Dark Enlightenment

[CoinCube]

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.

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

Singapore's plea to its people: Won’t you please have more children?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2017/0129/Singapore-s-plea-to-its-people-Won-t-you-please-have-more-children

As Singapore goes all out to reverse its ultralow fertility rate, many nations facing tough economic and social problems as the ranks of young people dwindle watch closely for lessons.

Singapore’s fertility rate is among the 10 lowest in the world. The average number of births per woman in 2015 was 1.24, according to government statistics. That’s well below the replacement rate of 2.1, the number of babies generally required to maintain a country’s current population level.
...
Singapore is an acute example of what has become a worldwide trend. Nearly half of all people now live in countries where women, on average, give birth to fewer than 2.1 babies. The Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group in Washington, estimates the world population will reach 9.9 billion in 2050, up about 33 percent from an estimated 7.4 billion now. Yet the growth rate has steadily declined since its peak in the late 1960s.
...
Governments across the world, from Denmark to Japan, are struggling to come to terms with shrinking populations, and the implications for everything from supporting aging populations to growing the economy. But Singapore’s all-out approach stands out as one of the most ambitious.
...
Singapore has introduced a wide range of policies to help defray the costs of raising children in one of the world’s most expensive countries. Couples can get baby bonuses and housing priority, and men can take advantage of extended mandatory parental leaves – just like women. The government sponsors dating services to help with the first step: finding a partner.
...
The government’s aim is to help make parenthood as easy as possible. Aside from the housing initiative, it has also extended mandatory paid paternity leave from one to two weeks and even provides cash for babies. Families receive $14,000 (Singaporean; almost US$9,900) for their first child and are eligible for the same amount if they have a second; they receive S$20,000 for a third child, as well as for a fourth, and S$26,000 for each child beyond that.

The results have been mixed.
...
“I cannot solve the problem, and I have given up,” Lee (the country’s founding leader) wrote in his last book, published in 2013. “I have given the job to another generation of leaders. Hopefully, they or their successors will eventually find a way out.”
...
Josephine Teo (enior minister of state who oversees the National Population and Talent Division) often urges young people to look for love and settle down early, but even she has acknowledged a fine line between gentle persuasion and heavy-handed intrusiveness... "Millennial Singaporeans, who number nearly a million, are not about to start families because someone exhorts them to. If and when they decide to, it will likely be because they regard marriage and parenthood to be achievable, enjoyable, and celebrated.”

Israel has the highest birth rate in the developed world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-has-the-highest-birth-rate-in-the-developed-world-and-thats-becoming-a-problem-2015-9

Although most people don’t realize it, Israel is the only Western country that has a positive birthrate

The average Israeli woman has three babies in her lifetime, nearly double the fertility rate for the rest of the industrialised countries in the OECD.

Today's population of 8.4 million is forecast to reach 15.6 million by 2059 and 20.6 million in a high case scenario.
...
there is no national discourse or recognition that a problem exists. On the contrary, government policies are geared to encouraging a high birth rate.

The reasons are various, from the biblical command "Be fruitful and multiply" to the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust, to fears of being outnumbered by Arabs.

Israeli government policy encourages population growth with benefits such as child allowances, free schooling from the age of three and funding for up to four in vitro fertility treatments a year.

[1715644038]

1715644038

[1715644038]

1715644038

[iamnotback]

So true:

In a society where men have all the power they don’t put women in a great big brothel and share them around. Instead each woman belongs to one, and only one, man ever. Where women have all the power, they put themselves in a great big brothel and share themselves around.

CoinCube it is very easy to understand why fundamentalist ("right-wing") Jews have a higher birthrate than Singaporeans:

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-urban-gene-shredder/#comment-1523490
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-urban-gene-shredder/#comment-1523566

I perceive that JAD is smarter than you. Why not try to debate him on his blog? I'd love to read the exchange.

Be careful or we might be shredding the birthrate of daughters by overeducating them and allowing all that idealistic BS such as emancipation.

[iamnotback]

Elections are a way of not having civil wars. Ideally the election result should be indicative of who would win a civil war, so you can get to the outcome a civil war would produce without all the killing and destruction. If you allow women and blacks and people without property etc to vote, then the election result is likely to fail to reflect the likely outcome of a civil war. If women and people without property get too grabby, a civil war then is incentivized, in that white men of property would be substantially better off with the civil war outcome than the election outcome

If one faction or the other then burns the Reichstaag, providing a schelling point on which a civil war can be started, the incentivized civil war becomes likely.

These videos reaffirm why women (and effeminate men who couldn't fight effectively in a civil war) should not be allowed to vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C57vNg_9vUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYrruB2oLd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wckKDCs9WPM

[CoinCube]

I perceive that JAD is smarter than you. Why not try to debate him on his blog? I'd love to read the exchange.

I really have no interest. It's not my responsibility to try and fix his primitivism and my time is limited.

JAD and others like him are free to try and reverse woman's suffrage and repress women. I am am content to work towards the opposite goals of empowerment, suffrage, and freedom. Competition will determine which strategy is the viable one.

Philosophers Justifying Slavery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

Throughout history there have been people who attempted to justify slavery. Many of them did so purely out of self-interest, in order to continue a barbaric trade, but some historical philosophers sought to justify slavery from the best intentions.

Aristotle

The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, was one of the first. He thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types - slaves and non-slaves.

"For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule..."

Some people, he said, were born natural slaves and ought to be slaves under any circumstances. Other people were born to rule these slaves, could use these slaves as they pleased and could treat them as property.

Natural slaves were slaves because their souls weren't complete - they lacked certain qualities, such as the ability to think properly, and so they needed to have masters to tell them what to do.

It's clear that Aristotle thinks that slavery was good for those who were born natural slaves, as without masters they wouldn't have known how to run their lives.

In fact Aristotle seems to have thought that slaves were 'living tools' rather like domestic animals, fit only for physical labour.

"And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life."


Homer

Homer seems to have thought that even if a person wasn’t inferior before they became a slave, enslaving them changed them in such a way as to make them a natural slave:

"Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him."

[CoinCube]

White Nationalism
By John C. Wright
http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/01/white-nationalism/#more-17679

“Is there any way to make white nationalism defensible?”

No. A Jewish ethnostate is possible and desirable because Judaism is both a race and a religion.

A religion is what actually governs a man’s basic virtues and worldview.

Persons in a nation state must share basic virtues and worldview to be able to maintain civility and cohesion.

“Whiteness” is not a philosophy, not a worldview, not a thing that produces a certain outlook or demands a certain loyalty.

What everyone thinks is “the White race” is nothing more or less than the ghost of an increasingly decayed and secular Protestantism trying to find a secular replacement for the spirit of the Catholic Church, which, before the Reformation, was the sole animating spirit of Western Europe.


Before the Great Schism in the Tenth Century, the Church was the sole animating spirit of Eastern Europe as well, not to mention, before the Seventh Century, the Middle Eastern and North African lands as well.

The things modern race science claims are the virtues and strengths of the White Man are merely Christian virtues which come from being Christianized, including the environmental factors that lead to a divergence of IQ test scores, and the other junk science on which the modern racists place so much emphasis.

America is the only nation that returned to the humility of the kings of the Middle Ages, who did not establish themselves as their own national popes, heads of their own national churches, because America’s genius was the First Amendment, which, it is to be remembered, undid the Protestant innovation of using secular power to govern spiritual matters.

Now, America did not return to the bosom of the universal Church, she was, after all, overwhelmingly Protestant. But she did try to leave a vacuum in the place in society normally occupied by an international and universal Church. She built a pyramid with no capstone.

Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and so the Left moved into that capstone, and became the moral and spiritual leadership of the nation, as a Church should be, and had their sacraments (abortion) and their priesthood (the news) and their false prophets (Obama, who could slow the rise of the oceans).

Now we are seeking to overturn that evil church, and you are seeking in an abortive and unscientific racial idea what cannot possibly be found there.

Spiritual guidance and an answer to the questions of life can only be found where the spirit is, and in the hand of the Lord who grants life.

But the measure you use you will be measured by. If Black Pride is virtuous, so is White Pride. If White Price is not virtuous, then neither is Black Pride.

In any case, let us not ask about a White Nation. Let us talk about a Christian nation. A white socialist nation would no less a hellhole than a yellow socialist nation. Stalinist Russia was not freer than Maoist China.

America, the first nation in history where all men were free to worship each man as his conscience saw fit, was the most Christian nation in history, despite having not a single pro-Christian law on any lawbooks. It was a Christian nation by custom and by culture, not by laws.

But the culture did not hold the line. In the 1970s the Christians surrendered to a more seductive and persuasive worldview, that of Leftism, which seemed to them better to fit the world described by Darwin, Freud, and Marx.

[iamnotback]

CoinCube, you are entirely wrong. And I am not sure if I have the patience, energy, and time right now to try to explain all the intracracies of why.

For one thing, I have a lot more real world experience than you do. Experience beats theory because theoreticians live in a bubble. I have seen personally all the whoring going on. And all the destruction due to "educated" emancipated females.  (You can't in general educate a female, because she is ruled by her hind-brain, and all your attempts and wishing will never conquer nature. Never!). Men unfortunately can be mind controlled by ideology, so in general education doesn't work for males also, but when it does work, those males dominate the others in a cultural evolutionary competition. Whereas the rare case of educated females (not ruled by her hindbrain) do not dominate and thus do not spread (dominate with) their superior genes+culture. Thus women can't be effective leaders in a cultural evolutionary context. These are inviolable facts of nature.

Religion failed the brown people in Latin America and especially the Philippines, and it also failed the white people. The brown people tend to adopt their feelings because their life is very physically based (due to climate and thus lifestyle+culture). The white people are fanatical about what ever religion they choose (atheism, leftism, judaism, christianity, etc) ostensibly because of the colder climate they have more propensity to be mental (i.e. spend time thinking+planning+organizing) and produce Frankenstein ideological disasters every single damn time. No exceptions.

Religion does not work. Period. It fails.

The only thing that worked (for that family, i.e. decentralized outcome not collective groupwise) was when parents used to stop the world from becoming one giant brothel, as JAD so eloquently explained.

You can think that religion can do the same, but that is in theory. In practice, it has other even more aberrant outcomes.

Here is the message I have been sending to filipinas to explain to them why many (most) of the foreigners they meet are playing with them and why many of the filipino boys run away when they make the lady pregnant. I'll send a variant of it to Western women too if they will even read (but I find they cover their eyes and ears and scream instead or just ignore).

Subject: why most of the guys in the world are not serious

The reason that most boys all over the world are not serious any more is because the parents do not hold their girls and prevent the boys from dating their girls. In the older times, girls were not allowed to go outside with boys unless the father trusted that boy. And fathers would kill boys who played with their girls and didn't marry them. All the society would pressure the boys to be responsible and shame them into doing their responsibility. So in the older times of our grandparents, the boys were very careful to choose the girl they truly loved. But in the modern times, boys aren't careful any more because they know they can cheat.

In the modern times in the Western countries, what they do is allow the women to divorce the man and force him to pay all his salary to the girl. And even if not married, and then boy makes the girl pregnant, then they force him to pay everything for that child until the child is 18. But this was a very bad result, because women in the Western countries take advantage and take all the guy's money even the man is good. So then the guys no longer want to make family, and encourage the girls to use birth control pills. And that is why guys are going to Philippines to play with the girls because they know if they make the filipina pregnant, she can't do anything and the guy can run away back to his country.

The entire situation is a mess and it is all broken.

Unfortunately most of the guys in the foreign countries do not like to make family because of the reason I explained above. Also in the Western countries, the concept of feminism is very prominent and so guys don't acting like real man any more. They been taught by the society and their mothers that women are just same as men. But this is not true. Women can do things that men can't do, and vice versa men can do jobs women can't do.

I think the entire world has gone crazy as it says in the Bible in Revelation. I just want to do my life in right way, the same as my grandparents did. Because in the older times, my grandparents really loved the family and kids. But my parents generation not.

[iamnotback]

I really have no interest. It's not my responsibility to try and fix his primitivism and my time is limited.

It isn't objective (not even smart) to equate an accurate understanding of nature with the primordial mental evolution of baboons.

All that academia brain washing indoctrination is actually a bat shit dumb cathedral.

And the arrogance that accompanies it. And he has no obligation to fix your ideological insanity either. The point was to see who can win the arguments, because I think he is more prepared than I am to refute you on point. It is the same genre of insanely stupid zombies we see in these videos spouting off about "I need a penis to get a job". I wanted to ask that pretty young lady to please go move a huge stack of concrete blocks up to the 10th floor on a construction zone for 8 hours and ongoing for 6 days a week, while I stay home and feed the cute babies.

JAD and others like him are free to try and reverse woman's suffrage and repress women. I am am content to work towards the opposite goals of empowermentdevolvement to hindbrain control, suffrage, and freedomslavery.

ftfy. And if you still don't understand why, then you haven't been paying attention to the discussion.

Competition will determine which strategy is the viable one.

Just open your eyes. Fertility dropping below replacement rates. Yet you think religion will fix this because of some minority groups with a higher fertility. Yet these groups continue to fall away into leftism as you admitted. Orthodox judaism is dead if they are educating and emancipating their women. It will slide left over time and/or be diluted from within.

The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, was one of the first. He thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types - slaves and non-slaves.

That will always be true. You are proposing slavery. And JAD (and I) are proposing freedom. But you are blind.

Emancipating females turns them into whoring slaves to their hindbrain. And they fall into ideological mind control (slavery) and then the men do too. You are so enslaved that you don't even realize it.

Ideological mind controlled zombie bullshit is slavery. We have the huge armies of enslaved zombies on YouTube. Just take a few hours watching these protests and watch some videos of activists and academic activists, etc.. They will cull themselves. Guaranteed.

[iamnotback]

“Is there any way to make white nationalism defensible?”

No. A Jewish ethnostate is possible and desirable because Judaism is both a race and a religion.

A religion is what actually governs a man’s basic virtues and worldview.

Persons in a nation state must share basic virtues and worldview to be able to maintain civility and cohesion.

“Whiteness” is not a philosophy, not a worldview, not a thing that produces a certain outlook or demands a certain loyalty.

Whites are more prone to planning and use of the mind for organizing. This appears to be due to winter. I have a friend here in the Philippines who says one hard winter would kill 50% of the filipinos. JAD is correct that in every brown country, the whites run everything and keep the utilities turn on. In the Philippines, the Chinese actually run the country. Before that it was the Americans. Before that it was the Spanish for 400 years.

I suppose there were exceptions such as the Aztecs, but the white man was more productive and thus had better weapons and easily defeated the Aztecs.

Sorry your source is incorrect. Whiteness is a culture and thus produces a different philosophy. It also produces aberrant philosophies such as religion and ideologues.

I think we are still searching for the pragmatic white culture. I do not know the facts about whether we can take brown genetics and raise these offspring in a white culture and thinking and get the desired result. I need to try to do some research on this. I would appreciate if anyone can help me. I do note that JAD published a blog that showed that only the European babies have the gag reflex and fight back ferociously. I am not sure if this accurate or scientific. I need to study more on this.

My guess or intuition is that race also drives culture genetically, because for example I can tell you that very brown filipinas have a lot of trouble with their ears in cold climates. The cold air seems to get inside their ears in a way that it doesn't for us. And also they get very dry skin if they are not in a very humid climate. I am not pure white as I have some small % of Cherokee native American ancestry (enough that I am not that tall at 174 - 175cm in shoes and I am smaller boned), and I have noticed in myself that I have a need to exhaust myself physically before I can settle down into mental focus (but I am not sure if other whites don't also have this trait).

Hey I am not against the success of non-white races and culture. If they can succeed, great. But I want to see it, not legislate what isn't.

What everyone thinks is “the White race” is nothing more or less than the ghost of an increasingly decayed and secular Protestantism trying to find a secular replacement for the spirit of the Catholic Church, which, before the Reformation, was the sole animating spirit of Western Europe.

Well I think this is largely true for the majority of whites who have fallen into ideological slavery.

The Dark Enlightenment appears to be about the awakening of white (and maybe also some of color) men who are not so enslaved.

Before the Great Schism in the Tenth Century, the Church was the sole animating spirit of Eastern Europe as well, not to mention, before the Seventh Century, the Middle Eastern and North African lands as well.

The things modern race science claims are the virtues and strengths of the White Man are merely Christian virtues which come from being Christianized, including the environmental factors that lead to a divergence of IQ test scores, and the other junk science on which the modern racists place so much emphasis.

Where are his references!?!!

I would presume that environmental factors were driving it as I have explained.

America is the only nation that returned to the humility of the kings of the Middle Ages, who did not establish themselves as their own national popes, heads of their own national churches, because America’s genius was the First Amendment, which, it is to be remembered, undid the Protestant innovation of using secular power to govern spiritual matters.

America appears to have been one of the Dark Enlightenment style movements.

Now, America did not return to the bosom of the universal Church, she was, after all, overwhelmingly Protestant. But she did try to leave a vacuum in the place in society normally occupied by an international and universal Church. She built a pyramid with no capstone.

Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and so the Left moved into that capstone, and became the moral and spiritual leadership of the nation, as a Church should be, and had their sacraments (abortion) and their priesthood (the news) and their false prophets (Obama, who could slow the rise of the oceans).

America emancipated women and then it self-destructed because of it.

But I agree that religion was not sufficient to prevent the masses from ideological enslavement. That is my point.

And that is why when trying to design a really competitive solution, I realize it must be decentralized. Refer to my upthread explanations.

[Okurkabinladin]

Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here.

So why are you reading it?

He said capacity, not capability. Capacity as in "empty space", of which his brain has a disproportionately large amount, compared to most readers here.

Which perfectly illustrates your average student of philosophy or politology. A lot of empty space, that can be filled with more BS. And we wonder why these schools accept perfectly normal, healthy kids and after couple of years return full grown sociopaths with communist streak.

[iamnotback]

Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here.

So why are you reading it?

He said capacity, not capability. Capacity as in "empty space", of which his brain has a disproportionately large amount, compared to most readers here.

Which perfectly illustrates your average student of philosophy or politology. A lot of empty space, that can be filled with more BS. And we wonder why these schools accept perfectly normal, healthy kids and after couple of years return full grown sociopaths with communist streak.

I agree this is a very important point that must be emphasized.

Afaics, the reason religion doesn't work is because for the whites it doesn't appease (fill up) their intellectual capacity, but rather tries to tell them they can't think for themselves (and rewards their collective failure because they can always rely on God no matter what) and for the non-thinking brown skin cultures, they go to church as a superstition that they think will give them good luck in spite of all their sins. These days at the local Catholic church in the Philippines, I see 5 year old girls in high heels and mini-skirts (as JAD says, one giant brothel).

White men and women have high IQs and need to fill up that capacity with something. When they fill it up with ideology which is incompatible with competitive cultural evolutionary success (i.e. which is belies the reality of nature), then we end up with Frankenstein culling outcomes.

CoinCube is trying to be a very ethical person and wants to work for good. It is easy to want to admire him, because his intentions seem to be so pure. The problem is IMO he doesn't have an accurate appraisal of the reality of the good and evil, because his mind has been polluted by a lot of nonsense (ostensibly by attending very good schools since his formative years, whereas I attended all black inner city schools where we didn't learn a damn thing so I had to pretty much learn everything myself at least until 8th grade when I enrolled in a non-secular private school that afair wasn't yet infected with SJWs or maybe it was and I was afflicted from it). I also went out into the wider world and experienced a lot of sin (failure) and mistakes personally so I have learned by fire. It is what I didn't know that caused me to fail so much. I don't wish to make this personal, because honestly and frankly I know in my heart that CoinCube is such a respectful person and trying to be such a good and honorable person. And at times in my life, I became disillusioned and there were moments or periods where I didn't even try. So I can't stand on a high horse and judge CoinCube. It pains me that I can't get him to realize that IMO he is the one who in enslaved in evil. He may have a similar perspective about me, and observe how he is no longer judging me heavily in public (he only did that very briefly) so I need to also respect that this is not personal. He shifted his judgement to JAD, who is not here to defend himself. So we are having a debate here, and I want to try to be respectful, because really I don't want to be angry or offensive to my brother. It is the ideology he is professing that I hate.

When I use the word insanity, it is because it is men who have the natural capacity to use strategy, compete, and lead culture. Women can never do this. So if we say that we don't trust the strong men to lead and we instead wish to put the women's hindbrain in control of society, then what actually happens is society becomes dominated by strong men any way who take control of that power vacuum. This is why we have a global elite who are so empowered to control the minds of the populace.

Our only hope as men is take control and lead. Period. Until CoinCube gets this, I am afraid I will conclude his intellectual capacity has been filled up with insanity.

Having said that, @winter was correct to point out that those who need to demonize others, perhaps don't have good arguments. I am not demonizing CoinCube. I am using the word insanity, because I truly believe it is insane to fill up our intellectual capacity for sociology with anything other than a successful cultural evolutionary strategy. In fact, it is CoinCube who focused me on the importance of having such a strategy (before I was just lost floating aimlessly at sea). Now armed with a real purpose to my life, I feel energized as a man. CoinCube feels energized by his ideology (as do other SJWs) but how can they succeed when they are relegating their roles as males to be the strategy leaders and turning over society to control by the women's hindbrain and thus a power vacuum to be picked off over time by Marxism (top-down control by global elite totalitarianism).

P.S. I am on very strong 4-drugs anti-tuberculosis meds and I am basically so exhausted that I can only sleep continuously (about 20 hours a day) and eat. So I am in sort of state of near delirium, so apologies but the quality of my cognitive state (and thus prose) is highly diminished at the moment. I am posting on this topic because I think it is perhaps the most important thing I can possibly do with the limited moments I have awake. And because I don't have enough energy to do any real work (such as programming).

[iamnotback]

When I use the word insanity, it is because it is men who have the natural capacity to use strategy, compete, and lead culture. Women can never do this. So if we say that we don't trust the strong men to lead and we instead wish to put the women's hindbrain in control of society, then what actually happens is society becomes dominated by strong men any way who take control of that power vacuum. This is why we have a global elite who are so empowered to control the minds of the populace.

Our only hope as men is take control and lead. Period...

...energized by his ideology (as do other SJWs) but how can they succeed when they are relegating their roles as males to be the strategy leaders and turning over society to control by the women's hindbrain and thus a power vacuum to be picked off over time by Marxism (top-down control by global elite totalitarianism).

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/

[trollercoaster]

Elections are a way of not having civil wars. Ideally the election result should be indicative of who would win a civil war, so you can get to the outcome a civil war would produce without all the killing and destruction. If you allow women and blacks and people without property etc to vote, then the election result is likely to fail to reflect the likely outcome of a civil war. If women and people without property get too grabby, a civil war then is incentivized, in that white men of property would be substantially better off with the civil war outcome than the election outcome

If one faction or the other then burns the Reichstaag, providing a schelling point on which a civil war can be started, the incentivized civil war becomes likely.

These videos reaffirm why women (and effeminate men who couldn't fight effectively in a civil war) should not be allowed to vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C57vNg_9vUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYrruB2oLd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wckKDCs9WPM

Here's further confirmation, fast forward to 10:15 and watch this "professor" short circuit: https://youtu.be/wzFS1qLlULc

[CoinCube]

So we are having a debate here, and I want to try to be respectful, because really I don't want to be angry or offensive to my brother. It is the ideology he is professing that I hate.

I have to admit this made me laugh a little.

In this discussion so far I have been accused of:

1) regurgitating lies
2) having a fetish
3) being closer to female than male
4) having low testosterone
5) being closed-minded
6) being an idealist nutcase
7) insanity

I do commend you for your attempts to be respectful. Enhanced efforts in this area may be warranted.

Our only hope as men is take control and lead. Period. Until CoinCube gets this, I am afraid I will conclude his intellectual capacity has been filled up with insanity.

I do believe men need to lead. I believe we need to lead our families to God. Men need to teach our sons and daughters morals and proper behavior. We need to teach them about responsibility and duty. We need to teach them about honor, compassion and self-respect. We also need and to do what we can to build and support a culture the sustains such values.

If a religion tells you not to think for yourself then you have chosen the wrong religion. Your argument against religion are indeed a valid complaint against some religions but not all. In the words of Kurt Godel.

Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

In my opinion your views on women do not fully match reality. You argue that a virtuous, beautiful, smart, faithful female is a fairytale that will never exist.

I dislike personal anecdotes but I will use one here to demonstrate a point. I know for a fact your theses is wrong. I know it is wrong because I am married to a virtuous, beautiful, smart, faithful female. She is highly educated and has willingly chosen not to work and sacrifice her career goals to raise our four young children. Our children benefit greatly from her education. She is quite disciplined and manages household expenditures far more efficiently then I ever would. She does get emotional at certain times and is not perfect. However, she is one of the most virtuous people I have ever met.

I realize that I am very lucky. Most women fall far short of the standard set by my wife.

Many women choose self destructive behaviours. Many men do as well. The fact that some women behave badly when emancipated is not a sufficient argument for repression. In reality there is strong evidence that both men and women may be poorly served biologically when it comes to choosing a mate (see the post on parental selection below). Unless you want to argue that we should all go back to arranged marriages we are better off ironing out the wrinkles of freedom. Unhealthy behaviour is ultimately uncompetitive and will gradually diminish on a generational timeline.

Religion as the proximate method of Group Selection in humans - implications of its removal.
By: Bruce Charlton
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/11/religion-as-proximate-method-of-group.html?m=1

It seems reasonable to regard religion as the proximate method of group selection in humans - in other words, when humans groups compete and evolve group adaptations, these are instantiated by means of religions. Individual humans have adapted to live in a context of religion; and when religion is absent, human behaviour becomes maladaptive - because human instincts are 'designed' to function in a religious environment.

It has long been a consensus among (secular) social theorists that the main (secular) function of religion is social cohesion - that is, religion can enable larger and more complex forms of social functioning; including the stimulation and enforcement of motivation, altruism, long-termism.

Since all humans - until recently in The West - have evolved in the context of religion; therefore religion must, over multiple generations, have had gene-selective consequences that shaped individual instincts and behaviours.

Group selection entails that group behaviour be referenced to something outside the group. This is what groups cohere-around, organize around, cooperate to promote. Throughout history this 'something' has been religion - variously the spirits, the gods, or One God.

Since this has apparently been the case throughout all known history and stretching back into pre-history, individual humans have evolved to be coordinated by religion: religion is a built-in, innate expectation for each individual human; and if religion is absent, then individual behaviour lacks a necessary adaptive context.

Having been under group selection for so long, where each individual functioned as a 'component' part of a religious society; then individual level instincts will relatively have atrophied. So, remove the religion from an individual human being, and the behavioural rules and patterns lack context, and are maladaptive.

Individual humans absent religion are un-equipped to pursue their own reproductive success.

Religion is therefore the medium for, and regulation of, altruism - which is the propensity of individuals to sacrifice their own short-term comfort and pleasure, health, survival, and ultimately their reproductive success, to that of the group.

In sum: Humans just are adapted to serve the group via religious structures which reference individual behaviour to some-thing outside the group.

Clearly, 'the group' in group selection will be bounded - and cannot be scaled up or down, made larger or smaller, indefinitely; since there must be mechanisms for rewarding group-helpful, and suppressing group-harmful, behaviours - and such mechanisms (like status or material rewards, shaming or physically-coercive sanctions) differ between religions, and these do not scale indefinitely in either direction.

Group selection is strong: it must be stronger, in significant respects, than individual selection: group selection must be strong enough to overcome individual preferences.

This means that group selection operates to affect the nature and strength of individual preferences - individual preferences have until recently always operates in the context of religiously-mediated group imperatives; because, over many generations, selection will (overall) tend-to mould individual preferences significantly to serve the needs of the group.

While group selection has been significant on all humans everywhere and at all times; European populations (also probably East Asian populations, perhaps to an even greater extent?) have been strongly group selected for large-scale cohesion over many dozens of generations; so that the effects of group selection are more significant in those of European descent than in most other populations.

This implies that the selection effects of religion on individual behaviour has been more significant in those of European descent than in most other populations.  

European populations had Christianity as the proximate mechanism of group selection for hundreds of years; shaping the instinctual basis of the individuals. And Christianity must have been an extremely powerful mechanism of group selection, because it enabled what are, by world historical standards, very large cooperating groups persisting over multiple generations.

(By contrast, simple animistic religions are able to enforce cooperation of some scores of people; more complex totemistic religions can enable the cohesion of thousands; and the complex and literate Temple religion of Ancient Egypt enabled some millions of people to cohere for three thousand years! Christianity seems to have been similarly powerful to the ancient Egyptian religion, sustaining complex cooperation among millions of people.)

It may therefore be assumed that the people of Western nations inhabited by those of European descent evolved to become extremely dependent on Christianity in order to be adaptive.

These same people, with the same instincts that operated within a strongly Christian context for so many generations, now find themselves in a society from which Christianity has been (all but) deleted.

Individual behaviours now have a very different environment in which to operation - indeed, the environment is in multiple respects and increasingly anti-Christian. Little wonder that grossly maladaptive behaviour is currently rife - indeed mainstream.  

Sans religion, Western populations lack the instinctual basis for individual level survival and reproduction, since these instincts long since atrophied - and atrophied to a more extreme degree than in most populations.

Now basic instincts such as reproduction, group survival, defence, long-termism for group goals, self-sacrifice for the group are defective or absent. The interaction between individual instincts and the non-religious environment is producing multiple, population-lethal pathologies. Voluntary subfertility is nearly universal; native population-replacement is advocated and celebrated; maladaptive forms of sexuality are common and actively-promoted; self-mutilation is escalating, normal and admired; the clamour for on-demand, comfortable, 'assisted' suicide grows greater with each year...

Living without religion, but with a genetic makeup that had evolved to assume religion, to expect religion, and to live-within religion; the instinctual basis of Europeans, including their powers of evaluation and judgement, are revealed as both ineffective and inappropriate.

Of course, under current conditions and continuing present trends; eventually and after many generations individual level selection may lead to the evolution of new effective and appropriate instincts that aimed-at individual survival and reproduction - then, presumably, large scale societies would break down into much smaller competing units, since such individuals would have evolved to be resistant to the social cohesion mechanism of religion.

Alternatively, the adaptiveness of European populations may be strengthened by the restoration of Christianity.

[CoinCube]

Sexual Selection Under Parental Choice: The Evolution of Human Mating Behaviour
By Bruce Charlton
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-science-of-sex-most-important.html?m=1

The work of Menelaos Apostolou, a young Assistant Professor from Nicosia University in Cyprus - collected and explored in this recent book, turns-out to be the most significant 'paradigm shift' in the evolutionary psychology of sex since the modern field began in 1979 with Don Symons The evolution of human sexuality.

Apostolou's work means that this whole area of work - many thousands of papers and scores of best-selling books (not to mention the theoretical basis of the online Manosphere and PUA movement) - now need to be reframed within a new explanatory context.

In a nutshell, and with exhaustive documentation and rigorous argument, Apostolou establishes that parental choice is primary in human evolutionary history: for many hundreds of generations of our ancestors it was primarily parents who chose and controlled who their children would marry and reproduce-with; and the individual sexual preferences of both men and women were relegated to a secondary role.

This means that it was mainly parent choice that shaped human mating preferences - and personal choice would have been relegated to a subordinate role within and after marriage (e.g. infidelity choices; and the choice to end marriage - e.g. when to divorce).

Most of this book is taken up by the collection and discussion of a mass of empirical data - hundreds of references, and the detailed working-through of the implications; but the take home message is relatively simple and clear.

Apostolou shows that in most societies in human history, and continuing in most modern societies outside of The West, individual men and women had very little choice of their mates - and that this choice was nearly always made by their parents. In other words, marriages were arranged by the parents of the husband and wife - especially the daughter's marriage, and usually by their fathers more than their mothers.

Parents preferences for a marriage partner differ from those of their offspring. In general, parents (relatively to their children, especially daughter) prefer delaying sexual relationships until an early marriage with early onset of child-bearing and little or no extra-marital sex. And parents have been generally hostile to divorce.

The characteristics parents prefer (compared with individual preferences) include good character, ability to provide resources (especially men), coming from a 'good family' - with high status and wealth, and pre-marital chastity (especially in women).

The characteristics individuals prefer (compared with their parents) include beauty and good looks (hair, face, figure etc. in a woman; muscular physique in a man), a charming and entertaining personality, the ability to provide sexual excitement and so on.

The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans - which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates.

More exactly, the ancestral system was probably (to simplify) that two sets of parents controlled who thier children married - the individual preferences of the prospective husband and wife may or may not have been consulted. Individual choice was probably important mostly after marriage - since there was the possibility of extra-marital liaisons (although Apostolou documents that these were extremely risky, and generally very harshly punished, up to and including death - especially for women).

But all the ancestral societies permitted divorce (while strongly discouraging it - since this undermined parental decisions) - although mainly in a context where one of the spouses turned out to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of providing grandchildren (eg. men who did not provide sufficient resources - due to their behaviour or from illness or injury, or women who were barren). Probably since women are more controlled in arranging marriage, it is mainly women who initiate divorces.

Apostolou summarizes this as: Parents decide who gets married, children decide whether they stay married.

Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses - and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population - and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation.

Therefore human evolutionary history has left modern individuals, in a world where parental choice and control has been all-but eliminated from mainstream life, woefully ill-equipped to manage their sexual lives.

This affects both men and women adversely - but in partly different ways. men and women share a common problem of not being worried-enoughabout the problem of finding suitable long-term mates, marrying and having children - precisely because this whole business was managed for them by parents through hundreds of preceding human generations.

Women delay and delay marriage and child-bearing, and seem unconcerned about their genetic extinction - because their deep inbuilt expectation is that these matters will be arranged for-them. men worry too much about attaining high status among men, and becoming a good provider - when these were selected for in a world where prospective in-laws wanted these attributes from men; but in the modern world they are an ineffectual strategy for getting a mate.
In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women.

So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers.

Modern single people therefore are much too happy about their living in a state of unattached childlessness, than is good for their reproductive success. And this (biologically) foolish happiness is at least partly a consequence of evolutionary history: people are behaving as if mating and marriage will be sorted-out by parents - but it isn't.

However, as is usual in works of evolutionary psychology - in a subject where the professionals are almost 100 percent atheists (and militant atheists at that!), in this book there is a too brief and conceptually inadequate consideration of the role of religion.

The subject gets about three pages, and religion is treated as merely a trumped-up rationalization for enforcing biological imperatives. However, it is not mentioned that in modern societies it is only among the religious that we can find biologically viable patterns of mating, marriage and family - and indeed only among some particular religions that are traditionalist in ethics and patriarchal in structure: which fits exactly with the evolutionary predictions.

My point is that religion needs to be regarded as a cause, not merely a consequence, of sexual behaviour and selection pressure; in sum, religion (more exactly, some specific religions) is the only known antidote to the pattern of maladaptive modern sexuality which is trending towards extinction.

Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants - and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve.

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

So, from a biological perspective, I would contend that there is no reason to suppose we can solve the biological problems of modernity outwith religion (especially since the social system of religion has in practice been replaced by... the mass media - see my book Addicted to Distraction). Biological knowledge can diagnose the problem - but science cannot provide a solution nor the motivation to implement it; since humans are not evolved to structure their sexuality according to biological principles.

We are 'set-up' to seek our own gratification and try to avoid suffering with reproductive success as a by-product - we do not seek directly to achieve optimal personal/ or tribal/ or national/ or species-level reproductive fitness.

Such omissions and other imperfections do not detract from the exceptional originality and importance of this book and the empirical research and theoretical discussion which it summarizes.

In a world where actual scientific achievement was the primary determinant of professional success; Menelaos Apostolou would be among the most prestigious, most cited, and most intellectually influential people in evolutionary psychology.

I hope that this deserved outcome will, sooner or later, come to pass.

[iamnotback]

I have to admit this made me laugh a little.

In this discussion so far I have been accused of:

1) regurgitating lies
2) having a fetish
3) being closer to female than male
4) having low testosterone
5) being closed-minded
6) being an idealist nutcase
7) insanity

That is somewhat accurate and it is humbling (humiliating?) to read that.

I would say the #1 and #6 are factual, but let's replace "nutcase" with "zealot" but even I am not comfortable with that word. I see you as suffering a delusion of idealism. I don't know what word to use to describe those who are destroying this world by elevating women's hindbrain to equality with the men who need to lead. It think is a bat shit dumb crazy form of idealism (because of the impacts I think it has). The more I think about and the more I test this concept in terms of observing various things over the past days (I've been busy doing some research on this concept in the real world the past days), then more convinced it is the truth.

As for #2, you are framing everything in terms of religion and there is not sufficient objective reason to conclude that religion is the causal correlated factor or even the solution for humanity, rather a preference to frame it from that perspective. Whereas, religion has not worked. So what word to use to describe someone who wants to judge others (moralizing and even arbitrary morals which are evil) in terms of some arbitrary preference?

As for #3 and #4, I agree that I do not know if those correlate with your ideology. I've seen a lot of gay or effeminate men in these recent feminism marches and Trump protests. I've seen very masculine men in the pro-Trump side.

As for #7, I already stated that I don't see you as a person who is literally insane, but that I think the ideology you are professing is insanity (it should be clear that I think a majority of the people are suffering from this delusion of idealism). There is a distinction, and I put a lot of effort into making that distinction, so I am disappointed that you claiming I am saying you are insane.

As for #5, I presume you've been sticking to more or less one point of view your entire life, which is ostensibly the one you were programmed to have by your consistent educational environment from kindergarten to well into adulthood (sorry not trying to be demeaning but is it not a factual statement?). I have been changing and learning many different times. So which of us is more open minded? You've been on one set indoctrination plan since formative years. I have been out there in the real world learning by real world experience.

[iamnotback]

I do believe men need to lead. I believe we need to lead our families to God. Men need to teach our sons and daughters morals and proper behavior. We need to teach them about responsibility and duty. We need to teach them about honor, compassion and self-respect. We also need and to do what we can to build and support a culture the sustains such values.

If a religion tells you not to think for yourself then you have chosen the wrong religion. Your argument against religion are indeed a valid complaint against some religions but not all. In the words of Kurt Godel.

Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

You can't possibly teach men to be objective if you are inject the unfalsifiable God nonsense into the equation. And you can't possibly be objective about morals (ethics) and competitive cultural evolution if you are trying to be so idealistic that you idolize women (which the 10 Commandments tells you not to do and Genesis tells you Eve couldn't be trusted and woman is only a rib of a man!) and fairytales that don't exist.

Gödel was the guy who tried to prove God exists, but then was so ashamed of it he never published his attempt. So apparently he was suffering from some idealistic delusion as well. At least he apparently had some awareness of his insanity.

I mean you can claim that you are teaching your offspring something, just as your parents sent you to be educated. But that doesn't guarantee you aren't just spreading more idealistic delusion.

(I will follow up on Bruce Charlton's writings later)

[iamnotback]

CoinCube, I propose we take a step back and depersonalize our discussion. I think what set me off is combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Your statement that man can't know what is moral without a God, thus implying a holier than thou attitude (and that men can't think for themselves) about those who don't agree. And this combined with what I perceived to be personal judging, not all of it stated rather just a perception (and not all of our discussion being public but I am not insinuating you said anything to me in private that was obnoxious or demeaning). I don't want to try to explain this perception as it was a confluence of discussion where I perceive your allegiance to certain things (such as medical institutions) as absolute which I perceive to he holier than thou pedestals.

Personally I think it is much more meaningful when someone is empathetic to me not because God told him to do so, but because it in his own heart and mind. The God people always carry this holier than thou righteous, moral baggage which they can dump over our head at any time. And I have pointed out that it often doesn't correctly identify good from evil, given my stance that anything which does not further my cultural group evolutionary strategy is evil. But whereas the Bible is very clear that women should not have suffrage, yet then some religions ignore that wisdom so they are evil.

2. That this discussion has been ongoing while I have been in the midst of a very horrible nausea and in general delirious (nearly hallucinating) and generally not feeling well, because I been in the first two weeks of very toxic 4 drug TB therapy and also I was fighting some kind of salmonella poisoning (or whatever that was?) simultaneously.

3. Generally how everyone including yourself uses derogatory, demeaning terminology when referring to people with ideologies you disagree with. For example, you have said JAD is primitive. Excuse me, primitive would not be respecting women in a civilized society, it would dragging them around by their hair Neanderthal style.

4. In general how men who believe in women's equality feel very disgusted about men who ponder whether women should not be voting. The judging is palatable even when you aren't writing or speaking, just the reverberations of the word "primitive" is more than enough for me to know how you feel about our stance. It is quite demeaning to know that the other side thinks we are Neanderthals.


Btw, you playing the role of the victim begins to mimic the tactics of Marxists, so it is not becoming. And again I consider moralizing to be a weapon of mass destruction and also personally demeaning holier than thou judging, thus I could also play the role of the victim but I instead went on the offensive. Nevertheless how about we step back from the ledge of personalization and try to see if we can debate with more rationality and objectivity.

As for your wife, I have no reason to doubt that she is a great match for you (and no reason for me to not be happy that you have her), but my point is about the widescale effects of idolizing women in ways where we as men usurp our own natural obligation to lead. Most men can not find a highly educated wife who will stay home, bear, and raise 3 - 4 children. You have the advantage of having two degrees and being a doctor, so given the culture your wife originates from I think it is very likely she would subjugate herself in honor of her pride for her husband's very high status, because you know in her culture-of-origin status is very important. But how many men will be in that position (and what if they want a Caucasian woman who isn't impressed by status). I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway I proposed to depersonalize this discussion. Because there are widescale impacts of putting the female hindbrain at par with the male when it comes to leading the society. And that is what suffrage for women does. And if we educate females too highly, then all sorts of bad things happen, including the fertility rate dropping below the replacement rate (and that is not including the social activism and Marxist education that most people get now at educational institutions). You claim this is not the case for orthodox Judaism, but you've also admitted that the Jews are very prone to fall out of orthodoxy and into social leftism and I assert this is because of overly educated women raising little boys and polluting their minds. Women are naturally drawn to social causes (even that orthodox woman's perspective I cited upthread has her mentioning doing work on social causes). It is their nature. And they do not appreciate economics. For them money and strategy are never more important than the babies and the social causes. So that is why they should not be voting. Otherwise we end up with social activism clusterfucks.

You apparently love your wife and view her as an objective, virtuous woman. But I mean in terms of cultural evolutionary strategy, I don't think a woman is capable of subjugating her priority set so she can become a man and have the man's priority set. So I am using virtuous in that context. A woman can be virtuous for nurturing.

[CoinCube]

CoinCube, I propose we take a step back and depersonalize our discussion
...
how about we step back from the ledge of personalization and try to see if we can debate with more rationality and objectivity.
...
I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway I proposed to depersonalize this discussion.

 

Translation:

Lets depersonalize our discussion,

Lets debate with more rationality and objectivity.

I think you are a liar.

But lets depersonalize the discussion.


 

iamnotback I honestly feel I have made my case. Everything I have said up-thread is true you can choose to believe it or not at your discretion.

P.S. I am on very strong 4-drugs anti-tuberculosis meds and I am basically so exhausted that I can only sleep continuously (about 20 hours a day) and eat. So I am in sort of state of near delirium, so apologies but the quality of my cognitive state (and thus prose) is highly diminished at the moment. I am posting on this topic because I think it is perhaps the most important thing I can possibly do with the limited moments I have awake. And because I don't have enough energy to do any real work (such as programming).

I hope you get well soon.

[iamnotback]

Translation:
...
I think you are a liar.

Where in the prior post did I state I thought you are liar? As far as I remember, you have told me you have 2 children (I wasn't going to mention that but you have quoted my 3 - 4 children statement and claimed I am claiming you are a liar).

(Note further upthread I stated I thought you were regurgitating lies, but that doesn't mean I think you are consciously lying, but rather I that I thought you were deluded by ideology. But in the recent post I am trying to move away from personalization of this issue.)

The 3 - 4 children is taken from your statement that orthodox Jews are averaging 4.5 children and also my rough, quick guessestimate of what is necessary to stay above replacement rate.

It seems to me you are trying so hard to characterize me as an unethical person, so you can take the holier than thou stance in your mind. This is typical of religious people. They think they are superior. I indeed tried to depersonalize while respectfully addressing the points you made. How did you invent this liar allegation in your mind ostensibly in order to support your ethical superiority? Where in what in my prior post is an objective evidence that I was alleging you are a liar?

As I wrote in my prior post, when we debate core life philosophies and ideology, it becomes very stressful. Who wants to question their own life plan after already making a huge investment in it that can't be changed analogous to the inertia of the Titanic. I tried in my prior post. And this is your reaction. So please stop trying to frame the debate as if you are the victim. The stress is mutual. As well, I am under acute health (and as a result also financial!) stress at this time.

iamnotback I honestly feel I have made my case. Everything I have said up-thread is true you can choose to believe it or not at your discretion.

What have you stated that you think is true which you think refutes my claim that putting the woman's hindbrain a par with the men's obligation to lead destroys the society with social activism?

Where have you refuted that fact that you claimed that men are unable to think for themselves and that only God can tell us what is moral and ethical?

Btw, since man invented God, then it is ludicrous to claim that God can tell men which morals and ethics are absolutely true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9f0XU_S78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orFKj0coLXA


And that God is a creation of man is not disproven by this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwp8DtPjCQ

(As I wrote before, I will be replying on the role of religion throughout history, but I've told you, I do not have a lot of energy, so I will get to it when I am able to. I had already written in our discussion that religion is for the weak men, and thus is a way that weak mean enslave themselves, i.e. are unable to think for themselves, because they are incapable of knowing and acting on the truth of how to organize their own cultural evolution. The message of Jesus ((which I claim is an invention of smart men)) is that men should relegate their own selfish goals for the benefit of humanity and any successful cultural evolution will require some amount of selflessness combined with some amount of competition. It is true that when the weak men fall away from religion to hedonism, then society collapses. It is also true in history that torture and war can be justified by religion, so it isn't purely working as an instrument of successful cultural evolutionary superiority but rather just appears to be a natural aspect of weak men. And even within religion, weak men are not following the teaching of religion, because they idolize women and give them suffrage when the Bible and Koran clearly state not to do that! I had stated upthread that my message is intended for strong men.)

I hope you get well soon.

Thank you. I hope so too. I am running out of time.

[CoinCube]

Where in the prior post did I state I thought you are liar?

Here you go:

I dislike personal anecdotes but I will use one here to demonstrate a point. I know for a fact your theses is wrong. I know it is wrong because I am married to a virtuous, beautiful, smart, faithful female. She is highly educated and has willingly chosen not to work and sacrifice her career goals to raise our four young children.

I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway...

My wife and I have been blessed with four beautiful and healthy children. 
That fact is utterly irrelevant to our conversation.

You mentioned above that you feel unwell and delirious from your medications. Honestly, I think your health is impairing your ability to carry on this conversation in a coherent manner. Perhaps you were not intending to imply that I am a liar? In my opinion your writing and overall cognition has been a pale shadow of what it usually is.

I am going to check out of this conversation for now and suggest you do as well. When you recover and feel you are back to your usual lucidity please send me a PM  I am happy to continue it at a later date.