Dark Enlightenment

[iamnotback]

Perhaps you were not intending to imply that I am a liar?

Did I use the word liar any where? You are a doctor and should understand what sort of effects 4 very powerful antibiotics can have (so liver toxic that significant number of patients can't continue them and I already had liver disease before I started treatment), as well as my repeated statements (and also private ones) that I couldn't even eat without urinating out of my ass (even before I started the antibiotics and I rushed the treatment because my health was failing so precipitously and acutely on return from Singapore). I told you in private as well repeated it in public that my cognitive state is highly diminished. Although I am a beast of a fighter in terms of managing to do athletics even while I am so ill that you admitted to me you can't do while healthy, the fact is I've probably been fighting active, disseminated Tuberculosis for several years! Years! My body is really messed up and curing this is a major risk.

Of course I didn't read all of your post, nor read any of it with a fine tooth comb. I told you I don't have enough energy. I responded to few small portions that I read. I may become energized for some moments I am not (as I am now) by being provoked, but the vast majority of the time I am not in good condition right now. I did have some burst of mild energy a few days ago and perhaps I get a few hours every other day or so, where I feel mostly awake.

I am not (as I am now)

I am making numerous errors like that that I have to correct when I reread two and three times, because that is the state of my cognition right now. My brain is semi-conscious, and I hear in my head not what I am typing.

Please note the edit:

(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.)

To reiterate, I sometimes or often find religious and leftist (social activist) zealots to be demeaning with a superior holier than thou attitude, and thus I tend to feel I should react strongly as well, but as I said, I am trying to back off from such personalization. I realize by allowing myself to feel provoked, I am probably interfering with my own rationality (realize that when this discussion started, I was fighting for my life healthwise as I was in a rapidly deteriorating health episode and was afraid I was going to be admitted to ER again thus I was in a fighting mode and in an agggresively defensive posture with raised cortisol levels, etc). Also I don't want to insinuate you are a zealot. As I said earlier, I am lacking an appropriate word to use in your case, and besides I don't want to be judging or analyzing you at all. I'd rather we just talk about facts.


Edit: as I said I am happy for you that you have such a great wife who is a match for you. And also congrats on 4 offspring. Forgot to make it clear that I am happy for your successes.

[CoinCube]

Of course I didn't read all of your post, nor read any of it with a fine tooth comb. I told you I don't have enough energy. I responded to few small portions that I read. I may become energized for some moments I am not (as I am now) by being provoked, but the vast majority of the time I am not in good condition right now. I did have some burst of mild energy a few days ago and perhaps I get a few hours every other day or so, where I feel mostly awake.
...
I am lacking an appropriate word to use in your case, and besides I don't want to be judging or analyzing you at all. I'd rather we just talk about facts.

If you are not in a condition to fully read and process my replies then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

Rest and get well.

[iamnotback]

Oh my:

http://blog.jim.com/war/after-the-flight-93-election/

If you are not in a condition to fully read and process my replies then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

JAD is well and I urged you to attempt to debate him.

My disagreement with JAD is that I think Trump was put in power by Rothschilds and for the specific purpose of divide-and-conquer. I don't think we strong men win with a top-down collective. We can only win with an Apache-style decentralized paradigm reinvented with stronger knowledge and principles of cultural evolution. So although I appreciate JAD's knowledge and perspective, I will have to lead because I don't think he is leading effectively. And he is censoring me and refusing to let me post on his blog. Ditto Eric Raymond who in spite of writing about the damned facts, continues to not admit the truth about for example woman's suffrage and besides he has no kids and thus no skin in the game. And he also continues to censor me and not allow me to post on his blog.

then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

That sounds like you don't want to refute:

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?

You made a claim that conflicts with your stated thesis about morals (wherein you claimed that men can't be objective because they can decide that evil is really good):

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.

[iamnotback]

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

Come on CoinCube, you are out of your league in terms of analysis (although I was impressed at how you analyzed Bitcoin vs. gold in the Exter's pyramid argument and obviously I have incorporated your strong points about the contention of preventing defection and the importance of having a cultural evolutionary strategy). You were the one who argued that the breakup of the USA couldn't happen because every one of the 50 States has people on welfare.

The reality of what happens when we give women suffrage is then the right to peaceful protest becomes intolerable for the society, because it threatens the very existence of the society as evidenced by the above quoted video clip. Tie that back to the comments upthread about how we avoid civil war by not letting women and weak men vote.

What are your substantive arguments as to why we should allow women and weak (e.g. before it was landless) men to vote?

[iamnotback]

A lot of this makes sense during times of scarce population

It always makes sense when you are competing for who has the most votes and the immigrants are multiplying like rabbits.

If we don't reproduce well above replacement rates, our culture dies. Sorry these are damned facts.

This is inevitable to some degree as the population grows and resources become more sought after.

Your Malthusian delusion is unwarranted. Resources are inexorably getting cheaper. Iron used to be a precious metal. Did you not see the chart that I quoted from the Economist magazine in my seminal essay several years ago.

You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

I will be the first to admit I needed a week or two to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.

The Rise of Knowledge

[iamnotback]

then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

That sounds like you don't want to refute:

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?

You made a claim that conflicts with your stated thesis about morals (wherein you claimed that men can't be objective because they can decide that evil is really good):

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.

Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God. Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.

It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.

We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history:

http://blog.jim.com/war/after-the-flight-93-election/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/courts-predictably-rule-trumps-election-platform-illegal/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-first-confrontation-between-the-trumpenreich-and-the-permanent-government/

If you don't believe we don't have too many dumb ass bitchez being given money by too many dumb ass men (who shouldn't and wouldn't have the money to give if socialism died), just spend some time on any dating site with pretty Causasian women such as the following:

http://russian-dating.com/

And don't tell me these women aren't educated. Free higher education is a pinnacle of these Russian speaking countries.

Btw, I did date some beautiful Causasian women such as for example my high school gf was 5'9" blonde, blue eyed, 36C, and a runner. Tracey Valliant. But most often what ladies told me was, "you have an all American blonde, good boy look and I want a BAD BOY with a chiseled jaw bone, tattoo, and smoking a cigarette a la James Dean". I was literally too tame looking for the ladies in my youth.

That is reality.

Btw, I remain open-minded and willing to read all substantive counter arguments.

[miscreanity]

Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God.

Define your use of strong in this context. Do you mean physical, willpower, influence, or something else?

For that matter, define religion as well. An hierarchical power structure, simply belief in God, etc?

Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.

It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.

This is what I thought, but is not at all what I've found.

From my experience there are many individuals claiming to be Christians who do not practice what is preached, apparently caused by conceptual misunderstanding or an attraction to the lifestyle in a form over function situation.

On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.

Along with that comes the strength to acknowledge and admit that one is learning and can make mistakes, to not fear looking foolish while discovering the optimal path. Likewise, to be just in supporting others in the process of learning as well as chastising those doing wrong. There is a clear distinction in Christianity between giving a helping hand and turning hostile individuals away, just as can be seen with the current immigration differences between Europe and the US where the former has no boundaries and the latter drew a line.

What I have seen:

• Failure is forgiven, not excused
• Strength is rewarded when used to build and support
• Respect is for both men and women because we are different, always learning and improving

Before claiming to be Christian I also misunderstood deeply. It's the kind of thing where you need to experience the change to truly understand, similar to your illness.

This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods - Psalm 82:6

My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.

We can learn everything to know about the here and now, which is all well and good - but we still don't know what lies beyond death, and it doesn't seem we will in the immediate future. In that context, unless we can provably know all there is to know, it makes more sense for me to believe than to hold fast to the notion that we might figure everything out here.

As for the Horus-Jesus link and other comparative mythology, I've spent some time studying them and simply haven't found anything truly convincing. The whole sun god concept falls apart in light of Deuteronomy 4:19, among other verses, which explicitly prohibits worshiping of the sun, moon, stars or any other celestial object.

I have not studied all religions extensively, but I have seen that Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and others all echo each other in some way. I find that to be a greater indication that they hint at an absolute truth than anything else.

We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history

...

Agreed, although I use different terms. We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands - Ephesians 4:29

I think the trouble may lie more in the push to "educate" than in being educated and quotas pushing for more minorities/women in STEM - the strong-willed may not necessarily need to get a degree in higher education, whereas those with an inclination to be led might follow paths that are not always beneficial. Exposure to opportunities is one thing, but if a person does not act on it then forcing won't help. On top of that, how many can fathom the implications of their choices in a non-linear reality?

Everyone in this life has a different path; some women may indeed go on to be prominent leaders, although that is certainly not their most common purpose or strength. What's most important is a sense of respect and understanding that we all have stages in our lives where we misunderstood or were misguided and may have caused harm somehow. It's also critical to remind ourselves that there may still remain areas where we are mistaken, which can indeed be humbling. That humility garners more respect in the long run than any amount of blustering.

Reading through some of your posts on Github and ESR's site, there is evident emphasis and enthusiasm very similar to how I used to write. Your reasoning and technical acumen is commendable, so the frustration during explanation is understandable. It can be a major challenge to remain civil and I only learned how to be judicious with my replies due to lack of time, but its made a world of difference in how my words are received. The years you've spent on these forums and in discussion have undoubtedly made an impact, but they've also taken a great deal of time; that constant pressure will have a profound result at some point, especially as you refine your approach.

As you've stated before, doing will have much greater impact than talking. Patience is the hard part in that.

[iamnotback]

Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God.

Define your use of strong in this context. Do you mean physical, willpower, influence, or something else?

I mean correct knowledge of these damned facts (discussed upthread) and the ability to do a successful cultural evolutionary strategy which leverages the knowledge of the truth.

If our culture is not living on beyond our own life, then I argue we haven't competed successfully.

For that matter, define religion as well. An hierarchical power structure, simply belief in God, etc?

Religion is any system (aka superstition) that requires an unfalsifiable belief, i.e. it can't be tested in our world.

Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.

It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.

This is what I thought, but is not at all what I've found.

From my experience there are many individuals claiming to be Christians who do not practice what is preached, apparently caused by conceptual misunderstanding or an attraction to the lifestyle in a form over function situation.

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

On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.

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

Along with that comes the strength to acknowledge and admit that one is learning and can make mistakes, to not fear looking foolish while discovering the optimal path. Likewise, to be just in supporting others in the process of learning as well as chastising those doing wrong.

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

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

There is a clear distinction in Christianity between giving a helping hand and turning hostile individuals away, just as can be seen with the current immigration differences between Europe and the US where the former has no boundaries and the latter drew a line.

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

What I have seen:

• Failure is forgiven, not excused
• Strength is rewarded when used to build and support
• Respect is for both men and women because we are different, always learning and improving

Before claiming to be Christian I also misunderstood deeply. It's the kind of thing where you need to experience the change to truly understand, similar to your illness.

I agree with those 3 items, but in the way I have explained myself in this thread.

This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods - Psalm 82:6

My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.

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

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

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

We can learn everything to know about the here and now, which is all well and good - but we still don't know what lies beyond death, and it doesn't seem we will in the immediate future. In that context, unless we can provably know all there is to know, it makes more sense for me to believe than to hold fast to the notion that we might figure everything out here.

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

We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history

...

Agreed, although I use different terms. We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands - Ephesians 4:29

I think the trouble may lie more in the push to "educate" than in being educated and quotas pushing for more minorities/women in STEM - the strong-willed may not necessarily need to get a degree in higher education, whereas those with an inclination to be led might follow paths that are not always beneficial. Exposure to opportunities is one thing, but if a person does not act on it then forcing won't help. On top of that, how many can fathom the implications of their choices in a non-linear reality?

Everyone in this life has a different path; some women may indeed go on to be prominent leaders, although that is certainly not their most common purpose or strength. What's most important is a sense of respect and understanding that we all have stages in our lives where we misunderstood or were misguided and may have caused harm somehow. It's also critical to remind ourselves that there may still remain areas where we are mistaken, which can indeed be humbling. That humility garners more respect in the long run than any amount of blustering.

Reading through some of your posts on Github and ESR's site, there is evident emphasis and enthusiasm very similar to how I used to write. Your reasoning and technical acumen is commendable, so the frustration during explanation is understandable. It can be a major challenge to remain civil and I only learned how to be judicious with my replies due to lack of time, but its made a world of difference in how my words are received. The years you've spent on these forums and in discussion have undoubtedly made an impact, but they've also taken a great deal of time; that constant pressure will have a profound result at some point, especially as you refine your approach.

As you've stated before, doing will have much greater impact than talking. Patience is the hard part in that.

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

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

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

[iamnotback]

So true...

Any black or female or gay soldiers or cops in that mix?

There are no female or gay soldiers, and very few black soldiers. There are women and gays who are awarded the title of “soldier” as a form of flattery, but real soldiers secretly laugh at them.

This becomes hilariously obvious when female firemen or female policemen are sent to do something dangerous.

Sending women to this stuff is loathsome, despicable, vile, immoral, disgusting, contemptible and shameful, because men are the expendable sex, and women are the precious sex, and when you actually send women to do a man’s job, the result is invariable and predictable: Ancient instincts take over, and women and men revert to their ancient social roles, frequently with the result that the fire is not put out, or the bad guy gets to wander around for a few hours killing people at his leisure while the female policemen try to fuck him.

Just check out some incidents where female cops were among those sent to take down a terrorist.

Similarly, several hundred firemen, and absolutely zero female firemen were killed in dealing with the 9/11 fires and rescues, because every single female fireman, every single one, entirely without exception, ran away. And if female “soldiers” do not always run away, it is usually because they are trying to fuck the enemy. When the shit hits the fan, biology overpowers reason, socialization, social expectations, and training. Men can be trained to be soldiers because fighting in groups is natural for men. To train men to be soldiers you have to release, rather than suppress, ancient instincts. We are killer apes. This just does not work for women. The kind of stimuli that causes men to bond with their comrades and slay the enemy cause women to betray their comrades and fuck the enemy. Send a mixed sex group of cops to shut down a terrorist or put down a violent riot and observe what happens. It is hilarious. Women can no more be warriors than I can be a mother.

[CoinCube]

Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God.

Define your use of strong in this context. Do you mean physical, willpower, influence, or something else?

For that matter, define religion as well. An hierarchical power structure, simply belief in God, etc?

Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.

It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.

This is what I thought, but is not at all what I've found.

From my experience there are many individuals claiming to be Christians who do not practice what is preached, apparently caused by conceptual misunderstanding or an attraction to the lifestyle in a form over function situation.

On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.

Along with that comes the strength to acknowledge and admit that one is learning and can make mistakes, to not fear looking foolish while discovering the optimal path. Likewise, to be just in supporting others in the process of learning as well as chastising those doing wrong. There is a clear distinction in Christianity between giving a helping hand and turning hostile individuals away, just as can be seen with the current immigration differences between Europe and the US where the former has no boundaries and the latter drew a line.

What I have seen:

• Failure is forgiven, not excused
• Strength is rewarded when used to build and support
• Respect is for both men and women because we are different, always learning and improving

Before claiming to be Christian I also misunderstood deeply. It's the kind of thing where you need to experience the change to truly understand, similar to your illness.

This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods - Psalm 82:6

My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.

We can learn everything to know about the here and now, which is all well and good - but we still don't know what lies beyond death, and it doesn't seem we will in the immediate future. In that context, unless we can provably know all there is to know, it makes more sense for me to believe than to hold fast to the notion that we might figure everything out here.

As for the Horus-Jesus link and other comparative mythology, I've spent some time studying them and simply haven't found anything truly convincing. The whole sun god concept falls apart in light of Deuteronomy 4:19, among other verses, which explicitly prohibits worshiping of the sun, moon, stars or any other celestial object.

I have not studied all religions extensively, but I have seen that Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and others all echo each other in some way. I find that to be a greater indication that they hint at an absolute truth than anything else.

We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history

...

Agreed, although I use different terms. We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands - Ephesians 4:29

I think the trouble may lie more in the push to "educate" than in being educated and quotas pushing for more minorities/women in STEM - the strong-willed may not necessarily need to get a degree in higher education, whereas those with an inclination to be led might follow paths that are not always beneficial. Exposure to opportunities is one thing, but if a person does not act on it then forcing won't help. On top of that, how many can fathom the implications of their choices in a non-linear reality?

Everyone in this life has a different path; some women may indeed go on to be prominent leaders, although that is certainly not their most common purpose or strength. What's most important is a sense of respect and understanding that we all have stages in our lives where we misunderstood or were misguided and may have caused harm somehow. It's also critical to remind ourselves that there may still remain areas where we are mistaken, which can indeed be humbling. That humility garners more respect in the long run than any amount of blustering.

Reading through some of your posts on Github and ESR's site, there is evident emphasis and enthusiasm very similar to how I used to write. Your reasoning and technical acumen is commendable, so the frustration during explanation is understandable. It can be a major challenge to remain civil and I only learned how to be judicious with my replies due to lack of time, but its made a world of difference in how my words are received. The years you've spent on these forums and in discussion have undoubtedly made an impact, but they've also taken a great deal of time; that constant pressure will have a profound result at some point, especially as you refine your approach.

As you've stated before, doing will have much greater impact than talking. Patience is the hard part in that.

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

[iamnotback]

Re: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski sides with Democrats in the Senate voting

Never trust women with roles of highly strategic responsibility.

They love drama and vote their emotions and perspective as nurturers and consensus builders (or with their destructive hindbrain).

[iamnotback]

My current stance is not focused on repealing women's suffrage at the level of collective governance, because I view collective governance as just another enslavement coping mechanism (of which I view religion as another) for managing the stables/corrals of weak sheepeople.

My message is for the strong men who actually run or could run the world, if they would assert their superior cultural evolutionary strategy. The powerful have the "votes" that matter, because economics is reality and democracy is an illusion of control (an actually an enslavement mechanism) for weak sheepeople to circle-jerk themselves with.

JAD wishes to install a dictator Trump to manage the weak sheepeople, but this creates the precedent (and a power vacuum) for the devolution into a totalitarian regime. So it is not a solution. Rothschilds is cleverly playing the various modes of the enslavement paradigms to divide-and-conquer. We strong men should be aware and smarter.

Edit: the Trump administration appears to be getting ample advice about the need for respecting Antifragility so I doubt JAD's wishes dovetail with actual advice Trump is receiving:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/steve-bannon-books-reading-list-214745

[iamnotback]

Damned facts:

According to the same Soviet press as reported these women, Nikita Izotov supposedly mined 607 tons of coal in a single shift with a pick and shovel.

The Soviet press regularly reported workers who achieved entirely improbable feats of production Stakhanovites, as examples to be emulated by all the other workers. When war came, they reported the equivalent warriors in much the same style.

It was deemed politically necessary to have some female war heroes, therefore female war heroes were created. Not only do I doubt that these women performed the highly improbable feats attributed to them, I doubt that they ever existed.

No reasonable person would believe that Stakhanovite accomplished the remarkable feats of production attributed to him. Why believe these women did?

These women were reported in the same way by the same papers that reported that Nikita Izotov mined 607 tons of coal in a single shift with a pick and shovel.

If female warriors existed, you would have examples where the truth was more easily discovered, and lies less likely – for example you would have some female heroes of 9/11

Whenever we are able to observe the actual conduct of female soldiers, female policemen, and female firemen, in the face of actual danger, it is hilarious.

Some women are reasonably brave in the face of moderate danger, for example medics evacing warriors from the battlefield, and deserve due credit for serving their country, but when the shit gets heavy, the women break and run, as they should, for women are the precious sex. Or they break and fuck, which they should not.

In the ancestral environment, if a woman was captured by the enemy, she would probably wind up as someone’s property, which would likely improve her reproductive success, since her owner would have confidence in the paternity of his children, whereas a man captured by the enemy was probably killed, and if enslaved, castrated. So women have an alarming tendency to be overcome with sexual lust for the enemy in combat and in situations of conflict and danger, which is euphemistically described as Stockholm Syndrome or Traumatic Stress Disorder.

After 9/11 four hundred and eleven emergency workers in New York City died while responding to the emergency. Many of the job categories, like medics, normally contain a good proportion of female workers. But on 9/11, no females responded to the emergency. They ran away. All of them. As women should, because women are the precious sex.

There is at least one case where a woman becomes a warrior, and that is if you try to attack her child in close proximity to her. She will then risk her ovaries.

It turns out that JAD's claim was not entirely correct and a few women responders did die at 9/11:

Apparently three female first responders died while attempting to rescue others: Captain Kathy Mazza, Officer Moira Smith, and EMT Yamel Merino. There seems to be sufficient physical evidence for bravery in these cases: identifiable bodies found near those of civilians they were trying to rescue, a picture of one of them with a wounded survivor before going back into the buildings to rescue more people.

It should not be surprising to us that a small percentage of women are capable of bravery despite strong genetic and cultural pressures to the contrary.

A strong indicator for sorting out the fake women warriors from the real ones is in the facial expressions. I met a female paratrooper once who was obviously not a real warrior: checking her FB pictures of her and her male comrades indicated that her male comrades all had the 1000-yard-stare-I-kill-people look and she did not.

We should find exceptions to any rule. Yet the broad statistical damned facts remain.

Note that Mazza was age 46, so her ovaries were of no value. Smith was 38 so very diminished value of ovaries.

Merino was apparently a very special person:

http://www.latimes.com/la-humantoll-merino-story.html
http://thesocialmedic.net/2010/09/remembering-yamel-merino/
http://www.legacy.com/sept11/story.aspx?personid=92728

And note she was killed in the collapse of the first tower, so she would not have had any warning of potential for building collapse:

http://www.firehouse.com/contact/10567737/yamel-merino

For all we know she might have been only rescuing people from the lower floors. That is not to diminish her sacrifice, but rather to speak to the level of (instinctive and/or cerebral) premeditated bravery involved.

[CoinCube]

What is Framing?
http://blog.iqmatrix.com/reframing-thoughts

"Never solve a problem from its original perspective." - Charles Thompson

Framing is a mental structure that is built upon the beliefs you have about yourself, your roles, your circumstances, and about other people. It is a structure you use to ascribe meaning to given circumstances. In other words, the meaning you ascribe to any event is dependent upon how you frame it in your mind. As such, your frames shape how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you view others, and how you interpret your life.

Frames can be of a positive or of a negative nature; they can also be within your control or out of your control. As such, they are either helpful within the context you are using them, or they are unhelpful. They either expand your opportunities and the possibilities of the situation, or they limit your options moving forward. They are therefore appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad depending on the objectives you have in mind.

When you decide to work on a project you set a scope or frame for that project so that everyone knows what is included and excluded. Everyone understands what is required to get the job done successfully and what they therefore need to focus on in order to get their part of the project completed. In the same way, the frames you use on a daily basis provide a context for your thoughts, decisions, attitudes and actions. They help guide the direction of your thoughts to help you accomplish your desired outcomes. Thusly, your actions are guided by how you frame events and circumstances; and how you frame things is dependent upon your preferences, attitudes and biases.
...
The frames of reference you use collaborate with your beliefs and values. You will therefore frame things in a certain way that corresponds with what you believe and value most in life — irrelevant of whether your beliefs are helpful or unhelpful. This basically means that every frame you make is linked to an underlying belief and/or assumption that is implied by your thoughts. In this way your frames provide you with a context in which you can assess your progress. This is helpful, but at the same time can be unhelpful. It is helpful because it allows you to unlock new opportunities and explore other possibilities that might be advantageous. However, it is unhelpful if your frames are built upon your limiting belief systems. In such instances — and without much objective thought — you might unconsciously be setting boundaries and putting limitations on yourself regarding what you can or can’t do; and this therefore limits your perspective, opportunities and the possibilities that lay before you.

Frame of Reference
https://plus.google.com/+Tinymuhagoogleplus/posts/fAV2VaW3xRy

There are as many versions of reality as there are living room windows.
From the comfortable folds in the couches of our brains,
We stare out at the world and interpret the shapes that filter through our panes.

One day, I had an out-of-house experience.
I floated out of my frame of reference into the great beyond.
I had no idea where I was going and my level of control was negligible.
A strange house swam into my peripherals and my system got quite nervous.
It had the markings of a house but was somehow altogether different.
Music was leaking through its seams to the tune of Shostakovich.
A crescendo came and warped its frame and all the panes around it.
I peered through the window into a room that was very much alive.
At first, I saw a dancer twirling around the room to the timing of the tunes.
But then I realized the room was twirling around the dancer and the tunes were playing to her.
She leapt across the room and the walls bent towards her with the deep sound of an oboe.
Her pirouette sent the chandelier spinning with the twinkling of a flute.
A graceful wrist caressed the air and played a sorrowful bar of violin.
The house bent, warped, and swayed as did my frame of reference.

I looked around and realized there were houses all around me.
I flew up to a neighboring window and excitedly gazed in.
A man was pacing and tracing a figure 8 into his living room floor.
He was deep in thought and shallow in socks as all his pacing had worn through his soles.
With a quick “POP-POP” he would disappear for a second or a year then suddenly reappear.
Sometimes he looked older, sometimes he looked younger, sometimes he looked lost, sometimes he looked found.
The only constant was the figure on the floor that bore the tracings of his pacings he left behind as he figured himself into infinity.

Through the neighborhood I floated until a titillating scent tickled the tendrils in my nostrils.
I peered through the window where the smell was smelling from.
A woman with long, dark hair was stirring a bubbling cauldron hanging in the fireplace.
There were haggardly creatures of all shapes and sizes lined up for a dolling of the potion.
Their bowls were as empty as their hearts that hung from drooping frames and outstretched hands.
The woman whispered a spell upon each creature with the lilting of her ladle.
I spotted the ingredients of the potion on the cutting board.
They were beetroots, celery, and mushrooms.
I leaned in close to hear the spell and heard the woman say,
“It’s perfectly okay to feel the way you do, so go ahead and feel it through and through."

I floated back through town and back through my own window frame of reference into the nodes of my own abode.
I sat in the grey folds of my corduroy couch and stared out of my window.
Something about the pane had changed.
The shapes that filtered through were now a bit more wobbly.

[trollercoaster]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4204256/Asylum-seeker-arrested-abusing-18-women-train.html?

Do European women enjoy being fondled by their invaders? Only 2 came forward to report their pussies being grabbed in broad daylight, while the German males watched.

[CoinCube]

Hunter S. Thompson on the Meaning of Life
http://www.theplaidzebra.com/22-year-old-hunter-s-thompson-tells-meaning-life/

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


April 22, 1958
57 Perry Street
New York City

Dear Hume,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your friend,
Hunter

[miscreanity]

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

It can take a well-reasoned and provocative discourse to be worth replying to, so thank you and iamnotback.

As an aside, Fear & Loathing was one of only two books I've ever laughed out load about while reading.

[miscreanity]

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

In general, can complex concepts be explained properly to a child? What framework needs to be in place for a child to get from being able to speak to understanding predicate calculus?

Looking at it from a superorganism view, the collective human awareness may not have been able to process the ideas presented at that time without being significantly simplified until they became part of the culture - a maturation process on a collective scale. For a rigid enough mindset, studying geometry can elicit an anger response in the absence of an incentive to enforce patience and persistence. I suspect the teachings of Jesus at the time might not have been so different; just imagine explaining relativity to common people from the 19th century vs. people today.

On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.

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

Agreed - Matthew 7:11. Do you agree that there is a small percentage of a population that can do this without reverting to the appeal of more immediate self-gratification in various forms? If so, a consistent focal point seems necessary to persist beyond human lifetimes and memories for those prone to reverting. History has proven that human leaders could not have been relied upon for consistency.

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

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

As you say, the weak are capable of overwhelming the strong due to sheer numbers. Didn't you admit your own past weakness? Is it possible that another may have concluded that you were beating your head against the wall and would never be entirely on board? Would that have been justification to dismiss you?

I was not motivated because I was not aware that anything was wrong. When I started to notice things were amiss I did become motivated, and so far have not become discouraged by what seems like a never-ending effort. I'm sure some had considered me a lost cause.

The point is that the weak became strong. Is it better to laugh and ridicule or to let actions speak and offer a few words as needed? Isn't the latter better for everyone? You're less stressed and the weak see a good example, even if they don't realize initially.

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

Absolutely - let fools run into brick walls until they're ready to listen. Just don't stand in front of the brick wall when a herd of fools is running.

This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods - Psalm 82:6

My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.

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

Excellent topic. I would wager a guess that it might be along the lines of Spartan agoge, although some of the elements would be anachronistic.

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

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

Yes, a monoculture is prone to catastrophic failure; group-think can miss the most obvious of warnings.

I think that too much emphasis is being placed on weak aspects and not enough on indications of strength. Encouraging a latent strength allows for specialization to flourish, which in itself would be weakness without a social fabric to support interdependence in an appropriately structured manner. What that structure is depends upon the participants, and being part of the fabric builds confidence in the individual toward the structure (so long as it's in a healthy state, of course).

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

Fair enough. I've had that perspective, so I'll simply share what changed mine.

If we are alone in the universe, it sure seems like an awful waste of space.

It's stunning to consider how precarious humanity's existence is on earth. A myriad of known ways to be wiped out and all our legacies snuffed like so many candles.

Finally, Pascal's Wager tilted me off the fence. What began as a conscious choice has become something far more surreal than I expected.

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

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

Yell at the ocean all you want and the waves will continue washing away your footsteps.

On forums, you've been looking for those who can grasp the architecture in detail or discuss controversial topics rationally. Take a step back after putting your work out there and let those with interest converse respectfully; those that can't will simply have to follow the thread or fade away. Hostility is mere noise, and reacting to it in kind simply adds more noise. Try giving yourself one paragraph in which to respond to antagonism.

Besides, inducing a stress reaction with antagonizing language tends to increase resistance toward getting an idea across.

The greatest insult.

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

Yes, there is no substitute for experience.

[iamnotback]

Women in the workplace:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7348#comment-1803895 <--- that is my comment
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/713901/4e6b2132350a06a3/#CommAnchor714088 (see @michel's comment)

More damned facts:

http://blog.jim.com/economics/bitches-in-tech/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/why-women-ruin-everything/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-elephant-in-the-living-room/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/jobs-and-education-make-women-ugly-and-unattractive/
https://blog.jim.com/economics/why-women-need-to-kept-on-leashes/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/

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

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

[iamnotback]

Someone has made a point to me in private messages that claims that religion is any philosophy that one chooses to apply to their life. Afaics, that is evasive, because I would still differentiate that definition of religion from a philosophy of life that involves an unfalsiable God, so I would still need a term to describe the latter. Also that person has claimed to me that no philosophy of life can be falsified concretely as they claim any metrics are a moving target that can't be absolutely compared (specifically claimed that we can only "observe transient temporal congruence and extrapolate").

If the person who wrote that wants to claim public ownership of the comments, they are welcome to. Otherwise, since I have unilaterally decided to respond publicly (because I don't like if my significant efforts at intellectual interaction are not open sourced), I will not provide the person's identity.

My retort is that cultural evolutionary strategy can most definitely be statistically compared over long-enough time frames, for attributes such as fertility, wealth accumulation, average IQ, etc.. God can't be falsified.

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

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

Also I'm still contemplating the discussion ongoing with miscreanity and I admit I don't have it all holistically worked out in my mind. So I am still learning and so I am not speaking in absolutes and remain open minded.