities and with disastrous results.
So r0ach please stop blaming the Jews. Soros is just giving us what we sowed.
My message to all white men is: Aren't you tired of losing?
Lol. I thought the younger generations have more atheists than the old ones. Weird.
I think the survey is skewed because it is worldwide. If you did the survey only in Western Europe, then you'd I assume see much higher rates of atheism (actually Marxism which is a religion) amongst the youth.
I forgot to put in the source for the table above.
The data table above comes from a large 2009 pew research survey and is US only.
The source is here:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
The news article I linked earlier talks about a global survey but I did not have time to track down the source material so I do not know what the totals are worldwide.
Edit:
Here is a summary of the global survey by country.
http://www.rdmag.com/article/2015/12/how-do-scientists-view-religion
Quote
Belief in a higher power among scientists varied depending on region. Turkey, India and Taiwan boasted the highest percentages, with 85%, 79% and 74% expressing “at least some belief in a Higher Power.” In Italy and Hong Kong, the percentages were 57% and 54%. The U.S. and U.K. were 36% and 35%. French scientists expressed the lowest levels of belief with 24%.
Lol. I thought the younger generations have more atheists than the old ones. Weird.
I think the survey is skewed because it is worldwide. If you did the survey only in Western Europe, then you'd I assume see much higher rates of atheism (actually Marxism which is a religion) amongst the youth.
I don't believe fear of a God is necessary. Rationality will work if men stop being ideological sponges.
We return once more to our core disagreement.
I disagree with you entirely on this issue.
Evil is often Rational
https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/evil-rational
Evil is not rational, when your goal is to maintain your culture. Anything which correctly maintains your culture is by definition not evil.
You think Evil is arbitrary because you have no goal to measure good vs. evil with. Thus you need some nebulous nonsense which has a muddled goal and outcome, e.g. the muddled outcome of how you have noted that the Jews have alienated many societies by doing parasitism because their religion says they can do usury to non-Jews.
Hitler's social justice most definitely was evil and did not maintain the society and positive culture of the white man.
For example, one evil in a correctly functioning white culture would be to fornicate with the opposite gender who is a member of the same culture and not take care of raising the offspring. That doesn't require a fear of God. It is obvious that the culture will be destroyed otherwise.
Fornicating with the same gender would obviously also destroy the culture of the primary point being productive and raising productive males (and women productive at bearing and raising children). I mean raising the women is just as important, but they are raised for different roles, both of which are productive and important.
Thus drunkenness is thus rationally evil. Not maintaining your physical exercise is rationally evil. Not having self-discipline and understanding the natural purposes of one's urges is thus rationally evil.
A culture of such men should not have a primary goal of competing against each other (except as a sport or friendly motivation) but rather to note they are competing against all the inferior external cultures which want to destroy the superior culture. This should be a culture of cooperation and harmony. Raising high IQ males correctly should make this more plausible. (We can't compare to the high IQ men we have today, because so many of them have been raised by parents who had no clue about the realities of nature and the culture they need to cultivate)
Conquest should be for cultural gains, i.e. incorporating the best genetics from external cultures. This can even be an entirely decentralized form of conquest, i.e. each young male off on his own grabbing some female(s) who are pliant (also serves as an outlet/goal for their natural hormonal surge at the young age).
I won't get any where towards that goal with bearded orthodox Jews, because they have their rationality clouded by all these pagan religious customs and rituals. How can one be rational if they still believe the bark on the tree is Holy and symbolism crap. Jews are trying to do conquest via usury form of parasitism. I think partaking of females is a more insidious form of parasitism.
Tribes did this but they didn't scale because they didn't educate their males and set them free to integrate into the knowledge of the world.
James was the first person to respond to Satoshi when he announced Bitcoin on the mailing list in 2008.
Btw, JAD also nailed Bitcoin's scaling problem from the moment Satoshi announced:
We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size.
For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to bittorrent.
To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to bittorrent.
To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
I don't believe fear of a God is necessary. Rationality will work if men stop being ideological sponges.
We return once more to our core disagreement.
Rationality alone cannot work for reason is only a tool.
Evil is often Rational
https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/evil-rational
Just because he wrote that, doesn't mean that everyone who thinks religion is unfalsifiable is a Marxist.
....
Marxism is not just about the claim that religion is an illusion.
....
Marxism is not just about the claim that religion is an illusion.
No it just means they have some Marxist inclinations. That they agree with Marx on some issues. A true Marxist is someone who agrees with Marx on all or most issues.
Thus you iamnotback have some Marxist inclinations but since you disagree with Marx on many other issues you are most definitely not a Marxist
The more salient point is that Marx first removed religion and then replaced it with the religion of social justice. Thus your Marxist leanings are more severe than mine because you have religious vacuum that you are trying to fill (you offered the necessity of social justice for fixing slavery for example) and afaics this makes you ideologically vulnerable.
I am rather denying to have any religion or ideological position. I don't believe I can fix nature. Instead I think I need to have a rational plan for a culture that works and can scale out and which can't be defeated because it will be decentralized. It only requires teaching the young males some truths about nature which they must 100% respect.
If they don't respect those truths, then they will destroy the culture and themselves. Those offspring which fail to uphold the truths, will be naturally selected out.
I don't believe fear of a God is necessary. Rationality will work if men stop being ideological sponges.
Young men need a clear, unequivocal battle plan for their life goal and purpose. And the mothers must be prevented from polluting their minds and spoiling them.
Weak men will not be comfortable with this. And thus they are enslaved. r0ach if you want to waste your time trying to save weak men from themselves, then you will be pulled down with them.
Just because he wrote that, doesn't mean that everyone who thinks religion is unfalsifiable is a Marxist.
....
Marxism is not just about the claim that religion is an illusion.
....
Marxism is not just about the claim that religion is an illusion.
No it just means they have some Marxist inclinations. That they agree with Marx on some issues. A true Marxist is someone who agrees with Marx on all or most issues.
Thus you iamnotback have some Marxist inclinations but since you disagree with Marx on many other issues you are most definitely not a Marxist
Marx called religion an illusion and the opium of the people. Therefore these views are Marxist.
Just because he wrote that, doesn't mean that everyone who thinks religion is unfalsifiable is a Marxist.
That would be like saying a black man said Popeyes fried chicken is the best, so every white man who says Popeyes fried chicken in the best must be black.
Marxism is not just about the claim that religion is an illusion.
The belief that religion is delusion is also Marxists.
Nonsense. That is your strawman
Marxism is what Karl Marx wrote and believed. Marx called religion an illusion and the opium of the people. Therefore these views are Marxist.
Anonymint being the only whitey in the Philippines
Sadly I see many quite the more handsome and tall (and younger) whiteys roaming around in Philippines with short, brown fucking machines. Sad to see what the white man is doing to himself. Do they even know that 70 - 80% of the filipinos are carrying latent Tuberculosis. They rarely even choose the cream of the crop of filipinas, instead taking the bottom rung monkey looking ones that the filipinos discard. Even the filipinos wonder why they see such handsome foreigners with such ugly girls. But these foreigners have jungle fever and have been watching too much porn I guess and want some brown or black ass and pretend they are fornicating with some native tribe in the Amazon jungle. Yet they marry the entire family, which means they get sucked down into supporting the laziness and undisciplined culture of the Philippines. Yet they don't have a fucking clue about how they've lost any semblance of the white culture that made them superior (they complain about Western women, yet then raise their daughters as princesses again).
Waking up at age ~52 is a bit late, but hopefully I am not too old.
We all need a healthy collective in an age when unhealthy choices abound. I have yet to decide which one is for me.
It's more like people live some type of hedonist or aimless lifestyle when the times are good, then things turn bad and society immediately reorganizes exactly the same way prisons are - genetic groups. Then you get this:
The main purpose of war is for groups sharing common genetic ancestry to compete against different groups and determine which ones will occupy this finite space and resources in the future.
Anonymint being the only whitey in the Philippines, I figure he will provide excellent use for the local natives in times of need:
Perhaps I misunderstood your accusation that I am regurgitating lies?
You regurgitating that slavery lie is akin to when you used to regurgitate the man-made global warming lie.
You didn't lie about a narrow definition of slavery becoming illegal and politically incorrect in the Western world.
You do regurgitate the notion that humanity is progressing with current organization of society by mentioning that narrow slavery "achievement" as something of relevance. That form of slavery was eliminated by economics (i.e. nature), not by social justice. Social justice accomplishes nothing but destroy the white man.
Nevertheless slavery continues and the white man is enslaving himself per the explanation in my prior post.
I do not believe that nature is kind. I also do not believe that all humans can be equal. That belief is indeed Marxists.
Then why do you mention social justice bullshit as some sort of achievement, thus contributing to politically correct mind control of the white man.
The belief that religion is delusion is also Marxists.
Nonsense. That is your strawman to try to convince yourself that you are not deluded. (I agree let's not debate religion here, we can do that in your threads in Politics & Society and I am not wanting to berate anyone for their personal choice of religion, but in terms of any future children I have, they will be taught it is unfalsifiable and be taught to be rational and that nature is competitive and that women are not men and have a different role).
We all need a healthy collective in an age when unhealthy choices abound. I have yet to decide which one is for me.
Religion pulled me way off course and nearly destroyed my life, because it enabled me to focus on shit (such as fighting against myself to not have sex with a virgin without marrying her, etc) which was not where the problem lies. The problem in my life lies with not understanding my role as a white man and the family culture I should create. I didn't understand what my competitive goal in nature is. I didn't understand how my goal could be compatible with the happiness and best interests of a female (or even females!). And R strategy is not optimum for my culture (it can be fine for tossing my genetics around in inferior cultures, if that happens to not interfere with my health and productivity, but optimizing my culture is a purpose that is very unique because nearly no white man is doing that any more).
If I had known then in 2006 what I know now about human nature as explained in my prior post, I would have had my eyes on the ball instead of on the inkblot.
It may be true that religion can be one way of keeping men and women in line with the point of my prior post. In that respect, religion may serve a rational purpose. But I don't want to join a society of delusion. I'd rather raise high IQ young men who can be taught these facts from an early age, so they know what they need to do.
Nobody taught me anything. My parents had no fucking clue and they still don't. And thus I didn't have any fucking clue either for the first 50 years of my life. But I am waking up now...
Claiming I lied about slavery is simply untrue.
No where did I write that YOU lied about slavery.
You simply do not understand at all the point I am making and you going on irrelevant tangential strawman trying to build a case for your religion fetish.
The point I am making is that society loves to enamor itself with false accomplishments. You are falling into that mind control trap. Soros has you (and your fellow Jews) deluded. Religion is another delusion, but that is tangential (I don't care which delusion you choose, just that you keep choosing them, because you are weakened by the fact that you've been deluded to believe that nature is kind and caring and that all humans can be equal, and other bullshit).
Let's get back to the facts.
Perhaps I misunderstood your accusation that I am regurgitating lies?
You regurgitating that slavery lie is akin to when you used to regurgitate the man-made global warming lie.
I do not believe that nature is kind. I also do not believe that all humans can be equal. That belief is indeed Marxists. The belief that religion is delusion is also Marxists.
To clarify I am not Jewish. I have 0% Jewish ancestry and I don't even have any Jewish friends (this last is due only to a lack of opportunity). I have not converted to Judaism nor have I started the process of such a conversation. I do not live a Torah observant life nor do I even know what is required to do so.
However, the advice I gave r0ach immediately above is advice I will eventually follow myself. We all need a healthy collective in an age when unhealthy choices abound. I have yet to decide which one is for me.
This discussion is starting to draw this thread away from its intended topic. I will let this post be my final comments on the matter.
Jump to: