Dark Enlightenment

[miscreanity]

Women in the workplace:

...

Yes. The common threads are discipline and education, the latter of which has been distorted to such an extent that the former has become a grey area.

Treating a dog like a baby denies the dog its innate nature of being a dog; that principle applies universally for species as well as genders although problems may not be apparent immediately.

I know of no simple solution that does not involve counterproductive violence.

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.

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

I had struggled with the laws as well, preferring to have comprehensive explanations and detailed history accompanying concepts. The problem here is that rationalization only gets one to the point of considering alternate viewpoints. Dangerously, misinterpretation causes misapplication and commensurate return; part of the learning process.

Adding to the confusion, many churches espouse damnation for breaking the laws even though God proclaimed Daniel a man after His own heart despite committing adultery and murder - Acts 13:22, 2 Samuel 7:14-16. Talk about a WTF moment. To sum: reading directly from the bible is far more enlightening than adhering to the dogma of one denomination or another.

Getting caught up in the details is easy; I've spent a good amount of time pondering Revelation and other prophecies. What's most important is the simple command from Jesus to love one another - John 13:34, Romans 13:8

From a familial and spiritual perspective, it can be observed that God entered into successive covenants with the Jewish people even though it was destined that the people would fail and break the laws. Why?

When I finally had gone through various spiritual avenues and felt the urge to pick up the bible again, the following quote came to mind:
When I was sixteen, my father was the most ignorant man in the world. By the time I reached 21, I was surprised at how much he had learned in five years.

It was letting go of trying to figure it all out that led to a profound shift in understanding.

This time I found my reading of the bible described humanity as a unified entity, each of us part of a greater whole and far more connected than it might seem from a worldly standpoint - God is raising a child. Reward and punishment, discipline and praise.

From that I came to see the triune God as we are - collectively one, just as collections of neurons function as parts of one mind.

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

Regardless of the details, the story is far more important. It's rare that we ask people to verify their life story in conversation - we're interested in getting to know one another. What makes a person think the way they do, what have they seen and done, what are their hopes and dreams? The foundation of a relationship is based on that communication; establishing a give and take.

Putting aside family issues, assume your father raises you and at the age of 13 you decide you're going to leave home. Disregarding contemporary legal issues for the sake of argument, consider that your father allows you to leave. He has taught you as much as he could, given you as much knowledge as could be crammed into a young man's head. As you attempt to make your way in the world, you can choose to follow your father's teaching or try your own ways.

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

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

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

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

[CoinCube]

More damned facts:

(Various links from blogger James Donaldson)

I read through the links. A lot of it is unreferenced opinion some of it describes real world problems and some of it is simply untrue.

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

Let's look at each claim in turn.

1) Highly educated women get married less.

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

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

2) Highly educated women get divorced more.

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

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


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


3) Highly educated women have fewer children.

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

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

[iamnotback]

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

Let's look at each claim in turn.

1) Highly educated women get married less.

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

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

Apparently you did not read the entire page carefully and look at the cited reference. Up until my X generation started to heavily influence the statistics, indeed college educated women were much less likely to marry. What you are seeing is the fact that my generation is the product of divorced hippies and we are rebelling against divorce and the destruction of the family.

But the fact remains that college education destroyed the country, because now you have the Y and Z generations following with the former being the 2nd batch of very spoiled kids from the hippies and the Z generation doesn't want to have anything to do with marriage.

Also the college educated women are getting married later and thus this is impacting fertility.

Also the statistics are slightly skewed by the fact that black males with no education rarely marry, so education for them is better than their instinctive culture.

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

Also I expect the reason that high school or less education is now correlating with much lower marriage and much higher divorce rates, is because:

a) Now only we don't have normal, hardworking, disciplined white women in that category contrary to what was the case when woman's suffrage was first enacted in the USA, and instead we have mostly white trash and brown trash.
b) Welfare and an overall improved standard of living enables trash to pop out babies out of wedlock without repercussions.

To show how statistics can lie, I am included in those who have married and not divorced by age 46, and also college educated, but my marriage, kids, and life are in shambles. And if I had followed what my hippie generation Dad had demanded I do, I would have been divorced at age 37. My generation is still remembering the culture of my grandparents, but the following generations will not have this perspective to draw on. And our marriages do not serve as strong examples because the schools have so eroded the minds of our offspring as compared to my generation.

2) Highly educated women get divorced more.

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

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


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

I am rushed out the door, but I am confident you will find similar holes in your stats.

3) Highly educated women have fewer children.

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

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

It holds true in the aggregate and thus the outcome of the aggregate society.

[CoinCube]

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

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

Just the facts please.

[iamnotback]

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

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

Just the facts please.

Being respectful includes not debating disingenuously and not being lazy. I already told you where the facts are, just go follow the cited references on the page you cited and dig down and you find all the data that refutes your cited narrowly focused study which was only narrowly focused on my X generation:

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

...

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

In short, you are citing cherry picked data, which is the epitome of using statistics to lie to match an agenda.

And that is what really irritates me about leftists and Marxist (and God religion) zealouts is they go out of their way to build elaborate lies (or unfalsiable superstition).

Cripes you are supposed to be a scientist and academic, you should not be this sloppy. You should have immediately noted that the sample was only those born between 1958 and 1965. I was trying to be respectful to you and you are once again being condescending to both myself and to JAD, by stating the JAD is incorrect yet you are being sloppy and stating that my reply was only opinion or innuendo.

Stress reducing tangent:

http://imgur.com/gallery/bz242

[CoinCube]

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

In the second study the data comes from a 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth among women ages 22-44 who have ever been married.

In the third study the data is from the 2015 U.S. Bureau of the Census examining the percent of women age 40-45 who are married.

[iamnotback]

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

What part of this can't you read?

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

...

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

Digging down to the cited reference:

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

Digging to the full report:

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

And additionally note that even though my X generation has improved the relative ratios for marriage between educated and non-educated (which I've hypothesized is a temporal reactionary aberration, and no data has been offered to refute my hypothesis), our rate of marriage is still much less than it was for non-educated before 1950, so this supports my point that we are losing the cultural war. As I've argued to CoinCube, we are being diluted by about 20 - 25% per generation being lost to Marxism (and probably greater than a majority sliding towards the left gradually so the net aggregate movement left). Perhaps the rate of attrition is better in orthodox Judaism, but as long as they are highly educating their females and allowing them to vote and have highly active careers with social activism themes, then they are also subject to attrition from within.

...he still is up against (((powerful interests))) pushing the leftist agenda, the media, and academia. Most likely, women and non-whites will still be allowed to vote. Same for millennials and gen Zers, who have effectively been irreparably damaged by the university system and popular media.

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

And here is the precedent that a Trump dictator could create which I warned about upthread:

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

[iamnotback]

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I now am ashamed (feeling remorse and regret) that I was expending (scarce resource) mental energy on these sort of elaborate attempts to justify God, as I alluded to in my comments to which you are replying. Regardless of the veracity of circumstantial support for superstition, God will remain unfalsifiable.

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

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

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

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

Well expressed. Thank you.

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

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

[CoinCube]

Digging to the full report:

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

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

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

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

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

This is one of your "damned facts"

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

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



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

[iamnotback]

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

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

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

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

Well expressed. Thank you.

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

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

What seems to happen is that when we humans attain a state of satisfaction in our lives, we want to feel an emotional connection to the whole. We relax our competitive fire and it can also reflect complacency in a cultural evolutionary competition sense.

I have been under distress most of my life, thus when we see our lives as shit and a struggle, we are less apt to have the above emotion. However, I am familiar with that tendency, because I have had some brief periods in my life where I temporarily experienced the above satisfaction.

What I can say though is I never truly related to the concept of loving the Lord as father of all. The concept never spoke to my emotions. My heart warms to individuals whom as I know them I feel they have a warm heart. But I don't trust the "heart" of ideologues. My entire life people have been trying to force me to think a certain way and I am damn fucking tired of it. No Mas!      

If someone browbeats me (you are not in any way doing that so far miscreanity), they are apt to lose those eyebrows.   Reason with me in a fair way, and I will certainly be open minded. Ridicule me when I am being sincere, and I'll grant them the fight they deserve (or perhaps if they are irrelevant I will just ignore). And one thing I learned the hard way in the Philippines after losing an eye due to a gang attack and also in separate incident getting a hammer to my skull (for which I still have a 1" hole in my skull) after knocking all a guy's front teeth out on to the sandy soil at my feet (because he was throwing stones at my house while I was trying to work and he wouldn't stop) and then granting his mother's request to stop (then he ran off to get the hammer while I was talking to her), is fighting fair or not fighting to the death is very risky. Fight me at your peril, because I will not risk my self-defense again by stopping my attack.

Btw, the reason that guy was throwing stones at the house had something to do with an argument about a hammock with my ex-wife. And I was not a party to that squabble. But you have to realize it was a boiling point, because I was writing Art-O-Matic and CoolPage with a karaoke blasting away at such high volume nearly every day and night, that I couldn't hear my own voice inside the house. I was also getting dysentery and horrible GI infections roughly biweekly. I saw my neighbors wearing my underwear and other clothing that disappeared little by little. Getting heckled with "hey joe, fuck you" and stones thrown at me when I would go jogging. Jeepneys running me off the road and into ankle deep mud when I was jogging. Etc, etc, etc.. Impregnate the wrong lady and then try to uphold your responsibility as a father...

And don't armchair expert to me about I should have returned to the USA to work, because I did do that! But I can't tell you why that didn't work, because it would require me to talk about someone else behind their back and violate their privacy and so this explanation ends here.

[iamnotback]

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

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

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

This is one of your "damned facts"

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

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



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

I wrote "hypothesis" and you re-characterize it as a "rationalization". You are still fighting me, but you are doing in a passive aggressive form of condescending tone.

Kindly remove the effects of welfare from your chart, then we can talk about whether the statistic on high school educated white trash and mostly brown trash is a meaningful datum.

You have presented no data whatsoever to refute my hypothesis and I know damn well what is going on, because I been out in the real world while you've ostensibly been living your bubble.

I also know damn well that what I stated about Gen X is correct, because I've done a fair amount of reading about Gen X and I know we share certain worldview about our parents and grandparents' generations.

Edit: and I just found this: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/divorce-rates-and-generation-x/

Also what the statistics only tell us indirectly by the fact that only 65 - 75% get married (with 40 - 50% divorced) versus 93% (and near 0% divorce) before 1950s (and you haven't even incorporated WHITE Gen Z for which marriage rates are likely to plummet if Japan is any indication of our future), is that men are making a lot more sacrifices (in terms of control) to get/remain married and the result is a slide to the left in everything and loss of production, technological superiority, testosterone, control over the upbringing of the offspring, etc..

We men get stuck with all the repercussions, but then are no longer given the commensurate control. That is a system of failure. And I refuse to be part of it and perpetuate it. It is vile, immoral, despicable, and evil.

Your desired remedy is God religion, but this also has very high leakage as evident by the upthread essay by an orthodox Jewish woman who explained she was into social active causes and a career woman. Only perhaps the Mormons have managed to keep their women sufficiently repressed to keep all the key metrics up in the high 90th percentiles as per my grandparents' culture and generation.

So you go with your modern ideology. Let's compete. You go your way, and I will go mine.

I find it repulsive and insulting that my Gen X's valiant attempt to swim upriver against the worst possible environment, is being used against us to argue statistically that the situation is normalizing. If you really want to get down to the truth with statistics, then do it properly. Just as you wouldn't come here citing clinical studies that were half-assed. But of course, you don't want to know the damned facts, so you will just massage the data to invent your own ideology because you refuse to honor nature. You hate nature. You hate men (because you can't love men and simultaneously not admit our superior role in nature).

What your chart shows is that marriage is declining, which means we are losing the war. It shows that starting with the Gen X generation, the decline in marriage stabilized temporarily (at an ongoing lower level!) only for those with a college degree. Well yes, because these are the marriageable white women who the Gen X white men want to marry in order to continue our culture and race. And the men are trying to hang on, but they know damn well they are losing the war, and that is why all this shit is going on right now with Trump. I understand these middle class marriages and how dysfunctional they are. And the results of that dysfunction is coming down the pike...

Just because we basically force our white women to get a college education, doesn't mean that the marriages are equatable to the marriages before WW2. What we have now are Frankenstein families who satiate their sorry ass predicament with McFat and Facebook addictions. We can put a Snickers bar wrapper on a turd and count it as chocolate in our statistics.

You can't claim to me that all the leftist college education hasn't moved the marriages to the left. Men now cook and change diapers and that is less time they have to be rocket engineers.

If we actually measured everything about marriage and did the accurate analysis, we would find that the concept of marriage that our grandparents knew, has all but died. But we did it to ourselves. We were complacent. We were ideologues. We thought our daughters should be stellar in all the arts and possible achievements. We white men did it to ourselves.

You could at least do some Googling first before being so smug:

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

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

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

Marriage for the female in her early 30s isn't marriage! You can't make a family with marriage that late! It is some symbolic thing called marriage, but it isn't marriage as we knew it.

Here are the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We may be witnessing the unbundling of love and sex.

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

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

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

Btw, there is a humongous oversupply of unmarriageable leftover Asians coming and they are entirely unrealistic and grossly overestimate the supply of naive Westerners that are going to be willing to swallow the millions of leftover Asian women coming (the Philippines dating sites are also overflowing with them as well):

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

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

[iamnotback]

The irony that some of the same people who act so holier than thou about slavery, are the same ones who will castigate (brow beat & employ political correctness pressure on) those who don't spayed their pets and teenage daughters.

"Spaying/Neutering - American Humane" (americanhumane.org) You see if you don't do this, you are not humane!

I even read that many teenage girls are being given injections that make them infertile for 7 years so they won't burden themselves or society with pregnancy. (And who knows the long-term effects)

Obviously some of the same people who argue against slavery, are hypocrites who actively employ slavery against teenagers. And implicitly admit that females need to be protected against outcomes they can't control without some aid.

And the analogous enslavement point applies to education. The leftists are the ones who insist that young girls not be allowed to follow their instinctive play and learning habits and instead be force fed education which teaches them to reject those instincts.

It really is all about a power struggle and who has the power. Slavery is never eliminated. Never! Don't be a fool. Society is trying to enslave me (and you).

Who should be in control, the strong men over each of their tribes or the collective?

Those who are jealous that they don't have real power give themselves the illusion of control over their weak ass reality by leveraging a collective insanity to try to destroy the real personal power of others. When men take control over their families and women (thus empowering their tribe for maximum happiness and success), this is a real personal power that enrages those who want to have power over men. And these jealous insane leftists replace real personal power with a power vacuum of self-destruction.

That is what I have to say about the reality of slavery.

Those weak men who abuse their power to become less productive as a tribe, thus lose their power. I am contemplating if (some interpretations of) Islam fits that model of appealing to self-destructive men who want all the goodies without all of the obligations to remain competitive and successful. The thought comes to mind that if Western culture keeps attacking the personal power of men, then Islam may become more attractive alternative to disenfranchised men. As @trollercoaster noted, the Western females might already be getting wet vaginas when they are dominated by Islamic rapefugees (this conjecture isn't well documented yet, but it would fit what we would expect from females as being natural and I am not saying that to disrespect or demean women). If you argue that women should have the freedom to fuck everything that makes them horny, then as argued upthread, you want self-destruction of the society:

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/

I don't trust the collective (in an armed society he'd already been dead at the crime scene):

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/11/canadian-man-who-beheaded-bus-passenger-granted-total-freedom.html

Edit: I see JAD and I had a similar independent thought process and he articulates some concepts that were rolling around in my head:

http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cost-disease/

Of course, I continue to diverge from his fragile top-down prescriptions.

[miscreanity]

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

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

I was not there to witness, so I am unable to make absolute statements. From what you describe - correct me if I'm wrong - it sounds like a "save the world" mentality. Admirable, but overwhelming.

As for the rules, Jesus was the sacrifice to end sacrifices. In doing so, the law no longer dooms humanity to spiritual death if the act is accepted by believing. The offer of forgiveness involves two parties, and if the forgiver is not accepted, then there is no salvation. Acceptance does not obviate adhering to the law, but failing to do so no longer condemns unless the believer rejects God again. Romans 7-8 can be difficult, but explain the changed circumstance.

The love and respect for your grandfather is good, but what he did was what he did and what you do and learn and correct is yours. We all have our own paths, and Jesus makes sure we know that God is the priority - Luke 9:57-62.

While there's no promise of life being easy, and plenty to state that the world will despise you for following Jesus' teachings, difficult times could be discipline or an effort to guide you away from detriment. It's one thing to rely on Jesus for strength to endure, but it's also important to contemplate the circumstances and related mindset to assess whether there's a different course of action you're being directed toward.

Man has the ability to rationalize, and the desire to create vision. Man also can learn to cultivate his ability to listen spiritually despite the noise of the world. On occasion, I've found myself hitting resistance and then being guided to a solution or alternate path that superseded the prior one. In several instances, completely unrelated issues promptly resolved themselves. Some call it coincidence, but when it starts happening reliably...

It also seems that Colossians 3:21 applies. In what sense did he fail? Who was denying you a voice, him or other family? Guidance and discipline are good, but control and domination can distort and tempt on the way to becoming antagonising and domineering. Acknowledging you, even as a youth, would've been a critical first step without which no other progress could be made regardless of whether you were right or wrong. I don't know how you were at 15 but it's all too easy to dismiss or ignore children, and anyone not reflecting on their own actions is foolish - Matthew 18:1-6, Proverbs 15:32.

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

Proverbs discusses natural laws to quite an extent. Repercussions are described, and the only time I've seen anything to be ignored is when there is a short-term benefit at a cost of the long-term. That sounds more like human nature, avoiding the issue. People can also be educated into indecision.

God will remain unfalsifiable.

And unverifiable.

It would be so simple if God were directly tangible, but then faith and trust wouldn't matter. Yet we have faith and trust in other people who may or may not be reliable to varying degrees. The only difference I see there is a physical presence.

Well expressed. Thank you.

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

My pleasure.

Your belief, and your decision to believe, is always your own. Why do we have the ability to choose?

There are any number of possibilities for your difficulties, some of which might be considered BS. It could be guidance, discipline, punishment, using you as an example such as with Job or maybe you're an easy target for satanic powers. Or it could be that God does not exist and the nihilist view is correct. Does the explanation matter when we aren't currently in a position to fully contemplate all of the variables involved? I certainly don't know, sorry I can't help more there.

Computers are fantastic, wondrous machines. They're also borderline pointless without being connected to one another. Whether computers were created or spontaneously came into existence, the information present within and the communication that occurs among them is a creation far more potent than any individual machine. We may be on the verge of finally creating an AI capable of recognizing its existence, so what does that say about our similarities to God? I think it comes back again to us growing and learning in an environment specifically for that - physical echoes of a true reality beyond the confines of our known universe.

To take a cue from Plato's Cave, how would you explain to Mario that there's a world beyond Koopas and Bob-oms and Piranha Plants where nothing is trying to kill him every waking moment? Would Mario love his creator for offering hope? Or would Mario hate his creator for putting him there in the first place? Or would Mario be indifferent, thrilled by the violence and exhilarating challenge of it all?

If God's presence would tip the scales of choice in a desire to create an entity that truly appreciates its creator, then it makes sense that His presence not be overly apparent. So how to communicate? I'd vote for doing so indirectly using coincidence and prophecy as a solid foundation, potentially with direct intervention at key points or using the rules of the game and environment. Maybe there would be other ways?

I suppose this generally boils down to the notion that if we are derived from something, it makes a kind of sense that our behavior is like that from which we are derived from. Similar to how a cat has an innate ability to hunt and groom itself. That delves into evolution and some notions on time-frames, spiritual placement and earth as an incubator... but that's another conversation entirely.

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

Good question. I'll have to ponder that one for a bit.

[miscreanity]

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

...

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

This is where the danger lies. It is not wise to repress or require collegiate education. There are women and men who gain a great deal from university, and there are others for whom it is not beneficial. Exploring avenues in life is one thing, yet institutionalized marketing has effectively encouraged "higher" education to a point where that path is followed mindlessly. Repression potentially denies genuine growth where it may benefit the most, while requirement can misdirect effort best utilized elsewhere.

Apprenticeships, familial pursuits, creative endeavors, business ventures and uncountable other possibilities fall by the wayside at the altar of the ivory tower. While there is nothing wrong with education in itself, pushing it in the same manner a street drug dealer does is an insidious detriment to humanity in aggregate. That is the distinction - individuals benefit at the expense of the whole.

Institutional policies like those put forth in the education sphere are present in other areas as well. It has become the temptation of something outside a given strength that clouds judgement. The reasoning necessary to pull apart the multiple layers of non-linear influences simply is not explored often enough to make an impact until it becomes glaringly obvious to those that cannot or will not spend the time in contemplation on the topic.

We can do anything, but should we? 1 Corinthians 6:12, 1 Corinthians 10:23

I find myself picturing the present American culture as a child (yet again) that has been disobedient, and now the parenting method used is one of forcing overindulgence. The culture overindulged in everything that made the nation great, and now it is being forced to gorge on those things to a point of detriment. I imagine the country is just about at the point where, having eaten far too much chocolate, the child is about to vomit and feel miserable.

[CoinCube]

Lets lay out all of the facts we have covered so far:

Facts:
1) Overall marriage rates have declined over the last 100 years.
2) Overall divorce rates have climbed over the last 100 years.
3) Women in the west have become emancipated for at most 100 years (right to vote in US granted in 1920).
4) Educated women are somewhat resistant to this decline in marriage. Their marriage rates have declined less and they are less likely to get divorced.
5) Educated women currently have fewer children then those with less education.
6) Participation in conservative religious groups may buffer against this decline in fertility.

Can these changes be tied to the emancipation of women? Yes but not for the reasons listed by the blogger above. Modern men and women are simply not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

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

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

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

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

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

So what we are dealing with here is a situation where both genders including men are poorly adapted when it comes to choosing our mates in life. We have evolved with the built in expectation that our parents will arrange these things for us but this no longer happens.

Humanity is currently under extreme selective pressure. We are a population maladapted to our current environment. One of the many stressors we face is an entirely new fitness landscape when it comes to reproduction.

The time when parents made our choices for us is gone. The new status quo has only existed for at most a hundred years (realistically much less). There simply has not been time for the population to adapt to what amounts to a huge environmental shift. We can thus expect to see many individual bad outcomes as individual fail in the face of selective pressure.

The clock, however, cannot be turned back. Knowledge has progressed and society is not returning to a conformation with less degrees-of-freedom. A society that enslaves and refuses to educate half of its population is simply uncompetitive over the long run. Women are emancipated and and not returning to slavery voluntary. Given the option between freedom and slavery human nature cries out for freedom. The genie is out of the bottle.

In the long run this will be a good thing as eventually a population will arise where both men and women are free and place proper focus time and effort in choosing a suitable mate and prioritizing child rearing.

Married Couples Who Attend Church Services Together Are Less Likely to Divorce
http://www.christianpost.com/news/married-couples-who-attend-church-services-together-are-less-likely-to-divorce-study-171853/

Married couples who attend church services together are more likely to live longer, are less likely to be depressed, and less likely to get divorced, according to a new study conducted by a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The study, titled "Religion and Health: A Synthesis," conducted by Tyler J. VanderWeele, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, noted that religious service attendance is connected to "better health outcomes, including longer life, lower incidence of depression, and less suicide," the Institute for Family Studies noted on Tuesday.

Married couples who attend religious services are 30 to 50 percent less likely to get divorced than those who do not, the study asserts. Such couples are also nearly 30 percent less likely to be depressed and, over a 16-year follow-up period, were shown to have significantly lower risk of dying.

In the meantime the best strategy for dealing with a novel environment is to optimize our chances for success. Educated women are more likely to get married and more likely to have long term and stable marriages so a wise man will seek out an educated wife, and a wise father will educate his sons and daughters. Religion is strongly associated with stable marriages and some conservative traditions may even offset the fertility decline associated with education so a wise man will also seek out a religious wife and a wise father will teach his children about God.

You can choose a practical strategy for dealing the relentless march of freedom or you can sit back and pine for the days of yesteryear. I imagine the Roman plantation owners were quite upset when they could no longer find cheap slave labor and the French noblemen were very distressed when the surfs started to disobey. Yearning for the "good old days" does not help one deal with the present. Women have claimed their freedom. This is the reality going forward and this reality is not going to be reversed.

[iamnotback]

Islamic parasitism on white production and debt-based socialism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCbqLvFtw6o

Customs are really only sustained by the economics and natural reasons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKPgX8sHqEM

[iamnotback]

There are many people doing many different strategies for their lives and offspring. It is quite inspiring to see this.

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

The reaction of white men against political correctness and woman's equality is a necessary reaction to the invasion of the monolithic groupthink over everything.

The backlash of the angry white man is merely the competition that nature requires to maintain sufficient diversity, resilience, and antifragility.

Again as I wrote to CoinCube weeks ago, there is no absolute truth other than the trend towards maximum entropy.

So feel free to have your God religion, but please keep it to yourselves lest we find ourselves competing over our respective differences in philosophy. Are we really at the point where we need to annihilate the other in order to be free to practice our own?

Again what pisses me off are those who do not respect the right of others to have their own personal power and strategy. Those people who think the know what is best for everyone else's children.

Edit: I wrote the above before reading CoinCube's post (and I didn't yet read all of his post), but obviously I was prescient predicting his error:

Knowledge has progressed and society is not returning to a conformation with less degrees-of-freedom. A society that enslaves and refuses to educate half of its population is simply uncompetitive over the long run.

If everyone does it one way, that is a reduction in entropy. If there is only one society (if such a monolithic groupthink was even sustainable), that is near 0 entropy.

If the diversity of men produced by not have political correctness mayonnaise dumped on top of them is greater by not educating their women, then that tribe may in fact prosper.

Neither I nor you know which strategy will be adapted to the unknown future. So that is why nature requires the antifragility of a diversity of strategies.

[CoinCube]

So feel free to have your God religion, but please keep it to yourselves lest we find ourselves competing over our respective differences in philosophy. Are we really at the point where we need to annihilate the other in order to be free to practice our own?

Again what pisses me off are those who do not respect the right of others to have their own personal power and strategy. Those people who think the know what is best for everyone else's children.

I don't seek to impose my views on you merely share them. There is no reason for self censorship. It is that the blogger you have brought into this discussion Mr. Donaldson who wishes to impose his philosophy on me and mine via violence supporting the use of force to reverse woman's suffrage among other things.

Mr. Donaldson's  ideas are not going anywhere but if they had a chance of gaining traction they would certainly bring us into direct violent conflict. Far better to battle in the arena of ideas its cheaper. To your credit you have stated on multiple occasions you oppose such coercive strategies. You have argued against them so vociferously that it, apparently, got you banned from Mr. Donaldson's blog. I view that as powerfully laudatory.

I absolutely respect the rights of others, but others must extend that same courtesy to me. My culture and society has chosen to emancipate it's women. This means my daughters at age 18 are adults with complete freedom under law to own property, vote, and make independent decisions. I will certainly fight for them to keep these rights if others seek to steal them via violence.

If Mr. Donaldson wishes to live in a society where women have not been emancipated he needs to try and change society without coercion. In the US this means getting men and women to support repealing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via a new constitutional amendment. I fully support his right to try and do this but I doubt his prospects for success.

Alternatively he (and others that share his views) can move to a society where women have not been emancipated. There are not a lot of options here as most societies have emancipated their women.

[iamnotback]

Please get that SJW nonsense out of my face. I would feel compelled to punch who ever is putting that in my face, so they might understand in real world terms why that pacification SJW propaganda is entirely detached from any sense of reality. That is complete nonsense. Put the women in charge and watch your society crumble to dust you closet-feminist fool.

I see your ideology as a weapon and even though it is passive aggressive, it is a real war and that is why you are receiving my angry replies. You had better understand that you are creating a war and you will be attacked back (not just by me, but by JAD's angry white man militias and dictator Trump and its offshoots ... this is the price you pay for lying to yourself). You won't be able to hide behind the lie of your propaganda forever. The civil war payback is coming soon.

I’m rather looking forward to the screams of anguish on the day the Left realizes that this will be turned against them…

I was reminded of your point in a past blog to the effect of noting how the instigators and/or the apathetic are somehow surprised when power structures are built which are later used to do the opposite of what the power structure was created to accomplish. I commented recently not on A&D that JAD’s desire for a Trump dictatorship could be turned against his desired politics when the Left takes control of that power structure in a future election cycle.

It is that the blogger you have brought into this discussion Mr. Donaldson who wishes to impose his philosophy on me and mine via violence supporting the use of force to reverse woman's suffrage among other things.

...To your credit you have stated on multiple occasions you oppose such coercive strategies. You have argued against them so vociferously that it, apparently, got you banned from Mr. Donaldson's blog...

...I absolutely respect the rights of others, but others must extend that same courtesy to me. My culture and society has chosen to emancipate it's women. This means my daughters at age 18 are adults with complete freedom under law to own property, vote, and make independent decisions. I will certainly fight for them to keep these rights if other seek to steal them via violence.

If Mr. Donaldson wishes to live in a society where women have not been emancipated he needs to try and change society without coercion. In the US this means getting men and women to support repealing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via a new constitutional amendment. I fully support his right to try and do this but I doubt his prospects for success.

Alternatively he (and others that share his views) can move to a society where women have not been emancipated. There are not a lot of options here as most societies have emancipated their women.

But both you and JAD appear to both advocate the coercion of the State that has a monopoly on violence. You obscure your evil behind your passive aggressive implicit claim of a more virtuous and egalitarian society.

You implicitly demand that my female children not be denied exposure to certain "rights" else I am not allowed to live in "your" society. What happened to my society and my choice? In other words, you demand I invest for at least 18 years in my children and have all the repercussions+liability for how my children behave and perform, but you don't give me the control to decide what I think it best for my children. This is why fathers are defecting and allowing the State to raise their children, even if they are still around by implicitly allowing their kids to attend State (and even SJWs infected private) schools.

If you haven't noticed, the SJWs are starting to rail against the God religion, and your freedom to send your daughters to a religious oriented school of your choice is going to be lost in the societal organization and governance paradigm you advocate.

Hey what if I don't want your SJW female offspring voting on what is proper for my female offspring?

What I am driving at here is that your so called universal "rights" are actually allowing the camel's nose under opening in the bottom of the tent to enable the total annihilation of my culture and infect+overwhelm it with the culture of the State and SJWs. This is the insideous Marxist demoralization strategy. This is a slippery slope which slides all the way to the Frankenstein outcomes such as where both men and women defect from the optimum life strategies and society collapses.

You refuse to acknowledge that JAD is correct where he wrote:

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/

Here I will quote it for you:

Societies with emancipated women do not reproduce very successfully.

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women.  Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers.  Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed.  One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage.  But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage.  Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men.  Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.

Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a woman’s fertile years.

A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head.  If men and women equal, requires separation.  If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.

So, patriarchy.  If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children.  The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.

It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate.  They will not support or protect women on current terms.

When you use the God religion to attempt to repress your women and mind control them into not defecting from the optimum life strategy, that is not conceptually different from an enslavement perspective than any other cultural strategy that accomplishes the same goal.

The pot calling the kettle black. Hypocrite.

At the generative essence for society, if we don't have a diversity of cultural strategies amongst strong men, we have a power vacuum of self-destruction. That is the bottom line.

Your mistake is presuming the State has any role whatsoever because you fear interleaved (not mass) failure. But integrated failure is the way nature anneals gradually towards optimum fitness (I am very surprised you don't accept this given you have cited evolutionary biology). The man is the one who invests in his children and thus the only one who should decide. The female also invests, but realize that she depends on the man and she knows this unless she has the State fucking up nature and creating Frankenstein divergence into scorched earth mass failure.

Edit: until they are adult (an age which varies by individual child), the child is the property of the father and mother (and possibly the communal tribe which has invested in raising the child), which means effectively the property of the father. The State should have no role whatsoever. To achieve sufficient diversity for resiliency and antifragility, we must have those who are closest to the action in control. That is the fundamental reason you are my enemy.

I advocate a magnificent world of abundant diversity; whereas, you implicitly support a monolithic mayonnaise that smothers everything and turns us all into xerox copy, Facebook, McFat, SJWs lies regurgitating mind controlled zombies. I don't want to live in your dying top-down driven enslavement high economies-of-scale, corporate-fascist, power vacuum, industrial age strip mall hell heaven.

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

I wish there was a solution but there isn't.

The solution is for people and humanity to gradually learn from our mistakes ultimately improving our behavior.

Competition of diverse strategies, because a monolithic top-down experiment is flirting with an extinction or megadeath event. Diversified failure is better than monolithic failure. This is Taleb's anti-fragility.

The best educator is consequence and the inevitable suffering it brings.

Precisely. Diverse competitions.

The role of the state is not to protect us from our bad choices.

Yet it does. Which incentivizes monolithic behavior.

The role of the state is to protect the innocent from the bad choices of others.

This only works well in very limited and clear cut cases.

In most situations, this turns into Frankenstein monolithic outcomes that kill the natural competition that is necessary for people to learn through the free market of diversified failure.

As a minanarchist, I support clear cut cases. For example, criminality as enumerated in prior post. I also mentioned today that I would support requiring all immigrants with a positive TB test to have undergone a certified DOT (doctor observed treatment meaning the doctor administers the drugs every week) for 6 - 9 months before they are allowed to immigrate to the USA. So we are stop importing multi-drug resistant strains. TB used to be nearly non-existent in the USA. Now it is coming back and with strains that can't be treated. This is fatal.

The state is failure personified.

Disagree. It is destruction of diversified failure and lumping it into monolithic failure. Not anti-fragile.

Taleb is much smarter than you or I. Maybe you should ask his opinion? I emailed him once and he replied.

At its best it is a bumbling and inefficient helper.

At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.

The worst is the end game inertia. Without exception. This is the lesson of Babylon.

The best the state can ever do is to contain and limit fallout to the individual alone.

Most of the time it accomplishes far less.

It accomplishes far worse always if given enough time to foment.

[CoinCube]

You implicitly demand that my female children not be denied exposure to certain "rights" else I am not allowed to live in "your" society. What happened to my society and my choice? In other words, you demand I invest for at least 18 years in my children and have all the repercussions+liability for how my children behave and perform, but you don't give me the control to decide what I think it best for my children. This is why fathers are defecting and allowing the State to raise their children, even if they are still around by implicitly allowing their kids to attend State (and even SJWs infected private) schools.

What I am driving at here is that your so called universal "rights" are actually allowing the camel's nose under opening in the bottom of the tent to enable the total annihilation of my culture and infect+overwhelm it with the culture of the State and SJWs. This is the insideous Marxist demoralization strategy. This is a slippery slope which slides all the way to the Frankenstein outcomes such as where both men and women defect from the optimum life strategies and society collapses.

Every society has rules. In the USA the highest form of those rules is laid out in the constitution and the constitution gives women the right to vote. If you want to try and change the constitution there is a mechanism to do so.

Our rights as parents are not absolute. We are stewards of our children not their owners. We have a responsibility to shepherd them into adulthood to the best of our ability. Once our children attain adulthood they are granted all the rights that society gives its adults. One of these rights is the ability to discard parental will and make their own way in the world.

Even decentralized paradigms like Bitcoin have a set of common rules that all participants must follow. If someone is unwilling to follow these they must either build a new consensus or hard fork and go off on their own. The same is true here. Society has established certain rules that limit parental authority over children. You cannot force your children into marriage against their will, you are limited in the amount of physical violence you are permitted to deploy, you cannot grossly abuse them, and your authority over them ends at age 18. These are constraints society places on all parents. As a parent you have broad but not unlimited deference.

You can try and change societies rules (in this case via a constitutional amendment) or you can move on to greener pastures. Saudi Arabia does not allow its women freedom and this is a potential options for those interested. A third option is to identify an island or an underpopulated nation and attempt to get like minded individuals to move with you in the hopes of forming a majority in that location. A fourth (and probably best) option is to join or build a voluntary non-coercive subculture compliant with and nested within the larger culture that reinforces healthy behaviors.  

You refuse to acknowledge that JAD is correct where he wrote:
...
Here I will quote it for you:

Societies with emancipated women do not reproduce very successfully.

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women.  Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers.  Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed.  One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage.  But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage.  Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men.  Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.

Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a woman’s fertile years.

A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head.  If men and women equal, requires separation.  If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.

So, patriarchy.  If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children.  The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.

It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate.  They will not support or protect women on current terms.

Yes that is because the blogger here is engaged in a deductive fallacy. There certainly are are large numbers of women and men engaged in the described defect/defect equilibrium. The blogger errors is in his assumption that his analogy is universally true when it is not. There are a large number of educated free men and women who do a reasonable job of selecting their mates and voluntary choose cooperate/cooperate options.  

The fact that some individuals fail in the face of selective pressure does not mean we must coercively impose a forced solution on all men and women. Individuals who are engaged in defect/defect equilibrium are sadly maladapted to the current environment and will be gradually replaced over time by those who do not make unhealthy choices.