Dark Enlightenment

[CoinCube]

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.

The difference is that I am suggesting voluntary methods of improving health and fitness. You in contrast continue to cite and promote a blogger who argues for coercively restricting the freedom of others.

Here is an example from one conservative faith. There are others:

http://www.jewishmag.com/63mag/shidduch/shidduch.htm
Meeting Your Mate by Molly Lugmo

What is the difference between a shidduch and a date?

Well for one, tachlis, the end goal, makes the difference. In a date the end goal is a good time with some one nice, whereas in a shidduch, the end goal is a quality marital partner. With these two diverse goals we can begin to understand the high marital success rate for a shidduch and the low rate for a date.

In a date, generally a place of entertainment is chosen and an event is enjoyed together. Interspersed between the entertainment is some conversation, perhaps about the source of entertainment, perhaps about other more personal topics. In a shidduch, a neutral place (which is not a place of entertainment) is selected, and the conversation is the main focus. Each side asks questions about the other, and shares their feelings and opinions openly so that the other side can understand their character, their desires and their direction.

A date often is a romantic interlude that comes to its conclusion with some hugging and kissing, perhaps more, perhaps less. A shidduch is a hands-free event, for the schmuching (hugging and kissing) would cloud the purpose of the event, the proper evaluation of the other. Emotional involvement is only granted after the other person has been properly seen as worthy of a life time mate.

A date starts with a chance meeting, followed up by a proposal to go out together. A shidduch starts with a proposal by a third party (the shadchan male or shadchanit female) and develops after a careful investigation of the character and integrity by both parties of the other sides. Both sides refer back to the shadchan with their findings. If they are both interested, then a meeting is made. If, however, one of the parties feels that this is not for them, then the relationship does not even begin and no hard feelings are made.

Even if the couple sees each other several times and then one side decides that the other is not for them, then it is the job of the shadchan to tell the other side. The shadchan generally says that the other side feels that this person is a very nice person but not the one for them. No hard feelings or depression is caused since each side knows that the purpose of the meetings were to assess the possibility of a marriage. With dating, hard feelings can be generated if there has been some emotional involvement and then one side wants to terminate the relationship. This generally leaves the other side feeling rejected and depressed.

Perhaps one of the most important points which contribute to the success of the "brokered" marriage is the fact that the couple keeps their hands off the other. This is not always easy, but the dividends, are overwhelming. Sex before marriage, including hugging and kissing, can cause emotional attachments before the partner has been certified as worthy and appropriate by the mind.

Sex comes together with the marriage. In the confines of marriage it is a positive thing, but before marriage it can destroy a person. The freedom of the western society has brought much material wealth, but in terms of personal pleasure, has brought much sadness and loneliness.

When material goods make a person happy, then his happiness is dependent on his ability to generate more and more material goods. When his happiness is based on building a happy loving family, then the materialistic society becomes an obstacle and a hindrance.

In all, thinking youth are realizing that the road to a proper marriage and happy life is not like a commodity purchased in a store. Entanglements cause emotional scarring and unhappiness. A person that is happy with his/her mate, is a person that has much going for them. To make a wise choice, learn from the wise, not from the mistakes of others.

[CoinCube]

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

That essay of yours is quite good and I do recommend people read it regardless of our current differences.

However, I view your position on this particular issue as myopic. In the long run a magnificent world of abundant diversity involves liberating our women and allowing them to fully participate in that diversity with us.

It is your position that women should not be educated and especially Mr. Donaldson's argument that women be forced into subservience that is the real monolithic solution one that turns the role of all women in society into a xerox copy without freedom. True diversity results from emancipation.

[iamnotback]

Keeping with CoinCube's valid point of a continual march to higher entropy levels of social organization...

I attempted to correct CoinCube's table. I disagree with his what I believe to be myopic God religion combined with closet utopian socialist ideologue perspective, especially on the future.

Slavery isn't ever going away. It is a feature of nature.

Cycles of Contention

		Cycle #1	Cycle #2	Cycle #3	Cycle #4	Cycle #5	Cycle #6
	Mechanism of Control	Knowledge of Evil Survivalism	Warlordism/Feudalism	Holy War	Usury	Universal Surveillance	Hedonism
	Rulers	The Strong	Despots	God Kings/Monarchs	Capitalists	Oligarchs (NWO)	Decentralized Government
	Life of the Ruled	"Nasty, Brutish, Short" Slaves to Raw Nature	Slaves Serfs or Indentured Laborers	SurfsSlaves and Subjects Enslaved to Deity	Debtors + Marxist Indoctrination Ideologue Slaves	Basic Income Recipients Rationing + Eugenics Slaves	Knowledge Workers Cult enslavement
	Facilitated Advance	Knowledge of Good Reproduction	Commerce	Rule of Law	Growth	Transparency Culling of low entropy dead-weight leftover from excess growth	Ascesis Decentralized culture in the knowledge age context

[iamnotback]

The wonderful education system in Singapore will not allow a high IQ father remove his child prodigy genius from useless primary school and move him to the university where he won't be bored to tears:

https://youtu.be/Z32NnlIpsz8?t=1853

Btw, interesting what has transpired since:

The family live in an apartment in Kuala Lumpur, where Ainan is in Taylor University’s American Degree Transfer Programme, which allows for flexible, broad-based learning. He is majoring in the sciences but doing everything from computer programming to theatre. Last year, he composed the score for a 15-minute short film for a film festival.

Mr Cawley has learnt a lesson from his son not to “regiment” him. The boy began composing at six but when his parents arranged music lessons for him, he “wouldn’t touch the piano for the next six years”, says dad.

Ainan says: “I do not enjoy rigorous and repetitive training, which was the way I was being taught then.”

Here’s a video of him as a teenager being bored to tears (until he starts goofing off with his brothers):

Watch the video in the quoted blog above, they had to leave Singapore to find him a proper educational environment.

He is asking for an American university to extend him an offer. If anyone can help, sounds like a waste that he isn't being challenged enough on the thinking aspect.

[vokain]

The wonderful education system in Singapore will not allow a high IQ father remove his child prodigy genius from useless primary school and move him to the university where he won't be bored to tears:

https://youtu.be/Z32NnlIpsz8?t=1853

Btw, interesting what has transpired since:

The family live in an apartment in Kuala Lumpur, where Ainan is in Taylor University’s American Degree Transfer Programme, which allows for flexible, broad-based learning. He is majoring in the sciences but doing everything from computer programming to theatre. Last year, he composed the score for a 15-minute short film for a film festival.

Mr Cawley has learnt a lesson from his son not to “regiment” him. The boy began composing at six but when his parents arranged music lessons for him, he “wouldn’t touch the piano for the next six years”, says dad.

Ainan says: “I do not enjoy rigorous and repetitive training, which was the way I was being taught then.”

Here’s a video of him as a teenager being bored to tears (until he starts goofing off with his brothers):

Watch the video in the quoted blog above, they had to leave Singapore to find him a proper education environment.

He is asking for an American university to extend him an offer. If anyone can help, sounds like a waste that he isn't being challenged enough on the thinking aspect.

Met Paul Cheng, this Singaporean American on a flight. All he does now is help young foreign  kids find higher education opportunities in the States. Let me find his card...

[iamnotback]

However, I view your position on this particular issue as myopic. In the long run a magnificent world of abundant diversity involves liberating our women and allowing them to fully participate in that diversity with us.

It is your position that women should not be educated and especially Mr. Donaldson's argument that women be forced into subservience that is the real monolithic solution one that turns the role of all women in society into a xerox copy without freedom. True diversity results from emancipation.

My first and foremost point, is that what I and any other parent does for their kids is none of your business. By sticking your (or by proxy the State's) nose in other people's business, you SJWs violate the diversity of investment of parenting. The parents are the one's who are investing 18+ years of their life, not you. By dictating to them what they can and can not do, you are spreading a uniform mayonnaise and destroying diversity. Just contemplate the personal sacrifice to invest 18+ years of your life in offspring. If we take away the control, then the parent is incentivized to invest in himself instead, where he does have more control. You in essence want to make us unpaid servants and babysitters of the State, not parents.

Secondly, you can't state conclusively that not highly educating most of the females would result in an inferior level of diversity. This assumption potentially fails for numerous reasons and thus to mimic what Eric Raymond recently wrote, it is not even on the  “See Spot Run!” level of analysis.

Diversity does not originate from the volume of those educated or the volume of education, rather from the diversity of the experience of the child and cofactors. By not having mothers dull the minds of their sons with mayonnaise they were indoctrinated with in SJW education, we are likely to increase diversity. If we presume that the primary role of females is to maximize the production of offspring in their very limited fertility window, then wasting their time on education into her 20s is highly destructive. Since females are inherently prone to drama due to the drama of childbirth (and damn if you can find an exception to this, because the more I look, the more I see it every where I see a female involved but surely there are exceptions such as Barbara Liskov?), then they are much more likely to incorporate themes in education which are counter to intellectual production.

However, I arrived at a quite simple solution to this issue if ever I do have more children. I will simply provide the kids all the educational resources (including the arts such as music and painting) for home study and allow them to purse their autodidact education without any coercion. I pretty much taught myself everything I know (of course as written down by others). I have observed that Ainan was teaching himself college level chemistry at age 6 (btw, I ranked #3 out of 300 students in first year college Chemistry at LSU but as usual I hated boringly slow lectures and did all my learning by myself). Thus if there are any females who decide to not pursue their natural instincts of playing with baby dolls and other female type of activities, then if they themselves demonstrate exceptional ability that warrants subjugating the value of their ovaries to the value of their very valuable mind, then nature will have spoken. In short, disallow any infection of the brains of my offspring from mass media, TV, and so infected peers, and then let nature decide. I know that even without an education system, I was already hacking as an infant. There is a photo of me in diapers and I was already constructing things with a hammer. My mother said I was the only kid she knew who deconstructed all my toys to see how they worked, as a form of play (truth is I would play with them first until I got bored because I also enjoy dexterity, hand-eye coordination, and other physical challenges). The games I enjoyed the least were those which did not leverage creativity and instead just showed off the ability to memorize a pattern.

For females who do not demonstrate that their minds are more valuable than their ovaries (and/or who demonstrate their preference for unnecessary drama is too high), I would try to marry them at the earliest possible age after they reached adulthood. And I would encourage their female instincts and teach them how to be good wives and mothers. For boys who showed less enthusiast interest in intellectual pursuits, I would encourage them to work and marry at an earlier age. For sons that excelled in the intellectual and/or athletics, I would encourage them to pursue that first before marriage.

I expect if we stop socially pressuring women to not be women in their formative years, then women will en masse naturally revert to being females. And to have them not enter one huge defect/defect dysfunctional societal brothel, we also need to remove their access to for example Internet addictions such as social networking and mobile phones to prevent them from expending their entire day implicitly by proxy trying to figure out how to fuck Jeremy Meeks. Btw, this is why women typically need to be married at a young age, because that is what they really need and attempting to replace that need with SJW education and other drama, is destructive and dysfunctional. Additionally young men don't benefit from being exposed to porn (videos of real love making and fornication for producing offspring might be suitable though, as I would presume that kids were aware of this in our ancestral environment to which we are adapted). In my opinion, we expose our children to too wide a swath of social interaction at too early an age. This was not the case in our ancestral environment to which we are adapted.

Please contrast this with for example what may be the case in some Islamic parenting wherein ostensibly the females who are geniuses may be preordained to a life which doesn't fit their natural abilities.

True diversity results from emancipation.

“See Spot Run!”.

How is the politically correct social pressure (get a feminist SJW college education, etc) to prevent females from following their instincts in their formative years emancipation? Females are very easily destroyed by influences that activate their hindbrain and need for drama. I keep mentioning to you Eve and the forbidden fruit, but you can't seem to understand the point that women are not really capable of thinking for themselves. You can't emancipate females. All you can do is subject them to another set of perverse pressures. Socialists (and statists) always think that they can change nature with legislation. Brouhaha.  

In reality though, women are really ready for husband around age 15 - 18 in most cases. Any way, I would be interested to see what is actually the case naturally, if one sits back and observes the reality instead of trying to force nature to not exist (as SJW attempt to do and will fail miserable with self-culling as the result in Stage #5 of your chart). Up until fairly recently as feminists have taken over, it was legal ("Age of Consent") in many States of the USA to get married I think as early as age 14.

Btw, I agree with JAD that the vast majority of women would be most happy in their traditional roles and without all this societal pressure for them to abandon the lifestyle for which they were adapted.

On Friday, the Spanish government announced it was to raise the marriage age from 14 to 16 to bring it into line with the rest of Europe.

I think your incorrect assumption about my stance has been at least partially due to my inability to think out everything I would want to say about this issue, as well as you jumping the conclusion that I mimicked all of JAD's prescriptions even though I have stated several times that I don't. Coincidentally, this morning I was thinking about what my actual plans would be on this issue. And part of my research was spending an entire day watching videos on YouTube over the weekend, such as videos on gifted children of both genders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5FKjWfb-Y  (Btw, I can add numbers in my head MUCH faster than those two in the final although I've seen videos of geniuses who are faster than me, but I don't have Ainan's extreme memory.)

As well videos about how very wealthy parents spoil their children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHGv3dsSPM0

As you know, I've been quite limited since Jan. 21 when I started taking 4-drug antibiotics to attempt to cure what is likely disseminated Tuberculosis. The antibiotics are extremely liver toxic to the point that a significant percentage of patients have to stop taking, and most patients experience some persistent nausea especially in the first 2 weeks. Also I had liver disease before initiating treatment, ostensibly due to the long duration (6 years?) of carrying the disseminated TB disease. It turns out that the abdominal pain I've been having over the years is apparently liver pain. And this pain did at times get worse during the initial intensive phase of this treatment. Notably I have discovered that 20,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 and eating everything 4 hours or so, eliminates the liver pain. So this appears to be a new approach to managing and tolerating the toxic medicines, further supported by the recent liver SPGT liver enzymes test which came back in the normal range down from double the upper threshold. I also confirmed this by stopping the vitamin d3 and not eating from breakfast to dinner and significant liver pain and nausea returned. Then I ate beef soup and took the vitamin d3 and the pain abated and hasn't come back significantly while maintaining the combined regimen.

[iamnotback]

The difference is that I am suggesting voluntary methods of improving health and fitness. You in contrast continue to cite and promote a blogger who argues for coercively restricting the freedom of others.

I from the very beginning of this discussion reiterated more than once that free will was an essential component of my stance. I have repeatedly stated that I don't agree with all of JAD's prescriptions, but that I do respect his knowledge of damned facts and his articulation of the blunt reality. You don't wish to give him any recognition, because you don't like his prescriptions. But I am able to not conflate the two separate concerns.

God religion is not voluntary. It is a mind control and social coercion, so please stop lying to yourself and being a hypocrite. Women can't be emancipated (and thus you require the mind control and coercion of religion), and you want to lie to yourself about that so you can feel good about having some noble ideology. It is that holier than thou BS which is pisses me off about SJWs because then they try to have a power over me with it. That is (cultural, political, and eventually hot) war.

Btw, another reason I don't feel bad about citing JAD is because the prescriptions he advocates is what the SJWs get for erecting the power structures for dictatorship and creating a cultural and political war on white males from the top-down. I understand you don't like looking in the mirror. This is why the leftists are going bug-nuts now. I told you last year that the breakup of the USA is coming. Now the SJWs will reap what they sowed.

[iamnotback]

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).

Agreed.

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.

I refuted this line of argument. There is insufficient data presented thus far to state this conclusion. This is in an ongoing phenomenon and my (well founded hypothesis is my) X Gen has tried to stall the decline, but I documented that the Millennials are going to obliterate marriage, i.e. we are ostensibly headed towards a cliff as the second wave of feminism+SJW+Marxism hits.

It is tiring to have to repeat myself because you debate disingenuously and non-objectively sometimes.

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.

Religion is another way to control the defect/defect that JAD explained is the problem. Because if you otherwise attempt to emancipate women, you get other forces in control of the women, which is a dysfunctional infanticide societal brothel.

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

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.

Because our larger brains have to grow outside the womb (for one reason is that women would die if the head was any larger coming through the birth canal), and thus parents have to invest 18+ years in the development of the offspring. This is why the parents must own the children, otherwise the parents lose incentive to make offspring relative to their other opportunity costs.

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.

It is not just that they are more happy childless, but also that the State no longer permits them to own their children, so they have much higher opportunity costs than if the State would GTFO.

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.

Every time those glossy-eye dreamers say, "it is different this time", they always are incorrect.

Nature does not change that fast. Sorry. Cultural can adapt fast, but genetically driven instinct can't adapt that fast, because it is hormonally and brain structure driven.

Sorry but that Stage #4 maladapted SJW, feminist, corporate-fascist, industrial age, Marxist environment will fail and (Freeman Dyson's) cultural evolution will figure out how to keep humans aligned with our genetic evolution.

See Stage #5 of your chart as I have edited it, for what is coming to those who believe your ideological nonsense.

Knowledge progressing has nothing to do with it. If males and parents have greater knowledge, they also have the knowledge to protect their children from influences to which the children are maladapted.

You are going to be shocked by the Stage #5 and #6. It isn't going to look anything like the USA does now where everyone goes to same school and the same strip mall.

The cults and militias will proliferate. There will even be hedonistic cults such as virtual reality gamers, etc..

[iamnotback]

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.

Famous words spoken before the collapse of Western society. Let's revisit this in another decade or two when marriage has collapsed and subcultures are fighting against the State which is trying to eradicate them per a variation on the Fall of Western Roman Empire, Hitler or Yugoslavia model as everything disintegrates and collapses back to a higher degrees-of-freedom, i.e. Stage #5 in your model as I edited it.

The salient point is that he never wrote that no one was getting married. Heck his own two sons are married. He is writing about the devolution of the society and the end game. Your perspective is that of a quarterback who throws the football to where the wide receiver is now, not where he is going to be when the ball arrives at the destination.

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.

That his prescription is a natural result of the disease, is irrelevant to why you seem unable to separate concerns and acknowledge his truths.

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.

The current Marxism (Stage #4) environment is maladapted to the Knowledge Age and will be replaced also with Stage #6.

[miscreanity]

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

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion:
The moral argument for God
Why Does God Allow Evil?

[miscreanity]

God religion is not voluntary. It is a mind control and social coercion...

If it isn't voluntary, how is it that you can choose your own or even to dismiss it? State religion is not voluntary.

Around 10% of Amish leave their communities to explore the world at large, yet most return.

Meanwhile, sailing families leave behind state-dominated lives for a much more family/community-oriented existence. Their children are generally well adapted and knowledgeable.

In my view, agreeing with you, it is the state that destroys. So what is it about these faith-based communities that is different? What similarities do they have with nomadic sailing travelers? Most of all, how do they maintain structure without becoming a destructive state?

Women can't be emancipated (and thus you require the mind control and coercion of religion)...

Isn't God unnecessary? If human men can at some point in their lives learn how to handle themselves, is it not expected that human women can also learn to understand their behavior needs to be restrained, if not on their own then by a man? Then is it possible the suggested mind control and coercion are the cause of trouble instead of the tools that control? Hasn't eradication of religion been attempted?

One point to ponder: if a man cannot or has not submitted to an authority, how is he to understand his wife's situation and treat her properly?

[CoinCube]

miscreanity I took an airplane flight today. In the air I wrote a long and detailed post.

Yet here I am on the ground and I find not only is my planned post completely redundant but that every point I wished to convey and more was communicated in two posts that together are not only superior but half the length of what I had written.

So I just deleted the planned post I spent an hour and a half writing. I have never done that before. I would only delete a post of mine if it was utterly superseded. Kudos!

I agree with everything you just wrote. The only area where we might someday differ is that I have yet to take a position on the New Testament. In the long run I do not know if that potential difference matters.

[iamnotback]

I want to respond to the socialist theme as embodied by some of @Winter's recent comments:

I happily pay a lot of taxes so widows, orphans and all kind of poor people in my country can be supported.

The fact that charity can and will reduce the number of people starving, at least in the 1930s, is only a stop gap for this fundamental problem. You cannot negotiate a deal relying on charity to keep you and your family alive if you fail. And we do not know how often charity failed.

Socialism destroys opportunity. For example, the fact that there are poor ladies in the 3rd world, means some socially inept zitfaced computer programmer (like myself apparently) who can't get a wife in the West can use his high income to rescue a lady from poverty and begin a family. If we didn't have welfare in the West, then he wouldn't have to step so far out of his race and culture to find that opportunity, which would be better for our society and would also mean we are creating this massive debt bubble which helps to sustain globalization, macro economic misallocation (which in many cases is sustained on and complicit with global political economics which sustain the reasons the third world is kept locked in poverty).

I tie this into a comment I made to CoinCube, pointing out that we must accept some integrated failure as the cost of annealing fitness:

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.

Socialists hate nature. They don't want to admit that power and opportunities are diversified and not distributed equally. They are appalled for example that some female might have to accept a marriage out of economic considerations (as if any woman ever doesn't regardless of her financial standing!  ).

You assume a free labor market in equilibrium. That is when “I’d like to trade the value I will produce for the value you will produce. Deal?” would presumably hold.

When there is an excess of labor, as there has almost always been since the start of the industrial revolution, this means that wages can drop below subsistence level. That has actually happened during the 1840’s in Europe. If you want to know how that was, Charles Dickens wrote some nice fiction about that time. The result is that enough laborers starve to bring the market back into balance. Another result was a Europe wide revolution that lead to organized labor, communism, and a start of labor laws. Your vision of “fair negotiations” are simply another implementation of the “Freedom to Starve”.

But the labor market is not an efficient market at all. It is an oligopoly. The number of industrial employers available to a laborer are few, while the number of competing laborers are very many. The few employers always organize against the laborers (read Adam Smith about merchants and their view of free markets). Meanwhile, employers everywhere have used their considerable money and influence to prevent laborers to organize in likewise fashion (see my Union Busting link above for some of the efforts).

So, in your free labor market scenario, on the one side are a few well organized employers who negotiate a few percent of their surplus wealth, on the other side are many more, unorganized potential workers than there are jobs. These applicants are negotiating about the life or death of themselves and their families. They were truly “Free to Starve”.

If you do not want to call this difference a power imbalance, it still remains the same huge imbalance that determines the outcome of any negotiations. And that outcome was evident.

By 1910, around 10% of the population of the UK lived at below subsistence level (extreme poverty), while the top 10% owned 90% of the wealth and got 45% of the income. European countries installed laws against child labor because the overworking of children left too few able young men to populate the army.

A little reading in industrial history of the 19th century would show you that the “guns of the state” were generally trained at the workers to keep them from changing the rules of the game more to their advantage. So, if you insist on defining power exclusively as that what flows out of the barrel of a gun, then the power still sided with the owners, and not the workers.

Winter is still living in (the past of the) Stage #4 and the world is moving out of the Industrial Age which required high fixed capital concentration as I written about in 2012 and CoinCube since had expounded upon such as his table of Stages:

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

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

The Rise of Knowledge

[iamnotback]

I kept intending to mention, but keep forgetting to inject it into one of my replies to CoinCube, that I so many times throughout my life dreamt of finding a female hacker or mathematician so we could collaborate together while also having a relationship bearing a family. I thought that would be so neat and like-minded. But you know every time I did find a lady who claimed to be interested in math or computer science, it turned out that they secretly didn't really find it to be their #1 priority in life and they really didn't want to just spend all their time talking tech shop with me.

I even went so far as to find very beautiful ladies from yearbooks who had graduated in mathematics and attempt to find them, but that did not prosper.

When I started to learn these damned facts, then it became clear to me that my geek fantasies were all entirely misaligned with reality. It was sobering, but necessary for my maturity and correct adjustment socially. I have since emphasized even more the development of my masculinity.

My sister had (she's dead) a similar IQ to myself, but she and I used to fight over whether we would watch Star Trek or soap operas. I was elder, bigger, and a male, so I always won. By at age ~13, I suddenly on my own realized I was wrong for bullying my way with my sister and suddenly extended her more fairness. That was also the age which I discovered programming. I remember when I taught my sister the essence of high school geometry in about an hour. She got it. She said I had a genius way of teaching it. I think I was smarter then. Maybe it is the several years of TB (dengue, HPV, blinded eye, broken hand, broken nose, broken foot, torn rotator suff, dysentry every week for years, years of malnutrition, jaundice liver at birth, head bashed in with a hammer, numerous head concussions, etc) has worn me down (perhaps I will get it back soon).


Also hot smart chicks (I remember at least one southern belle at LSU and another Russian one) liked to study with me (and I mean even studying while sitting on my bed), but then they'd friend zone me. Fuck that! I was naive (and socially inept) enough to be used that way at that age, but no more.

Then when I'd put on my jock and badboy (asshole) party animal "hat", I would get hot chicks begging me to fuck them. I literally had this girl on my bed in college who was on top of me, hugging me, and sticking her D tits in my face and I declined the sex because I didn't want her showing up at my place all the damn time demanding I spend time with her[1]. I still remember when my super jock (Carter Austin was a starting quarterback at his high school) roommate was shocked that I told her on the phone to stop stalking me and he said, "you are the man, you just told the hottest chick that has ever come into our place to stop nagging you". Btw, that was a really sweet and hot lady, and later in life I kicked myself for all the quality ladies I let slip through my fingers over the years and then I ended up with what I did, OMG!    

So yeah the damned facts are really true.


[1] because at the time my priorities were partying like a madman, athletics, and my hacking time in my garage— studying relegated to the night before exams. When I say hacking, basically I was hacking spontaneously at any time and place. For example, I remember Carter had just joined our house as a roommate and so we needed a bunk bed. A rain storm washed some 2x4 lumber floating in the road, so I grabbed and without any drawings or planning, constructed a massive, very well designed queen size bunk bed in a matter of hours (without power tools). It was so solid that he could be having gentle sex on the top bunk and I wouldn't sense any movement. Those past roommates still note my hacking escapades. Mario Spina (now Maria Spina, with a gender change) told me recently on LinkedIn that he still credits my ad lib spur of the moment tutoring sessions with his becoming an adjunct professor at George Washington University and a head at SAIC. He said he thought I'd end up curing cancer. Sometimes I look back on my life and I don't know how I could have fucked it up any worse than I did.

I can still remember when I couldn't even find my Differential Equations textbook because it was buried under strewn chaos on my floor and I had to learn 4 chapters before the exam in a few hours and I was drunk (no sleep that night). I had too many competing opportunities. Couldn't pigeonhole myself only on being a nerd. I wasn't genius or polymath enough to do all of the opportunities at the highest level though. That is very rare talent who can across the spectrum from jock to social to engineering and theoretical disciplines and even art. I dabbled in all, e.g. played the violin at a rudimentary level but starting skipping summer class sessions to go roam around because seemed there were much more interesting trouble to get into than learning to jam in the symphony. Maybe if it had been impromptu jazz training sessions on Bourbon street I would have been more captivated by it. I think for me there needed to always be some risk and creativity involved or I would lose interest.

Hey I am not complaining.  

[iamnotback]

God religion is not voluntary. It is a mind control and social coercion...

If it isn't voluntary, how is it that you can choose your own or even to dismiss it? State religion is not voluntary.

Around 10% of Amish leave their communities to explore the world at large, yet most return.

Afaics, we don't choose. I observe we are indoctrinated into it as a child and afaics the reason it works for repressing women and keeping their fertility high is because of the groupwise social coercion inertia aspect of it.

I'm sure you know how difficult it is to go entirely against ALL of your own relatives (and nearly impossible for a woman solo!). We do that now to some extent because the State has become our guardian, but to go complete off on your own PERMANENTLY abandoning all of your relatives and having nothing else is only something a very few people (such as perhaps Jesus and myself) have done.

We seem to want to convince ourselves that we don't do slavery and mind control, because we want to think ourselves as not bound to certain damned facts. It as if we humans can't accept our human nature. I think we are embarrassed by what we are. We want to be something we are not, some march to noble virtues. I guess we don't want to think of ourselves as animals with primitive instincts.

Meanwhile, sailing families leave behind state-dominated lives for a much more family/community-oriented existence. Their children are generally well adapted and knowledturf battles crapgeable.

Well adapted to what? What metrics are you measuring adaption to? The unknown future?

Maybe you mean they aren't infected with a monolithic mayonnaise of being subjected to the cultural torture of SJW-infested State schools.

In my view, agreeing with you, it is the state that destroys. So what is it about these faith-based communities that is different? What similarities do they have with nomadic sailing travelers? Most of all, how do they maintain structure without becoming a destructive state?

My idea is the State exists to manage power structure between those who are not relatives and exceed our Dunbar limit. The State was necessary to optimize Stage #3 and #4, but now heading for Stage #6 it appears to be losing its raison d'être. Religion and local culture exist to organize the relatives and tribe that fit within the Dunbar limit. In short, top-down versus bottom-up organization.

Religion can thus spread like a virus P2P; whereas, a State spreads only by top-down conquest. However, religion and culture boundaries can provide natural boundaries for States, because States function as cohesive entities (and attempts to organize States which straddle these natural bottom-up boundaries are not stable and require much force to sustain, e.g. Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Middle East).

Our discussion is now starting to dovetail with the discussions in the Economics Devastation thread and other threads CoinCube has started.

Women can't be emancipated (and thus you require the mind control and coercion of religion)...

Isn't God unnecessary? If human men can at some point in their lives learn how to handle themselves, is it not expected that human women can also learn to understand their behavior needs to be restrained, if not on their own then by a man? Then is it possible the suggested mind control and coercion are the cause of trouble instead of the tools that control? Hasn't eradication of religion been attempted?

Note how all the Stages on CoinCube's table (as edited as I proposed) all have a form of slavery.

My thought is that women can't change their hormones and thus can't change their nature. Many women may already understand these damned facts. It doesn't mean they can change their nature, just because they understand it. Remember women are found of saying "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". We men may understand our own nature, but it doesn't mean we want to or even could or should change our nature. I am not trying to change my nature, but rather understand how to harmonize my nature with maximum adaption.

Men only seem to learn how to handle themselves with age and experience (certainly in my case!), which is apparently well matched to the fact that older men are a better procreation and stability marriage match for younger women (I didn't write romantic match since that Hollywood nonsense is apparently a source of maladaption in our society now). Also violence/risk taking in youth probably (statistically) filters out the strongest/best adapted men.

Note my observation is women don't learn to handle themselves as they age. They lose the reproduction drivers, but in my observations (which may not be a representative sample) they retain the need for drama all the way through their lives. Men don't lose their underlying nature, but their experience and thoughts overpower their declining testosterone.

These damned facts we are discussing here, have apparently been known for 1000s of years. I strongly doubt young men are going to become wiser than they were in the past. Some cultures may become better adapted to the teaching and maximizing the rate of acquisition of wisdom and/or minimizing the defection/failure rate.

One point to ponder: if a man cannot or has not submitted to an authority, how is he to understand his wife's situation and treat her properly?

Why does a man need to submit to an authority to have both empathy and the experience of what is necessary for cultural evolutionary success?

I submit that I have never submitted to an authority (I might have faked it or temporarily acceded but that isn't submission). And I hope by now, I am learning to understand very well women and their situation and what I need to do to maximize their success (as I perceive it per my writings herein).

I wonder if a man who thinks he needs an authority to control him, hasn't really admitted the evil he has done? When I got in touch with my own evil, it horrifies me. For example, I have been harsh on CoinCube, and I think part of the reason is I want him to get in touch with his own evil instead of thinking that he has avoided it because he submitted to an authority. Submitting to an authority can be horrifically evil. I think if we aren't horrified with our own evil, then we are probably not close to seeking wisdom.

The Stepford Wives thought everything was hunky dory.

Hey but I would caution readers to remember I might be insane and my kalfkaesque life and mental state might resemble a Franz Kafka hallucination. Seems he and I shared an ailment:

He died in 1924 at the age of 40 from tuberculosis.

Edit: I don't think I agree with this concept that we need to rescue or protect the women and children which are not our own wives or own offspring. It is none of my business what other people are doing. If I for example want to take over, I can go conquer and take those women and children as my own and then take responsibility. But I don't agree with using the State as my proxy to do a personal responsibility that I am unable and/or unwilling to do. That is Frankenstein outcomes chickenshit cucking. Family and gender relations are a personal or tribal matter. I say to Eric Raymond, that if you don't like Islam, then you go over there with your gun and do something, but don't advocate using my tax dollars (i.e. USA military) to fight for your bleeding heart. I have no business fucking with those other people and their system. They have their culture of slavery and we have ours. Eric appears to want the defection, infanticide society-wide brothel form of slavery to be enforced everywhere. Hypocrite.

[iamnotback]

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes.

I don't understand this at all. In addition to artificial procreation, someone still has to invest 18+ years to nurture and develop the infant to adulthood.

To clarify one of the points of my prior comment, we Westerners somehow think we can usurp the existing parents or system (e.g. Islam) ignoring the fact that we are usurping individuals who were invested in the action, and we replace it with nothing but a power vacuum. This is the case both in individual examples of the State and social workers messing with families, and in the Middle East where afaik we carved up a region and assigned country boundaries which made no sense in terms of tribal and religious boundaries. We have left so much destruction in our wake in the Middle East, creating ISIS, so much collateral damage to 1000s if not millions of women and children. Worse yet, is the power vacuum we've left in our wake which will lead to millions of abused/trafficked women and children.

Even the State usurping the parents via the mandatory State schools and leave in the wake of the SJW indoctrination a power vacuum wherein the parents have absolutely no control over their kids and they run amok and the family concept is obliterated. Fathers can't even beat their kids any more, when it is really necessary. I remember my ex got so pissed off at me some 6 or more years ago bcz she said my kids feared my discipline (which was a good thing and actually the kids were just trying to find a way weasel out of being self-disciplined and were playing their mother like a fiddle), so I stopped being a disciplinarian. And now look what happens. My son comes here and I try my best to be close and encourage him to do good, and [redacted because I can't write personal stuff about others in public]. I should beat the shit out of him, for being such an undisciplined dumb ass, but nooooo I dare not do anything. Shut my mouth and watch him self-destruct. Yeah good job Westerners! Just keep going the direction you are...yeah you don't do evil. Your God authority makes you so good. Spreading the democracy power vacuum all over the world for the sake of women and children and God  

We Westerners are notorious for running around the world and telling everyone else how to run their own lives. But then all we do is talk and destroy stuff and we don't actually build anything and get involved on a personal level any more.

If you really are serious about usurping other parents and cultures/religions, then go all in and adopt ever single one of the kids and spend the rest of your life married to all of the women as a polygamist.

It is that sort of hypocrite crap that makes me hate Westerners.

They've always got to stick their nose in everybody else's business, even when they claim to be anarchists and they still can't stop themselves from being responsible for the morals and choices of others, yet it is so convenient to do it from their armchairs when they don't really have to actually follow through and not leave a power vacuum in the wake of their stinking brown noses.

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.

The America I admired was the isolationist John Wayne, Wild West independent man and family stereotype. I don't know to what extent that ever really existed, but that is my personal archetype.

[CoinCube]

Note how all the Stages on CoinCube's table (as edited as I proposed) all have a form of slavery.
...
Submitting to an authority can be horrifically evil. I think if we aren't horrified with our own evil, then we are probably not close to seeking wisdom.
...
It as if we humans can't accept our human nature. I think we are embarrassed by what we are. We want to be something we are not, some march to noble virtues. I guess we don't want to think of ourselves as animals with primitive instincts.
...
Religion and local culture exist to organize the relatives and tribe that fit within the Dunbar limit. In short, top-down versus bottom-up organization.

Are we defining slavery here as top-down control? If that is the case each column of the the original table had a form of slavery too. What exactly do you feel is inaccurate in the original table and why? Also it would help if you would provide your definition of slavery.  

As we discussed in The Math of Optimal Fitness top-down control can never be entirely avoided. Thus the only choice we have is the type and nature of of top-down control we function under. Here we again see the the importance of a universal superstructure or framework as the essential foundation that maximizes freedom. Rejecting all top-down authority does not gain you freedom it simply dooms you to more top-down control and ultimately less freedom.

Cycles of Contention

		Cycle #1	Cycle #2	Cycle #3	Cycle #4	Cycle #5	Cycle #6
	Mechanism of Control	Knowledge of Evil	Warlordism	Holy War	Usury	Universal Surveillance	Hedonism
	Rulers	The Strong	Despots	God Kings/Monarchs	Capitalists	Oligarchs (NWO)	Decentralized Government
	Life of the Ruled	"Nasty, Brutish, Short"	Slaves	Surfs	Debtors	Basic Income Recipients	Knowledge Workers
	Facilitated Advance	Knowledge of Good	Commerce	Rule of Law	Growth	Transparency	Ascesis

I agree we want to be something we have yet to become. We seek a march to noble virtues. At some basic level we recognize that we are flawed and seek spiritual growth and ultimately spiritual purity.  

Religion goes far beyond relatives and Dunbar limits. It is the primary mechanism of bottom-up spontaneous accretive cooperation. As I covered previously Religion is the proximate method of Group Selection in humans.

[CoinCube]

Of course not all religions are the same

A Tale Of Two Talks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/tale-two-talks-reality-free-speech-america

On February 7, at the University of Georgetown, Jonathan A.C. Brown, the director of the entirely impartial Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, gave a 90-minute talk entitled "Islam and the Problem of Slavery". Except that the white convert to Islam, Jonathan Brown, apparently did not think that there is a particular problem with slavery -- at least not when it comes wrapped in Islam. During the talk (which Brown himself subsequently uploaded onto YouTube) the lecturer condemned slavery when it took place historically in America, Britain and other Western countries, but praised the practice of slavery in Muslim societies. Brown explained how Muslim slaves lived "a pretty good life", claimed that they were protected by "sharia" and claimed that it is "not immoral for one human to own another human." Regarding the vexed matter of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with one of your slaves, Brown said that "consent isn't necessary for lawful sex" and that marital rape is not a legitimate concept within Islam. Concepts such as "autonomy" and "consent", in the view of the Director of the Alwaleed Center at Georgetown, turned out to be Western "obsessions".

Of course, Jonathan Brown's views on Islam are by no means uncommon. One could easily demonstrate that they are all too common among experts in Islamic jurisprudence. Among such people, debates over where and when you can own a slave and what you can or cannot do with them are quite up to the minute, rather than Middle Ages, discussions to have. But until this moment, there have been no protests at Georgetown University. Under a certain amount of online pressure, from the few websites to have reported Brown's talk, Brown has attempted to clarify or even reverse some of his views. But no mob of anti-sharia people has gone to Georgetown, torn up telephone poles, set fire to things or smashed up the campus, as mobs did at Berkeley.

[iamnotback]

In one of my prior posts, the implication is that our children don't have freewill now. They are not in control of themselves. They are under mind and social coercion control of the mass media, SJWs-education, political correctness groupthink, and the natural devolution into a society-wide infanticide brothel.

Always the vast majority of the people are enslaved. That is why they are sheepeople.



A diversification of cults in Stage #6 will be the natural progression of increasing entropy of societal organization, while maintaining the need sheepeople have to be mind controlled.

Since @CoinCube continues to repost his incorrect table, I will continue to repost my proposed corrections:

Keeping with CoinCube's valid point of a continual march to higher entropy levels of social organization...

I attempted to correct CoinCube's table. I disagree with his what I believe to be myopic God religion combined with closet utopian socialist ideologue perspective, especially on the future.

Slavery isn't ever going away. It is a feature of nature.

Cycles of Contention

		Cycle #1	Cycle #2	Cycle #3	Cycle #4	Cycle #5	Cycle #6
	Mechanism of Control	Knowledge of Evil Survivalism	Warlordism/Feudalism	Holy War	Usury	Universal Surveillance	Hedonism
	Rulers	The Strong	Despots	God Kings/Monarchs	Capitalists	Oligarchs (NWO)	Decentralized Government
	Life of the Ruled	"Nasty, Brutish, Short" Slaves to Raw Nature	Slaves Serfs or Indentured Laborers	SurfsSlaves and Subjects Enslaved to Deity	Debtors + Marxist Indoctrination Ideologue Slaves	Basic Income Recipients Rationing + Eugenics Slaves	Knowledge Workers Cult enslavement
	Facilitated Advance	Knowledge of Good Reproduction	Commerce	Rule of Law	Growth	Transparency Culling of low entropy dead-weight leftover from excess growth	Ascesis Decentralized culture in the knowledge age context

[iamnotback]

Are we defining slavery here as top-down control?

I've been defining it more broadly (<--- click this link!) as an inability to effectively have freewill due to a loss of independent control over one's choices.

Making choices which do not achieve premeditated goals is not a causal (and thus not an independent) relationship and the person is not in control. Making choices which achieve goals, but those goals were coerced or driven by mind control is not being in control. By control, I mean in an entropy equation, where the potential outcomes are independent.

I am choosing to use the term slavery, because SJWs abuse the term to incorrectly claim that they have achieved the elimination of slavery.

If that is the case each column of the the original table had a form of slavery too.

For example, the subsidization of Basic Income is not taking away control from a person any more than myself breathing air does (they are both resources). The existence of Basic Income may have ramifications that reduce freewill, but it is not a direct form of slavery.

What exactly do you feel is inaccurate in the original table and why? Also it would help if you would provide your definition of slavery.  

As I already stated, your apparent bias to want to frame everything in terms of the importance of non-existent absolutely true morals (from my perspective my opinion that is a manifestation of your lack of freewill because you are enslaved in God religion delusion), leads you to put entries on the table which I assert are irrational, incorrect, and myopic.

I have tried to explain on this page why the noble morals that people claim are really Stepford Wives delusions, e.g. the power vacuums that do-gooder Westerners leave in their wake.

As we discussed in The Math of Optimal Fitness top-down control can never be entirely avoided. Thus the only choice we have is the type and nature of of top-down control we function under. Here we again see the the importance of a universal superstructure or framework as the essential foundation that maximizes freedom. Rejecting all top-down authority does not gain you freedom it simply dooms you to more top-down control and ultimately less freedom.

How many times have I told you both publicly and in private messages that top-down control doesn't mean there is only one top authority. A diversification of cults each with their own top-down control, is consistent. Never do we have in the universe a falsifiable example of a single top-down authority for any phenomenon. Even you noted that religions are not all the same.

Btw, I applauded your introduction of contentionism. You really show the mathematical principle (supported by examples from evolutionary biology) of why we must have some slavery. We can't go directly to infinite entropy although entropy remains unbounded in unbounded spacetime, as we'd lose all information and life and cease to exist (and I have even expounded to explain why future and past would become undifferentiated without any such friction). So it isn't a mystery why slavery must always exist. It is a feature of the ability to exist. Just as we must have some friction in order to have a quantifiable speed-of-light.

I agree we want to be something we have yet to become. We seek a march to noble virtues. At some basic level we recognize that we are flawed and seek spiritual growth and ultimately spiritual purity.  

Afaics, the only absolute and thus noble goal is to adapt to maximize the increase in entropy in the universe.

Within that we may be able to find harmony with human relations and the physiological phenomenon of love.

I think we humans instinctively know that we require slavery and top-down control, and thus we prefer to choose what we think are loving and empathetic forms of control, e.g. religion and the "caring" socialist State. But I was never able to rationally convince myself of a fatherly idol called God or of the caring nature of the entity that has a monopoly on violence (Weber's definition of the State). Here is an example of @CoinCube irrationally lying to his own SJW-enslaved emotions:

Differences Between The Women's March And The March For Life

It is none of your business that other parents choose to do with their bodies and their children. If you choose to make it your business, then you enslave yourselves in SJW slavery. If you want to conquer their culture, then go kill them all and/or take their women and children as your own. Otherwise you are just using the State and SJW-activism as a proxy for creating a power vacuum.

Religion goes far beyond relatives and Dunbar limits. It is the primary mechanism of bottom-up spontaneous accretive cooperation. As I covered previously ReligionParental/Tribal control is the proximate method of Group Selection in humans.

FTFY. I had already replied to that Bruce Charlton thesis.

And I explained my stance to @micreanity that religion is just another form of parental/tribe coercion and control over the freewill of sheepeople.

Religion derives its P2P spread and power of coercion due to the importance of our adaption to the Dunbar limit and the priorities we place on those relationships. That the religion virus spreads throughout the population is orthogonal to the mechanism by which religion is empowered.

If we want to destroy the importance of those relationships within our Dunbar limit, then we need to replace that structure of control with another power structure, else we will have a power vacuum as we do which is an infanticide, society-wide brothel that I assert will completely collapse in Stage #5 with the Millennials generation. The Millennials are entirely enslaved in the following linked effects of the ideology the boomers embraced:

...because the State has become our guardian...

...I didn't write romantic match since that Hollywood nonsense is apparently a source of maladaption in our society now...

My Gen X tried to hold on to the culture of our grandparents, but the Millennials (who didn't know our Gen X grandparents) will take us over the cliff into Stage #5.



Edit: I archived this entire thread and I noticed someone else has also been archiving it (last was Feb 2):

https://web.archive.org/web/20170215012700/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.0;all