Dark Enlightenment

[TPTB_need_war]

your so wrong again women can handle pain a lot more than men go and have a baby
when a man hurts him self you don.t hear the last of it

Those are emasculated "men" in the West aren't an example. Women only desire that pain during their labor. Other times they prefer to avoid pain. Men can tolerate much higher levels of pain on a regular basis due to our testosterone.

A woman will endure great pain to protect her children. Men eat pain as a matter of habit, e.g. when I go play american football and pound into the other guys at full speed crunching our bones against each other. Try to put a women in that game and most will not tolerate it well.

Watch when a woman's body is sore from physical exertion, she will really notice it and be uncomfortable. A man when he is sore, feels it is a good feeling and craves more soon or now as the testosterone kicks into high gear.

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: what I am trying to accomplish is that we can get economies-of-scale on fungible money and knowledge internet on the internet (the large community) while adding decentralization (end-to-end principle) and anonymity, so that we have the economies-of-scale of large community while also enabling our local community to resist the subjugation of degrees-of-freedom by the power vacuum of the collective. I believe if we can achieve this, we will have a glorious Knowledge Age. Whether I am correct or not, it is this ideal that is pushing me to work so hard at age 50. Hope some people will join if I can get something tangible completed.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am bothered by second guessing myself about whether I am rational about the severity of the coming problems in the world.

For example the recent discussion between trollercoaster and myself, wherein it is about him pulling up roots from a very first-class lifestyle country (Australia) with contemplation of exchanging it for a lower lifestyle country and lower standard-of-living (although I will say I love the simple life, so a farm isn't necessarily lower standard-of-living from my perspective).

Will the world really get so totalitarian that it is necessary to make such radical changes to our lives?

One would tend to think that society will get pushed to a certain point and then society will change or demand adjustments because people all over the world don't want to live in some sort of totalitarian hell.

Yet we have examples from history where society went F.U.B.A.R.. For example WW1 and then later WW2 were essentially due to the European socialism that resulted trying to resist the technological unemployment of the Second Industrial Revolution (mass production and the end of cottage industry).

Sound familiar?

We are repeating the same. Europe is resisting the technological unemployment of the Second Computer Revolution (aka internet and Knowledge Age) by increasing socialism to sustain old engrained patterns (of the baby boomers).

Nature cleans out the old to make way for the new, and when the old refuses to adjust nature cleans it out with the necessary force.

Unfortunately boomers and socialists will not change. They'd rather die than give up their humanistic ideas. They firmly believe theirs was the righteous.

Ideological fanaticism is what drives horrific outcomes. We have that in spades at this juncture...

Edit: on the way up the debt mountain, everyone goes out of their way to relieve hardship and the brutal realities of nature. On the way down the debt cliff, it is a free fall into the brutality of nature. Communities which didn't eat the poison and remained self-reliant pull together. Communities that ate the poison spin apart into brutal chaos. Communities of tough love remain functional and compassionate. Communities of free love diverge into dysfunction and brutality.

You were asking why Europeans support socialism and feminism... It is because they are humanists; feminism can be thought of as the culmination of humanist thought...

Karl Marx's own definition of Humanism reads:
"Humanism is the denial of God, and the total affirmation of man... Humanism is really nothing else but Marxism"
--Karl Marx, ECONOMIC POLITIQUE ET PHILOSOPHIE, VOL. I, PAGES 38-40.

Anyway, I'm sure many other Europeans will explain the general zeitgeist here too.

Let's do a Steve Jobs and be brutally frank.

Apparently feminism = hedonism.

I've noticed how much Westerners are getting a thrill from teaching two women to eat each other's pussies.

I think Nordic Europeans support feminism because it enables them to justify fucking non-virgins and then the hedonistic dominoes from there.

It also frees the men from the obligation to raise children, if they can convince the women they are more powerful if they don't bear children.

I've noticed here in the Philippines, the females are vehemently anti-abortion and anti-birth control. It is very, very difficult to get them to take birth control pills and they are not that happy about using a condom. These are real women who want to have the real happiness of bearing children and raising a family. My own mother criticizes me when I don't force the women I am involved with to use birth control pills!

Europe has entered decadent Frankenstein mode and the USA is following close behind.

I am not trying to be a moral dogmatic oppressor here. I know any of us can be influenced as we are human, but the thing is that once a man prefers to get happiness more from hedonism than from family, then the culture is broken. The society will collapse into an abyss.

And this is precisely what is happening to Europe.

How does a mother who has become bisexual raise her daughter and son   (not my mother)

Sorry I am fairly open minded person and I've explored many things in life, but I can tell you there is a major difference between the gf I have now and some of the Western women. My gf values dogs, children, family. She could easily be a hedonistic queen given her D breasts and very attractive face (not to mention brown skin), but she is humble and wants the things that really make happiness.

Those Europeans who support feminism are insatiable. They want to steal and have everything. They don't want any natural limits on society. They want that man is superior to nature. Why should a woman be limited to sex with only a man or a human? She can fuck a pet monkey and that is more freedom. Why must she bear children. It is better we educate the women to fuck more people, sexes, and things and have more freedom! It isn't enough for her to undress and fondle herself on a webcam, instead the men want her to pee and insert objects into every orifice.

And that is why they've run their debt sky high. And they can not change their system. They are addicted.

Regarding the Trump discussion (and resurgence in Republicans in general), I have concluded the winner will be...

...the military-industrial complex.

Right on time with MA's War Cycle, which expects war and pandemic to start going hot in 2017 and really accelerating into 2018.

We'll get the increased military spending. The reduced taxes won't matter because the world is going to be so fucked by the rising interest rates and War Cycle, that no one will be able to avail of the opportunities to start businesses in the tangible industrial age economy.

The Knowledge Age doesn't give a shit about the taxes any way, since they will be 0 for the anonymous internet coming.

A global smashup ahead. Trump card doesn't change anything and if anything this lurch back to the hard right politics accelerates it.

Now we see why the USA must break apart into regions as MA predicts. It is because the morass can not be changed from WA D.C. After 2017, the Americans will start to realize they have to take matters into their own hands.

The Feds will fight the militias. The country will break into parts. The world will be a much different place.

Crazy world we are heading into. Be prepared accordingly.

Edit: Rand Paul alludes to Trump being beholden to special interests. That Trump is loudly declaring that he isn't, is probably telling us that he is. Of course he knows he can't win without playing ball with powerful interests. He openly admits the realities of leverage. Trump is obviously willing to appease the NSA and military-complex in order to go after hard-nosed trade deals. He will appear to be a populist but is a wolf in sheepskin.

Trump represents a rise of fascist-capitalism in the USA. He is not talking about printing money the way the German socialists did, but instead it will be a hard lurch towards a brutal economic default coupled with military imperialism fully bankrupting Rome. As with Rome, the barbarians will later be at the gates of Rome and overrun it.

In fact, we need free trade and free markets. Rising protectionism is what lead to WW2. Trump is a very bad result for us.

[TPTB_need_war]

Citizenship in the sovereign State of ________ (hereafter referred to as the State)

Hell to the no. Individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle are all I need for a decent world, thank you very much.

Indeed per the linked video, the State is going to collapse into a NWO eugenics hell. I have written extensively about this.

So what is your plan to avoid being persecuted as the totalitarianism tries to retain control and attempt to drag everyone down with it using extreme violence?

Will you just allow them to kill you?

Non-defense is not always a solution to aggression.

Hitler rolled over pacifists like a hot knife through butter.

I don't believe in anarchistic anything. To believe that such a system would work you have to believe that individuals are inherently good. I believe that in general individuals gravitate towards being inherently bad

Wrong and willfully ignorant.

Human nature is trusting, open, generous, curious, compassionate, and kind. Study Bonobo Chimpanzees for reference.

By contrast, most of human culture is myth-rooted, unscientific, deceptive, ignorant, fearful, hateful, and self-and-other-destructive. Why is that? Culture is ancient, it's been around for tens of thousands of years - most of that time dominated by violence - while modern reason is a relative infant at only around 400 years old.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/28/science/researchers-trace-empathy-s-roots-to-infancy.html

...

Your conceptualization of the issue is low IQ.

It is the power vacuum of organization that forces a power to fill it.

I suggest you read Eric Raymond, a man with a 150 - 160 IQ explain the issue of the Logic of Collective Action:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

Our hope now is for decentralization technologies to enable man to organize without the existance of a power vacuum. All my work in crypto is about his. This is why an anonymous internet and money is a movement and not just a fascination.

I don't believe in anarchistic anything. To believe that such a system would work you have to believe that individuals are inherently good. I believe that in general individuals gravitate towards being inherently bad

Individuals can't do that much bad against a society where citizens can carry guns.

Rather it is the collective organization of individuals that empowers the State to have the might to enact horrific megadeath.

[TPTB_need_war]

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35782

Rand Paul, on the other hand, showed he could not stand up to Christie. He revealed a lack of passion and commitment and that showed he was not really a leader. Very disappointing.

Paul got straight to the point that is not necessary to violate everyone's privacy in a false strawman that it aids fighting terrorism. He got thunderous applause.

But what we really see is that the American public would much prefer a guy who can top-down manage the world, than a modest guy who wants free markets.

And so the Americans may get their Trump card, who wants to empower the military-industrial complex more.

What this shows is that there is no solution that can come from voting for a government. The only solution is taking matters into our own individual hands. For that, we MUST have anonymity technology else we are doomed to the whims of the collective.

[TPTB_need_war]

I use bitcoin because I want to earn anonymously online. It's also a good investment and I like low transaction fees of bitcoin

I love you because I am formerly AnonyMint and since 2013 my goal has been to add more anonymity to cryptoland. Thanks for validating my thesis about a coming glorious, anonymous Knowledge Age.

[vokain]

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.

Question, does an object standing still, for all practical purposes, have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion?

[CoinCube]

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.

Question, does an object standing still, for all practical purposes, have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion?

All else being equal the object moving at a constant velocity would have greater degrees of freedom in the direction of motion and less in the opposing direction. Thus overall degrees of freedom would be unchanged.

[BADecker]

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.

Question, does an object standing still, for all practical purposes, have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion?

All else being equal the object moving at a constant velocity would have greater degrees of freedom in the direction of motion and less in the opposing direction. Thus overall degrees of freedom would be unchanged.

There isn't any freedom without the capacity to change no-motion to motion, and vice versa...

... or the direction of the motion any which way.



EDIT: Quantum suggests you can have all of them at the same time any which way. Now that's real freedom.

[dippididodaday]

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.

Question, does an object standing still, for all practical purposes, have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion?

I am venturing into a realm I know extremely little of, if any. I am no phys·i·cist. But let me join the fun and say that my sense informs me that an object standing still, for all practical purposes, does have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion. 

[designerusa]

Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here. This is intended for the high IQ audience of Eric's blog.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg5457696#msg5457696




I voted "most of them". I agree with ESR's comments:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424645

>Out of curiosity, why do you believe this ideology worthy of a lengthy series? Nothing against it, I’m just wondering what the trigger was.

Because they have a flavorful mix of dangerous truth-telling and utter bogosity going on.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424636

...Furthermore, if it were actually true, the DE would be entirely a noisome fever-swamp of bad ideas, rather than just rotten in spots.

so sorry for not reading this article because i am not intelligent enough to understand the shrewdest article of all time.. next time, please share an article only for mentally retardeds.

[vokain]

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.

Question, does an object standing still, for all practical purposes, have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion?

I am venturing into a realm I know extremely little of, if any. I am no phys·i·cist. But let me join the fun and say that my sense informs me that an object standing still, for all practical purposes, does have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion.  

Arguing CoinCube's and BADecker's way:
The force to slow down an object in motion is symmetrical to the force needed to move an object standing still, keeping the degrees of freedom equal, supposedly.

I guess one way to look at it is, in a vacuum universe with one particle, relatively, how do we tell that one particle moving? Can we?

Arguing your way: Does an object moving at the speed of light not have a bit more inertia than an object at rest? Does motion in one direction not decrease the degrees of freedom of every other direction?

[iamnotback]

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.

Question, does an object standing still, for all practical purposes, have greater degrees of freedom than an object in motion?

All else being equal the object moving at a constant velocity would have greater degrees of freedom in the direction of motion and less in the opposing direction. Thus overall degrees of freedom would be unchanged.

The correct way to answer this is to note that the stationary object is moving and the moving objects are stationary. Special relativity applies.

[iamnotback]

I'll add a related quote I read recently that has very similar conclusions:

Elite memes and the manipulation of directed history are growing more to difficult to implement and sustain. The fallback is chaos and general destruction. If one is made to doubt everything, then allegiance to one’s society is lessened. It is easier to substitute and expand internationalism.

The media is playing its part in this larger unveiling, and this also informs us that the current chaotic truth-telling is deliberate.

The process of globalization must continue and the tearing down of what’s been built up throughout the West – including, science, art and technology – is taking place because it is the way free-market trends are counteracted.

Out of chaos … order. The idea now seems to be to tear down foundational elements of American society that have been painstakingly erected over the past century and more. The US as a society – and then as a culture – is to be destroyed to make way for something else.

Very well articulated. Thanks.

I had written numerous times that the plan of the elite was to destroy and discredit the nation-state governance and central bank concept, such as quoted as follows from the "One-world reserve currency is inevitable" thread:

As I warned you, the countries will be pushed towards cooperating against financial crime:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers

The globalists are destroying the nation-states on purpose and inciting the masses to clamor for a global discipline on malfeasance. I've known for a long time this would be coming. One thing you will learn about me by observing me over time is my ability to predict the future. For example was my 2011 prediction that the nations would not exit the EU and instead would double-down for more sloppy seconds.

Below I am beginning to see that the elite factions are only coordinated philosophically (and their even subconscious selfish aims thereof), and that is the concept of top-down control and secrecy. The order-out-of-chaos aspect might be deliberate and/or it might just be the natural evolution of a species.

The following is a collection of links to some of my past writings.

It all distills down to top-down centralized control is inferior to decentralized accretion of outcomes and fitness.

Besides the lust for money, power, and subconscious Satanic absolute control, what pragmatically drives these globalists is they have too much stored monetary capital and need to deploy it with great economies-of-scale, because the larger one's stored monetary capital becomes, the more difficult it is to manage a good return-on-investment. This is simply the rule of Second Law of Thermodynamics that small things grow faster, e.g. saplings grow very fast eventually slowing to mature trees, but they can't grow to the moon:

First of all, I want to explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that energy must always disperse from a hot to a cold body, and not the reverse of a colder body giving up energy becoming colder and making the hot body hotter. This is because the equation for entropy of any system is maximized by having as many equiprobable possible states, i.e. the probability is very high that a hot body with its very highly probable collision of moving particles due to high kinetic energy will transfer some kinetic energy to the slower moving particles in the cold body because it maximizes the entropy of the combined system of hot and cold bodies together. But that is sort of a tautology. The point is that random events are unlikely to be able to keep a system highly ordered and concentrated, just as random twists on a Rubik's cube are unlikely to solve it. Since there can't exist any top-down omniscience in the universe, the probability of maintaining ordered systems trends towards zero on a large enough scale. This is why one can keep small things in order for a while, but large endeavors unravel more quickly. For the same reason, small things grow faster, such as a saplings grow to trees, but trees don't grow to the moon.

This is of course in addition to the Iron Law of Political Economics, which insures that flies are attracted to honey, i.e. that those who can charge rents to the collective will be drawn in by the power vacuum of awarding authority to a process. I had even elaborated on the fact that the special interest groups include the voters themselves.  I had commented recently in the context of the Philippines' recent decision to instill vigilante killing of suspected drug dealers, about how authority is always corruptible but my comment was not advocating what you the brain washed Westerner reader has been indoctrinated to think is correct.

I had tied this numerous times (such as on May 06, 2014) into my essays about the death of passive capital and the rise of a Knowledge Age that I think will be more immune to financialization. I even wrote a sequel as my prior blog The Golden Knowledge Age is Rising. I even related why usury must exist in order to attain growth within a stored monetary capital paradigm and yet must be a boom-and-bust, power vacuum phenomenon. Even centralized economy-of-scale driven industrial production requires financialization because it is not anti-fragile w.r.t. to force majure, long-tail distributions, and natural variance.

And there was my proclamation in 2014 that the solution would be decentralization. And again I reiterated that collectivized voting is the problem, with the implication that the only robust, resilient solution is decentralization.

I even nailed the homerun point that crypto-currency doesn't depend on ubiquitous confidence to become a global unit-of-exchange, because it doesn't rely on collectivized force to attain a precarious debt-based value. Even gold has to be stamped and assayed by a collective authority, which Proof-of-Work doesn't suffer, yet the remaining challenge is that neither Proof-of-Work nor (even Distributed) Proof-of-Stake are immune to economies-of-scale which enable centralized control (which is the remaining challenge of crypto-currency which I intend to solve!).

The premise that we can protect all the people is fundamentally implausible, which is what leads these Liberals astray into evil outcomes.

It is ironic that Liberals view themselves as selfless people focused on the good of the collective.

Another aspect we can note about Hillary Clinton and the globalists, is they prefer secrecy instead of decentralized open source. But decentralized open source is the only positive scaling law of engineering because the sharing doesn't violate the maximum-divison-of-expertise and the decentralization doesn't incur the rigor mortis of the Mythical Man Month.

[iamnotback]

There is a very deep discussion going on primarily between CoinCube and myself which I am moving from the Martin Armstrong thread to this Dark Enlightenment thread where I think it is better fit. Note that JAD (James A. Donald) is listed as a primarily leader of a faction of the Dark Enlightenment movement as documented by a chart on I believe the first page of this Dark Enlightenment thread.

Before reading what I want to add below, you must first read the prior discussion from the Martin Armstrong thread starting from the following linked comment post to page 155 of that thread where I have linked to this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg17601898#msg17601898

After reading the above linked post (and all comments that follow it), please make sure you pay special attention starting from the following linked comment post (and the comment which follows it and the follow ups to page 155 of the thread):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg17617026#msg17617026

So basically my understanding is that CoinCube and I basically agree that we must be part of a society and culture, and defection from a multi-generation strategy has dire implications for that culture. We have 180 IQ genius Freeman Dyson pointing out that we moved past the stage of evolution where genetic transfer was dominant (man has won the species competition) and we are now in an accelerated form of evolution controlled primarily by culture wherein culture can dictate the genetic engineering within the species of humans. Read the pages of the above linked thread for the details.

As best as I can ascertain so far, it seems CoinCube and I diverge on the fundamental weakness that drives defection and cultural evolutionary extinction events. CoinCube seems to think that only religion can guide humans towards individual self-improvement, and he seems to especially see his role as a sheepdog protecting all the women of the world from all the weak men. He thus seems to lean heavily towards collective social justice (i.e. being a SJW social justice warrior) even though he seems to simultaneously want to disclaim that he has a propensity for social justice worship. I'm starting to entertain the possibility that this is because of crab bucket mentality, in that perhaps he isn't comfortable with his ability to compete and thus wants to pull down all males towards the mean (justifying this by pulling the weak males up towards the mean and thus rescuing many females and children from suboptimal outcomes). CoinCube and I had been on very amicable terms, but this issue I think has strained our relationship, because I view SJWs as evil and he apparently views my philosophy as inherently evil. So I think it is important we get to the bottom of this.

One of the controversial themes from the above linked discussion is whether women should be repressed (while also giving them free will to defect with consequences of banishment from the tribe).

I believe CoinCube would for example want to cite how for example religious communities can uplift and hold educated females to good behavior and high fertility, and he might for example cite something like the following as an example (not specifically for himself but just pulling this out as example that could be cited):

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/10/24/how-orthodox-judaism-elevates-the-status-of-women/

As I read that woman's perspective it reaffims my stance.

The women aren't doing it because of a fear of God, rather because it has become their social network and security blanket. Women are rationalizing based on their near-term emotional, love, child rearing, and social aspirations. They aren't doing it because of any God, that is just rather just a symbolism that everyone pretends is the reason they are invested in the social order. They are actually invested because it works as a culture to meet the needs of the men and the women.

It is a reasonable cultural strategy for the near-term, but it is not a multi-generationally stable (competitive) strategy because even as CoinCube has noted in his writings that that Jews have a high  propensity to fall into SJW movements and culture.

Educating the women is going to make that much more likely. And they will serve as role models to their little boys that women are the same as men. The women are naturally prone to outside mind control, as even noted in the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. They will naturally turn towards social cause oriented vocations. A little funding from George Soros and they are on their way to seeding activism within their culture. She didn't quite say activism, but the more educated they are, the less control you have over them falling into that. And even she points it is important to her that she feels she has this control. Thus orthodoxy is really being diluted by education of the women. It is only a matter of time as it becomes more and more subverted by SJW activism.

Also the more educated these daughters, the smaller the pool of eligible men that will fulfill their natural hypergamy (these was covered in great detail by JAD and Eric Raymond in the linked discussion above). The Jews are a tribe with many highly educated men, so there is a better situation than in the general population, yet the ceiling is still there if it is exceeded.

There is simply no good reason to highly educate the women and give them very stressful vocations outside their primary role to be rearing the children and caring for the elderly in the community. Even that woman describes how her work week is so stressful. This stress will come out sideways in the kids and in the decisions and thinking made by the females.

We don't give females high testosterone because they are too valuable to be risked (one man can inseminate all women of the tribe, but a tribe with only 1 fertile women is near to extinction), and the same with giving them stress of a high education and intense work loads.

If you go against nature, then don't be surprised when have Frankenstein outcomes. If you build your house next to active volcano, then don't be surprised when you have lava in the living room.

But me thinks that CoinCube is closer to female than male. I doubt he has a high testosterone. (Please don't judge and moralize me again, because I will turn that mirror around hard on you! The Bible tells you not to judge and let nature/God do the judging. I have had plenty of failures so there no lack of data for you to judge me with, but that is besides the point as I have to live with my failures, not you.)

Eric Raymond has no children. So until he develops a strategy for his own child rearing, I can see him straddling the fence as social justice sheepdog because he has no skin in the game. Or perhaps I just don't know his stance or justification for how he admits damned facts yet criticizes JAD for understanding that there are limited options for dealing with the issue. What is Eric's proposed strategy? Make women educated and strong? Teach them to defend themselves with guns? That is not addressing the core issue. It is side-stepping, because he has no skin in the game.

[CoinCube]

God and religion have nothing to do with it. If the men are so stupid that they need to fear a God in order to adhere to the truths they've been taught, then the culture is growing weaker not stronger.

I am arguing for a culture that grows stronger via natural selection and free will of choice. And never did I expect all men to join such a culture because I don't think the bell curve of IQ is ever going to be eliminated.
...

God is needed because the primary struggle is an individual one. Our greatest battle is with ourselves. It is very easy to say women shouldn't do this or society shouldn't do that. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to say I shouldn't do this especially when I want to and can get away with it.

Your thinking continues to return to the concept of controlling others (especially women) indirectly through culture when the real battle is that of individual women and individual men learning to improve and elevate ourselves. Cultural structures can help us win or lose this struggle but they are ultimately secondary.

God is necessarily because otherwise we lack the motivation and strength to succeed. Without God our focus inevitably turns away from the self and towards controlling others either directly or indirectly.

...
So yeah maybe you could use the delusion of a fear of God to keep the women fearful of defection, but it is counterproductive to use it on men, because all you are accomplishing is enslaving the weak men in religion and weakening the culture. And this is why religion repeatedly leads to large scale failure and megadeath.
...
If I can't control myself to adhere to a correct multi-generational strategy, then how will God help me? By enslaving me in fear? I think you don't trust yourself? Then how can you ever succeed if can't control yourself? If you can control yourself, then why do you need a fear of God?
...
I don't lack the motivation and hopefully also not lacking the strength. If we don't have that then we are weak males and we will always be enslaved.
...
Delusion (religion) won't get the males there. Sorry. But of course feel free to pursue what ever you want. If you can make a cogent rebuttal then of course I want to read it. I want to know if someone can show me a better way.
...
I am not going to just lay down and accept an argument that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I deluded myself with too much bullshit over the 50 years and received a lot of incorrect philosophical guidance from others. I am not going to follow any more fools (and that includes being wary of my own myopia but that doesn't mean I need to fear a God, although it does mean I need to open source). If you want to convince me, then you need to have impeccable logic.

Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom"

The fear of God is necessary to maximize cooperation over defection. It is not cost free so individuals who fear God must form a community of like minded individuals to maximize the benefits of cooperation. Ultimately there is no current or future functional mechanism more optimized for maximizing cooperation then a universal and genuine the fear of the LORD. This is why religion will grow and ultimately out compete lesser more inefficient strategies. For a deeper analysis we must enter the realm of religious texts.    

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/pol/pol25.htm

The Fear of God

The son of Rabbi Hunnah said, "He who possesses a knowledge of God's law, without the fear of Him, is as one who has been intrusted with the inner keys of a treasury, but from whom the outer ones are withheld."

Rabbi Alexander said, "He who possesses worldly wisdom and fears not the Lord, is as one who designs building a house and completes only the door, for as David wrote in Psalm 111th, 'The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord."

When Rabbi Jochanan was ill, his pupils visited him and asked him for a blessing. With his dying voice the Rabbi said, "I pray that you may fear God as you fear man." "What!" exclaimed his pupils, "should we not fear God more than man?"

"I should be well content," answered the sage, if your actions proved that you feared Him as much. When you do wrong you first make sure that no human eyes see you; show the same fear of God, who sees everywhere, and everything, at all times."

Abba says we can show our fear of God in our intercourse

p. 239

with one another. "Speak pleasantly and kindly to every one;" he says, "trying to pacify anger, seeking peace, and pursuing it with your brethren and with all the world, and by this means you will gain that 'favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man,' which Solomon so highly prized." (Prov. 3: 9.)

Rabbi Jochanan had heard Rabbi Simon, son of Jochay, illustrate by a parable that passage of Isaiah which reads as follows: "I, the Lord, love uprightness; but hate robbery (converted) into burnt-offering."

A king having imported certain goods upon which he laid a duty, bade his officers, as they passed the custom-house, to stop and pay the usual tariff.

Greatly astonished, his attendants addressed him thus: "Sire! all that is collected belongs to your majesty; why then give what must be eventually paid into thy treasury?"

"Because," answered the monarch, "I wish travellers to learn from the action I now order you to perform, how abhorrent dishonesty is in my eyes."

Even so is it regarding the dealings of the Almighty with us, pilgrims on earth. Though all we possess belongs to Him, yet He adds to it continually, in order to increase our temporal enjoyment. Should any one imagine, therefore, that to defraud man in order to present to God, what is solely His own, might be allowable, he would be rebuked by the teachings of Holy Writ, for the just God condemns the act, and calls it hateful.

From this we may then infer, for instance, that palm-branches, stolen in order to perform therewith the prescribed rites at the Feast of Tabernacles, are unfit for use by reason of the unlawful manner in which they were obtained.

Rabbi Eleazer said: "He who is guided by righteousness and justice in all his doings, may justly be asserted to have

p. 240

copied God in His unbounded beneficence. For of Him (blessed be His name) we read, 'He loveth righteousness and justice;' that is, 'The earth is filled with the loving kindness of God.'" Might we think that to follow such a course is an easy task? No! The virtue of beneficence can be gained only by great efforts. Will it be difficult, however, for him that has the fear of God constantly before his eyes to acquire this attribute? No; he will easily attain it, whose every act is done in the fear of the Lord.

"A crown of grace is the hoary head; on the way of righteousness can it be found."

So taught Solomon in his Proverbs. Hence various Rabbis, who had attained an advanced age, were questioned by their pupils as to the probable cause that had secured them that mark of divine favour. Rabbi Nechumah answered that, in regard to himself, God had taken cognisance of three principles by which he had endeavoured to guide his conduct.

First, he had never striven to exalt his own standing by lowering that of his neighbour. This was agreeable to the example set by Rabbi Hunna, for the latter, while bearing on his shoulders a heavy spade, was met by Rabbi Choana Ben Chanilai, who, considering the burden derogatory to the dignity of so great a man, insisted upon relieving him of the implement and carrying it himself. But Rabbi Hunna refused, saying, "Were this your habitual calling I might permit it, but I certainly shall not permit another to perform an office which, if clone by myself, may be looked upon by some as menial."

Secondly, he had never gone to his night's rest with a heart harbouring ill-will against his fellow-man, conformably with the practice of Mar Zutra, who, before sleeping, offered

p. 241

this prayer: "O Lord! forgive all those who have done me injury."

Thirdly, he was not penurious, following the example of the righteous Job, of whom the sages relate that he declined to receive the change due him after making a purchase.

Another Rabbi, bearing also the name of Nechumah, replied to Rabbi Akiba, that he believed himself to have been blessed with long life because, in his official capacity, he had invariably set his face against accepting presents, mindful of what Solomon wrote, "He that hateth gifts will live." Another of his merits he conceived to be that of never resenting an offence; mindful of the words of Rabba, "He who is indulgent towards others' faults, will be mercifully dealt with by the Supreme Judge."

Rabbi Zera said that the merit of having reached an extreme age was in his case due, under Providence, to his conduct through life. He governed his household with mildness and forbearance. He refrained from advancing an opinion before his superiors in wisdom. He avoided rehearsing the word of God in places not entirely free from uncleanliness. He wore the phylacteries all day, that he might be reminded of his religious duties. He did not make the college where sacred knowledge is taught, a place of convenience, as, for instance, to sleep there, either occasionally or habitually. He never rejoiced over the downfall of a fellow-mortal, nor would he designate another by a name objectionable to the party personally, or to the family of which he was a member.

[iamnotback]

The fear of God is necessary to maximize cooperation over defection. It is not cost free so individuals who fear God must form a community of like minded individuals to maximize the benefits of cooperation. Ultimately there is no current or future functional mechanism more optimized for maximizing cooperation then a universal and genuine the fear of the LORD. This is why religion will grow and ultimately out compete lessor more inefficient strategies.

As I pointed out in prior discussion, this is appropriate for maximizing "cooperation" between weak enslaved men. It is a crab bucket mentality. It is thus very compatible with sliding into socialism, SJWs, etc..

Yes so many humans turn to religion because they are so weak. (And then why are we surprised that religion has contributed to megadeath and atrocities  )

But religion is not the only competing culture and it has not won against everything else. Even within religion, it has fractured in so many different belief systems.

Sorry there is no absolute truth other than the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I told you this a long time ago.

Indeed it is very difficult to minimize defection (which is not the same as maximize cooperation!!) over large groups without some top-down enforcement. Did I ever deny that?

I argued that a small, elite group of hypercompetitive culture could self-select for greater individual discipline, but that the discipline would have to be enforced on the females otherwise they would gradually degrade the entire culture from within. Because women do not have multi-generational evolutionary strategy in their set of priorities.

As for maximizing cooperation, the technological paradigm shifts are what move that forward. Individuals are always going to anneal to the economics of nature, regardless of what group enslavement strategy you employ. Religion isn't moving anything forward, rather it is a coping mechanism for the economics that are.

But even though I respect your free will to go into the religion delusion and even to pursue that evil, I wasn't really in the mood to start judging you until you judged me to be evil (I can hear your unspoken thoughts). See how that works? Matthew 7. Oh but the Jews don't accept Jesus' sermon.

There are many positions you have taken in the posts immediately up thread. Some of these are correct and others are not but most are tangential to the underlying issue. There is also one mischaracterization of my position but that is also irrelevant.

You know that makes me angry. Don't make accusations without documenting them. Open source or exit the discussion.

I am here to learn. How can I learn if you don't point out specifically your issues.

[CoinCube]

As I pointed out in prior discussion, this is appropriate for maximizing cooperation between weak enslaved men. It is a crab bucket mentality. It is thus very compatible with sliding into socialism, SJWs, etc..

Yes so many humans turn to religion because they are so weak. (And then why are we surprised that religion has contributed to megadeath and atrocities  )
...

Personal jibes aside your advocated belief system equates voluntary cooperation to weakness. It therefore commits you to an strategy that is not competitive over a multi-generational time horizon. Short term it may suffice.

Fear of the LORD would necessitate opposing socialism if socialism trespasses beyond its proper role. Your slippery slope argument is false.

[iamnotback]

As I pointed out in prior discussion, this is appropriate for maximizing cooperation between weak enslaved men. It is a crab bucket mentality. It is thus very compatible with sliding into socialism, SJWs, etc..

Yes so many humans turn to religion because they are so weak. (And then why are we surprised that religion has contributed to megadeath and atrocities  )
...

Personal jibes aside your advocated belief system equates voluntary cooperation to weakness. It therefore commits you to an strategy that is not competitive over a multi-generational time horizon. Short term it may suffice.

This is 3rd or 4th time I am repeating to you that it is self-selection where those who remain are stronger. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

You are trying to fix all of society. I am not. I am just trying to compete. Competition is good. Trying to fix society is evil.

Fear of the LORD would necessitate opposing socialism if socialism trespasses beyond its proper role. Your slippery slope argument is false.

No it does not. Study history. Read 1 Samuel 8. Even the Lord knows it wouldn't.

Hypothetical perfection is not relevant, except in the minds of ideologues (who are thus very dangerous).

[CoinCube]

This is 3rd or 4th time I am repeating to you that it is self-selection where those who remain are stronger. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

You are trying to fix all of society. I am not. I am just trying to compete. Competition is good. Trying to fix society is evil.

Optimizing voluntary cooperation in no way limits self-selection.

Competition is good but the promotion of competition over cooperation is not.

I agree we are repeating ourselves and not moving towards consensus. I propose we wind down this discussion as an intractable philosophical difference.