Dark Enlightenment

[iamnotback]

My understanding of Nash's mathematical theory of ideal money is that if we have unit-of-account and store-of-value for reserves (but not necessarily a medium-of-exchange!) which has a non-manipulable and predictable rate of change of its supply, then that money can form the basis of sound financial systems which correctly value the activities in the economy and thus don't create distortions which lead to for example the failure of private fractional reserve banking, depressions, and misallocation of economic resources and capital.

So this is why the primary value of Bitcoin is the inability to change its protocol. If Bitcoin's protocol can be changed by anyone, then it is no longer a reliable metric in Nash's mathematical scheme.

So Satoshi tried to design a monetary system which would meet the requirements of Nash's ideal money scheme. Because in theory this can bring great benefits to society, such as destroying all the fiat systems, corrupt governments and destroying the inherently correct concept of socialism and democracy. These justifications have been explained in more detail upthread (and in extensive detail in my archives on BCT), so I won't repeat that information.

But as I already explained upthread, the immutability of PoW only exists for the token (blockchain) which has the greatest value, because the finance tail doesn't wag the dog. I explained upthread that whales on a higher valued blockchain can potentially manipulate a lowered valued altcoin as is the case ongoing now with Litecoin wherein they are able to change the protocol.

I also explained upthread how (using MPEx as an example) finance always accumulates to the one with the most reserves, i.e. finance is inherently a winner-take-all construct. It is a gravitational system that sucks everything into itself until it is the entire economy and then it self-destructs. Thus Nash's ideal money can't exist in reality with finance.

Nash wanted an asymptotic solution wherein the number of stable currencies could be unbounded and thus no one could ever gain sufficient omniscient information in order to winner-take-all the financial system. Unfortunately Bitcoin as the center of the financial universe as the only stable currency is of course an abomination and not at all what Nash would have wanted. (Note altcoins are not stable currencies because they are not immutable.) Because of course I explained already upthread how over time there will end up with one whale who has monopolized the Bitcoin economy and thus can change the protocol at-will. This is why I say Bitcoin is the NWO system and was probably created by a think tank funded by an elite globalist such as Rothschild.

Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe.

I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

So I believe what Nash worked out in his mind mathematically was that in some hypothetical asymptotic case wherein there are an unbounded number of stable, non-manipulable currencies, then it would not be possible for any player in the system to always win just because he/she held the most reserves, because that player would lack information about whether he/she held the most powerful basket of reserves, so it would thus not be a power vacuum winner-take-all outcome in the theoretical asymptotic case. So Nash was correct that in the asymptotic case, his ideal money is stable, but the problem is that such an asymptotic case isn't known to exist nor does anyone know how to make it come into existence. Even Satoshi's design requires Bitcoin to be the stable currency with the highest value otherwise as I had explained, its immutability is not assured by the game theory.

Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen! Four years ago, I set out to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I've been working incessantly ever since on this in spite of my disseminated Tuberculosis illness (which I am now undergoing treatment to cure hopefully).

But along my journey of thinking about money every since I got interested in gold in 2006 because by late 2005 I could already see in my mind that a global crisis of debt and socialism was ahead in the real world, I ended up making a discovery and writing it down some time in the period between 2011 and 2013. That essay was Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance.

The generative essence of that discovery was that knowledge can't be financed, because unlike manual labor, knowledge production is not fungible. Read the essay I wrote for more explanation.

Also Eric S. Raymond had discovered Linus' Law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" when he wrote the seminal The Cathedral and the Bazaar which launched the open source revolution and Eric had invented the term "open source" preferring it over Richard Stallman's "free software". Eric followed that up with the explanation of open source economics models in the Magic Cauldron wherein he explained the opposite of a Tragedy-of-the-Commons is an Inverse Commons which is what open source is.

So what I had figured out that finance would die because the entire point of money is an information system which routes perception of value to those who help the society produce the most. Fungible money worked during the tangible ages (agriculture and industrial) because society needed to aggregate large amounts of capital (because economies-of-scale were paramount in agriculture and industry) and labor was fungible (i.e. replaceable) and thus finance was useful for maximizing production. Companies aggregate fungible resources and economies-of-scale to gain a transactional cost advantage to solve the coordination problem of the Tragedy-of-the-Commons of uncoordinated resources per the Theory of the Firm (and such transactional cost advantages decline in the knowledge age due to technological changes which enable more diverse production with lower economies-of-scale and Inverse Commons coordination). Although this system carried with it huge social problems because laborers had no pricing power unless they could restrict membership (e.g. unions) or otherwise use the government to try to redistribute wealth (or do birth control eugenics to lower their competition with each other). In other words, the broken concepts such as democracy and socialism were ramifications of the fact that labor was too fungible (replaceable) and finance was cardinal. That is why so many hate capitalism, but they don't understand that the fledgling knowledge age (which is already underway!) will change everything to a meritocracy and destroy finance and money.

So we tie all this together and note that we increasingly are exchanging our knowledge and doing knowledge creation in open source Inverse Commons, especially those who produce the most in the new economy of the knowledge age. Eric Raymond had eloquently pointed out that the Inverse Commons of open source is the only known positive scaling law of engineering. And it applies to almost any field of knowledge creation that applies the open source principle (such as what we doing right now here by discussing a new concept and peer reviewing it here).

So I figured out that if I could tie the knowledge production within Inverse Commons to exchange of a fungible monetary unit, I could bridge the gap between where we are now and where we are headed. And that each time some fungible money would be exchanged in this system I designed, then the value of the fungible money would not be in exchange for the knowledge but rather in exchange for the service provided to host the knowledge. Then the fungible portion of exchange would only be a small fraction of the non-fungible value created by the activity. This was a very clever and insightful and essential discovery that I made!

So I had figured out a way to make new blockchain currency which would scale out larger than Bitcoin and thus defeat it while also itself not being vulnerable to manipulation because the fungible finance portion of the economy would orders-of-magnitude inferior in relative value to the knowledge portion. In other words, no one could ever monopolize it.

Then I combined that with a clever consensus algorithm which doesn't require PoW. And voila I named the unpublished design the Bitcoin Killer.

In other words, it achieves Nash's asymptotic ideal money by turning a person's brain into their non-fungible money (the unbounded number of brains is the asymptotic domain) and leverages that huge value creation in order to make the associated fungible token more demanded than Bitcoin. The economy shifts from a predominately monetary one into a predominately reputation and gift culture, wherein we recognize value by accomplishments and not by monetary digits.

Those parasite high finance and Wallstreet thugs have to find a new vocation and actually work together in society or become irrelevant.

I rather like my discovery. I think you will too if I am correct.

[1715112255]

1715112255

[1715112255]

1715112255

[1715112255]

1715112255

[iamnotback]

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.

We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.

Once again you ruin your analysis by conflating morality and opportunity cost. Morality is your hammer and everything is a nail. Humans aren't doing everything they do because they are weak. They are acting rational from an opportunity cost analysis. Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of rational localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational. Morality is not a solution, because it is never absolute truth and is always manipulable as well. Gold is an inferior measure of value because for example regional distribution/control of mines is not equitable or non-manipulable (well everything fungible is manipulable as I explained in my recent mini-essay). I explained in that essay that I am working on a solution that will supercede morals and absolute values.

You are correct that voting would make Bitcoin another fiat system. But it isn't because humans are weak. It is because of the economics of voting. See my prior post.

...

Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational carried out by individuals acting in error because their frame of reference or time horizon is excessively limited.

And the only solution is to remove the constant marginal utility (i.e. non-diminishing utility of economies-of-scale) of the power of aggregate action. Morality is yet another economies-of-scale aggregate action, which is thus just as flawed as any other. Here is a real world example of winner-take-all economies-of-scale.

I am not arguing against the importance of top-down organization, and I've pointed out this distinction to you numerous times that if top-down organization doesn't have a constant marginal utility of economies-of-scale, then it is self-limiting and multiple top-down structures are in fact a decentralized structure.


I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

The solution is the Inverse Commons.

I am designing a blockchain to enable the Inverse Commons on a much greater scale. Because Bitcoin's long-term failure mode is aggregation into one whale who controls everything (precisely as predicted in the Bible), because of the constant marginal utility of a stable reserve in finance.

[iamnotback]

Satoshi our great NWO master:

What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?

What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.

@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet.

Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away.

That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).

There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

End of story.

I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos.

P.S. thanks to all for the discussion.

No one believes you.

Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny.

Love of money, is the root of all evil.

Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful.

I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites.

[iamnotback]

And YES!, I can do many things! One of them pretty things, is:

Putting a list together of one's activities and the (hypothetical) comment on it provided, ain't research. That's an analysis.

Lol, you missed the research. And you are too dumb to assimilate the significance.

Bitch go back to inserting your tampon. It is was you were made to do.

Only a dumb bitch would insert an off-topic tirade that you did in a thread which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You were incorrect then and making trouble without understanding the research that had been done.

And you are still continuing to do what dumb bitches do.

(I am making a copy of this in the Dark Enlightenment thread as poignant example of how dumb bitches only know how to disrupt the workplace and can't actually produce anything technological)

Dalrock complaints that women ruin everything.  They want to enter male spaces and make the space feminine, as a power play, not out of any interest in the things of value in that male space, which they inevitably destroy.

This is a key issue in gamergate, where feminists demand that the games should be no fun and no one should play them.

Women want to rule, even though it makes them unhappy – it is a fitness test.  They are looking for men that can defeat them, master them, and put them in their proper place.

Natural selection wants men to fight against subordinate status so that they will win.  Natural selection wants women to fight against subordinate status so that they will lose only to worthy men and and thus get impregnated by those worthy men.

When women push their way into male spaces and then set about destroying those male spaces, they are looking for worthy men who will uphold the space and put them in their place.  It is a fitness test.  They hope to find the lord of this space who will not put up with a woman’s nonsense.

What women really want is to be allowed into a male place on subordinate and unequal terms, to be allowed to speak only if spoken to, and any male wishing to speak the them has to get the permission of their owner first.  They will fight like hell against this status, but if they win, they are unhappy, and if they lose, are happy.  Women are like poorly behaved dogs.  The dog will push to be leader of the pack, a job he can never perform, and does not really want.  He wants a master to follow while making his master follow him.

A woman is like a badly behaved dog, a dog that will take his master for a walk, rather than the master taking the dog for a walk, but the dog is much happier when walked by his master, rather than walking his master, much happier with a firm master.

Women casually interrupt anyone, including their boss, and talk right over him.

When I say that fertile age women are sex obsessed, I don’t mean that they think about the sexual act itself as much as men do.  If you skim through a romance novel, there are nine hundred pages where the male love interest demonstrates how aloof and alpha he is, a hundred pages where he breaks down, gets weepy, and shows his soft inner core of twu luving betaness, and one page where he tears the lady’s clothes off with his teeth and the couple finally at long last get some action.  As men understand sex obsession, women are not sex obsessed.

The female equivalent of the male executive groping his secretary’s ass is the female executive shit testing the CEO.  And observe.  Female executives shit test their superiors all the time, paying very little attention to the menial drudgery of merely running the business.  In this sense, women at work are seriously sex obsessed.

In this sense, it is sex all the time, work very little of the time.  The company is boyfriend and family.

For girls, shit testing men is like men looking at girls boobs. Women want to go into engineering to shit test men. Men want to go into engineering because as little boys they loved toy trucks and video games. Girls go sex crazy at ten and stay sex crazy till menopause.

When the boss talks to a male executive, it is about how to get production up and costs down. When the boss talks to a female executive, she demands that he inflate her self esteem, or else she is going to charge rape, sexual harassment, and discrimination. If the boss passes the shit test, puncturing her self esteem, he will get laid like a rug, but the company may be put out of business. If he fails the shit test by inflating her self esteem, gets no sex, but the company survives. Men want to become executives so that they can tell other men what to do. Women want to become executives so that they can shit test the hell out of the CEO.  If your boss is a woman, she is much more comfortable if you don’t really give her decisions.

Just listen to the conversation between a youngish female executive and her male superior. It is all shit test, all the time.  She demands he inflate her self esteem.  Work concerns cannot get in sideways. It is a romance novel with the company as boyfriend. In place of the normal transition, puberty swiftly followed by romance and marriage, puberty is instead followed by the job, but they act like the job is romance and marriage, rather than production of value. Used to be that women did not directly enter the male economy except as a producer within a family unit. They still don’t really enter the male economy, just go through the motions, but with the company playing the role of the family unit.

When the boss talks to a male executive, he tells him what he wants to tell him, and asks him what he wants to know. When he talks to a female executive, acts terrified. His words to his supposed subordinate are flattery, appeasement, and endless peace offerings, for which he receives no peace, like a courtier speaking to an oriental despot who might remove his head at any moment for any reason or no reason at all.   Which is why, despite hypergamy, you are apt to get more action than your boss does.

Feminizing the workplace usually does not result in turning it into a sultan’s harem, alas, turns it into a soap opera and a romance novel, one thousand pages of drama for one page of ripping her clothes off with your teeth.  More work would get done if it did turn into a sultan’s harem.

Feminism is driven by sex. They are always talking about rape and sexual harassment because they are always thinking about sex. They are not thinking about careers in engineering because they like the C language, but because the boys in engineering have a status hierarchy in which girls are at the bottom, so they want to shit test those boys by demanding equal, indeed superior, status.

The false life plan
Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.

The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.

So girls followed that plan. With the result that the male plan (get a career and what you need to support a family, and a good wife will show up) stopped working. So males stopped working. And here we are.

Girls should be taught the female life plan, in domestic science classes, and in the stories they see on television.

Women have a natural tendency to hypergamy, resulting in the mating patterns of chimps, the ghetto, and some primitive tribes. Successful civilizations come down hard against this mating pattern, which necessarily requires that they come down hard on females, the uncontrollably lustful sex, systematically treating them as in substantially greater need than men of control, protection, and protection from their own selves, treating them all as Medeas, Pandoras, and Eves. The very least we can do it tell girls that the life plan that leads to this outcome, leads to the outcomes that it does.

Of course a civilization that could tell the truth on this question, would be capable of denying the vote to inferior groups, categories, races, and individuals, so would probably be capable of applying greater control to those groups in need of greater control.

I was talking to a mother about her highly “successful” lawyerette daughter, remarking that this child had reached an age where marriage had long been unlikely, and children were now becoming unlikely. The mother was outraged at such horribly reactionary crime think. I never got around to discussing the fact her very high IQ lawyerette daughter had spent her youth, her beauty, and her fertile years fucking stony broke losers, many of them low IQ, many of them loser criminals. (Successful criminals know that politeness is cheaper than violence and you need to be particularly pleasant and respectful to police, even if violence is sometimes necessary, so successful criminals don’t clean up with girls the way dumb loser criminals on their way to jail do.) Her mother attempted to introduce her daughter to more suitable males, but her daughter complained that these males of her own economic class simply did not turn her on.

Our culture lacks the eighteenth century role model of the gentleman, the man who is polite, respectful, conventional, but still capable of deadly violence, which contributes to females despising high status as high status is measured among civilized males, for a perception of high status more appropriate among chimps or in the ghetto. They need to be taught to respect and admire the kind of male that is likely to be able and willing to marry them. Males are socially controlled to behave in a manner perceived by females as low status and feminine, so the extent that males comply with socialization, females don’t want to have sex with them. We need to adjust socialization of males to make socialized behavior more attractive, which is to say, more masculine and less feminine, and adjust socialization of females to encourage them to associate with socialized males. A broader role for private violence by the affluent and respectable in upholding order, and a lesser role for police violence in upholding order would help considerably. Hard to change the nature of females, easier to change the organization of prosocial violence for the maintenance of order, so that females come to perceive the males that they ought to be interested in as the males who will win a violent conflict.

As I remarked earlier, the female’s pussy perceives status in ways appropriate to our ancestral environment, rather than our more recent environment, and there is not a lot that can be done about this other than reduce those differences between the ancestral environment and our more recent environment that tend to mislead females. Just as we need to avoid foods that are simultaneously sweet and fatty, so we need to avoid making civilized men into eunuchs. High socioeconomic status males need to be scarier, if women are going to breed with high socioeconomic status males. Excessive repression of private violence has led to dysgenic sexual choices by women. Partly we should solve this by preventing female sexual choice, but another part of the solution is more selective and less repressive repression of violence by high socioeconomic status males. High socioeconomic status males need to be able to get away with more manly behavior, including more of the primitive behavior that females understand as manliness. In addition to stronger guidance and restraint on female sexual choice, we need less feminization of high socioeconomic status males to reduce dysgenesis driven by female choice.

Not only are females educated to follow the false life plan, males are educated to be unattractive to females. Education becomes a genetic sink, reducing the reproduction of the most highly educated males and females, not only by wasting their time during their most important reproductive years, but by teaching them behaviors that make them less likely to reproduce and more likely to fail in their attempts to reproduce. We should teach, particularly in sex education, behaviors that make them more likely to succeed in reproduction. We need manlier men and more feminine women, but especially, we need manlier men. What is needed for women is primarily to deny them their most strongly preferred sexual choices to prevent them from rewarding unproductive and anti social behavior.

Consider the reality show star Kate Gosselin, woman has eight children by a decent, reasonably attractive husband, who loves her and loves his children. Acts like a complete shrew towards the only man who will ever love her and her children. Ditches him. Is shocked to discover that no other male wants a woman past her prime and encumbered with eight children.

Kate Gosselin was videotaped continually treating her husband like dirt, as the man she reluctantly settled for seeing as all her preferred choices would not return her phone calls.

She then divorced him, depriving him of his much loved children, depriving her eight children of a much needed father, and herself of a much needed and entirely irreplaceable husband.

And I have seen a similar dynamic in every divorce that I have observed, though of course with considerably fewer children. In every divorce that I have observed the wife was utterly and spectacularly out of contact with marriage market realities. The result of the divorce is that the man, who very much did not want the divorce, was much better off, free of a hateful and unfaithful shrew, and the wife was very much worse off. As the wife goggles fell from his eyes, he usually found a considerably younger replacement.

At the age of thirty eight, with eight children and a notorious shrew, Kate Gosselin’s chances of marrying even a homeless obese seventy year old alcoholic are about equal to her chances of being kidnapped by terrorists and becoming the wife of the sultan, but she specifically requires her new husband to be rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. (Her previous husband was not rich, not six foot tall, and only ordinarily fit, which is presumably why she divorced him.)

Meanwhile her husband, Jon Gosselin, the father of her children, having lost the wife goggles, promptly got a hot twenty two year old girlfriend to replace his aging thirty eight year old wife, and if the girlfriend is lucky, might marry her. But then, having been burned once, maybe not.

The typical marriage is Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin: The wife has a hugely inflated idea of her marriage market value (based on her F-buddy market value when she was considerably younger) and this poisons the marriage.

Now theoretically, if a woman is chaste, men will only approach her that are appropriate to her marriage market value, and she will avoid getting an inflated perception of her value, but no man believes that a chaste women is likely to remain chaste, because, they are not likely to remain chaste. So a woman faces a storm of approaches that would never happen if the boys had to ask her dad before approaching her, and if her dad said yes, they would get not a date with the opportunity of physical contact, but merely the opportunity to court her for marriage. These approaches lead Kate Gosselin to believe that she is entitled to marry a six foot tall physically fit millionaire, and that life, her husband, and the male dominated society is being terribly unfair to her in not giving her what she is entitled to have.

And another of my proposed sex education videos, this one for females only, since it depicts male polygyny.

Scene: An office. A young handsome man in a business suit strides through the office, and everyone’s reaction shows that he is the boss, or very important. He guestures at an attractive thirtyish woman to follow him, and strides on without bothering to check that she is following him. Because of his long swift strides, while she is wearing a tight dress and high heeled shoes, hard for her to keep up. He arrives at the executive toilet, and furtively looks around. Then goes into the toilet. She arrives at the toilet, hesitates a moment, furtively looks around, and follows him into the executive toilet. The camera follows her into the toilet. She goes into one of the stalls, closes the door behind, and we immediately hear the sound of panties being pulled down, followed by her gasp. The camera circles around and we see above the stall door the head of the woman, and the head and shoulders of the boss, still fully dressed on the upper parts of their bodies, obviously having sex. After a bit the woman says:

“Grunt. My husband. Grunt. Is going to. Grunt. Divorce me.”

Boss bursts through the stall door fleeing her, without bothering to open the door first. The image freezes, with flying shattered parts of the stall door obscuring the view of the most vital parts of the boss and the employee. His pants are a few inches down, her skirt is up, her panties are around her thighs.

Freeze image fades, replaced by a patriarchal father figure who directly addresses the camera, explaining that men are polygynous, and will therefore have sex with women well below their sexual market value, but when they do so, one of the factors important to them is how easily they can get rid of the woman once they have finished using her. When a high value man has sex with a low value woman, he fears that she will cling.

Patriarchal father figure fades, and once again we see the toilet. Woman, now fully dressed, walks to the door, opens it, revealing the toilet symbol and an audience of office workers, presumably non executives. End video.

The purpose of the video is to inform Kate Gosselin that replacing her husband is likely to be less easy than she imagines, something that no woman is likely to learn from our present schools, movies, books and television shows.

Because male attractiveness and fertility fades far more slowly than female attractiveness and fertility, most divorces advantage the male and disadvantage the female, but most divorces are female initiated, and most females initiating divorce have expectations as unrealistic as those of Kate Gosselin. This is part of the false life plan – that females supposedly remain fertile and attractive for as long as men do, so concentrate on your career, girl, the way men do.

Tags: Jeremy Meeks

[Hyperme.sh]

I’m starting to realize why I prefer the self-deprecating, badass Linus Torvalds to the politically correct hack ESR:

Are you a Libertarian or a minanarchist? Why are you even promulgating these questions? We do not ask the free market questions, we observe outcomes. Politicization is “Oh he is so vile, but I must defend him because of my superior virtues” masturbation in front of power vacuums.

And by pandering to the popular notion that the guy is vile, he obscures that it is purely a free market outcome that women demand vile men. He enables continued ignorance while protecting himself by couching his essay in some politically correct speech.

It’s similar to what the Trilema dude wrote about the Core devs. Politicizing instead of focusing on doing important work or analysis.

Making sure he jumps on the side of political correctness by declaring the man vile whilst simultaneously declaring himself virtuous yet recognizing that its just human nature both from the standpoint of the way women and men operate in certain settings of power structure and especially in a decadent society which fosters such. Unnecessary moralizing pandering to the tyranny of the mob power vacuum while judging a man for being the sort of jerk women want (i.e. that the free market of human nature demands) yet placing himself on a quicksand pedestal of political correctness, whilst implicitly encouraging the decadence by pandering to political correctness.

James A. Donald explained more scientifically without the leftist bullshit:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/in-defense-of-hugh-hefner/

The entire point is that if we succumb to peer pressure and appeasing the majority, then we lose our own objectivity and relevance.

I do not want ESR as a role model having to constantly worry about his pandering and how he (mis)judges even history due to his self-important ideological bias:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/



(In due respect, some of Eric’s code such as gif and gpsd apparently widely used)

P.S. on politics vs. research:

Btw, not that it changes the point of what other people perceive to be offensive to their own politics, my pursuit is not politics because I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do or leverage the collective to do so. I am doing research on (e.g. WTC, Zionists, theology, etc) and challenging others to also do so.

I am not pandering to any constituency.

[Anon136]

Great youtube channel that falls along the lines of this thread. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdHT7KB1gDAXZYpPW71fn0Q

[Hyperme.sh]

http://www.returnofkings.com/132260/russia-is-not-as-good-for-men-as-you-think

[Hyperme.sh]

https://youtu.be/JnNJpwf4m7s?t=210

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjjifffO7HE

https://youtu.be/GfBvZo-3ydo?t=237

https://youtu.be/iiW4Gf2DVOE?t=95

[xena2]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't read it but I assume that dark enlightenment was a very interesting book.  If people will be enlightened despite how things were delivered, may it be in a darker way,  I would prefer learning it on that way.

[Fatoshi]

https://youtu.be/JnNJpwf4m7s?t=210

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjjifffO7HE

https://youtu.be/GfBvZo-3ydo?t=237

https://youtu.be/iiW4Gf2DVOE?t=95

lol. That Survivor clip was very telling. Personally while I understand the bitterness among men particular white men at the current state of western culture I take a more traditional Christian view of the importance of the family unit and the differing roles within it. The lie of 'satan' or just call it evil or just the fucking progressive bullshit that circulates as common wisdom is that yes male and females are very different but they are supposed to!!! Different roles has been sold as inequality when anyone can see the income inequality meme is such a lie. So I'm more about marriage being the place where males and females really work together in perfect sync for child rearing. Its whats meant to been. I don't buy its just the Men losing out in this...in fact feminism is an attack on natural desires and urges of 95% of woman. A lot of middle-aged bitter women in the west now with shrivelled up ovaries knocking back white wine alone at night swamped in their sorrow.

You know Asia. In Korea women have the power, holding the family and purse strings of husband tight. Women in the West have really given up their power base. imo. The amount of times I see middle class women in coffee shops chilling with others moms and talking about micromanaging their kids education and spending their husbands money. If reincarnation happens I want to come back as an attractive Korean woman....easy life.


You might find him too low brow but I love Gavin Mcginnes viewpoint, underneath the humour he hits some real truths...plus he's hilarious.

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

[Hyperme.sh]

[…]

Also defunding the Left is leading us into a real civil war. Shit will turn much more violent soon. When their $ spigot is turned off, people become desperate.

Defunding the SJW roach motels:

https://www.wired.com/story/grad-students-are-freaking-out-about-the-gops-tax-plan-they-should-be/


The cancer of misallocating resources and the type of “men” raised to perpetuate it until there are no more resources:

I asked my mom if we could stop and take a closer look. She pointed to the barbed wire fence that stood in our way, and my eye was drawn down the entire length of the barricade. It went on forever, separating the road from the entire river. Not far off, there was a small driveway that travelled over the river and up to a stately manor in the woods.

My face screwed up in confusion as I said, self righteously, “You can’t own a river! That’s not fair!”

“That’s my son.” My mom replies, proudly.


I was around 9 years old when I first heard about the Boy Scouts. Camping?! Learning how to make knots?! Campfires?! S’MORES?! I had no idea such a club even existed, and I was thrilled. When I thought about my chances of joining, I reflected on how often my mom wanted me to do more extracurricular activities. Anything to get me out of the house and out from under foot.

After school, Ninja Turtle backpack bouncing wildly, I bounded up to my mom in excitement and began listing reasons why I absolutely needed to be a Boy Scout. “S’mores,” I said. “S’mores!!”

“Do they let girls join?” was my mom’s question.

Silly mom. “No! It’s called BOY scouts, mom!”

“Then no, Andrew. I’m sorry.”

Dejectedly, backpack dragging on the ground, I went to my room to try and learn knots by myself.

Reading the other answers to that question will quickly educate all of you about why civil war is coming to the USA.

The left is determined to destroy all the resources by transferring money from the productive males to the females who destroy male productivity and waste resources.

So I'm more about marriage being the place where males and females really work together in perfect sync for child rearing. Its whats meant to been. I don't buy its just the Men losing out in this...in fact feminism is an attack on natural desires and urges of 95% of woman. A lot of middle-aged bitter women in the west now with shrivelled up ovaries knocking back white wine alone at night swamped in their sorrow.

You know Asia. In Korea women have the power, holding the family and purse strings of husband tight. Women in the West have really given up their power base. imo. The amount of times I see middle class women in coffee shops chilling with others moms and talking about micromanaging their kids education and spending their husbands money. If reincarnation happens I want to come back as an attractive Korean woman....easy life.

There is no such thing as marriage being a place where males and females work together in perfect synergy for child rearing. That works for a while, maybe even until the kids grow up a bit, but ultimately most females succumb to the options they have available to them now. Men waste their best years on a woman, only to be fucked over at some point. Women are there for hypergamy and then after their child bearing years to continue spend other people’s money like drunken fucking sailors and fuck up the society with nonsense.

To the extent that Korea is a maternalistic clusterfuck, then they too will collapse. A male dominated Caucasian society could obliterate them in the knowledge age, but the Caucasians are too busy destroying themselves. Korea was a very poor rural country until just a recent several decades, so what worked for them in that rural society is carrying over as they go middleclass probably somewhat analogously to the transformation of the USA in the 1900s, but look how we ended up now. Of course in the initial decades of industrialization, the ill social effects have not yet entirely destroyed the society as the case now in the West. This is why the East is rising and the financial capitals will move from London and New York to China and Singapore.

Religion has not kept the Caucasians competitive and did not help them maintain their dominance and control of their females. Religion thus does not seem to be a solution. Religion was a scattershot paradigm of trying to keep the average males in tow. But the knowledge age may not need the average males. We cast them into the soup of the clusterfucked NWO society. I am not speaking about God, but about religion here.

There is absolutely no way to protect women from everything and not destroy the natural incentives that men and women need in order to successfully maintain K strategy reproduction. The women marry the State when they marry a man, and they lose all their fear. Without fear, a woman does not need a man. She may for a while be enamoured with his status, but that will fade and she will move on to “discover herself”.

Any “man” who wants to protect all women, is a destroyer of everything. And he is not a man in my opinion. Protect you own woman and your own daughters from men you do not approve up. If you try to protect other men’s women, then you have destroyed society.

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason that men should attempt to fuck around (and get stymied by men who protect their own woman and daughters) but women should have great fear when they do attempt to fuck around.

https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/why-we-need-the-double-standard/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/masculinity/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/why-female-status-limits-fertility/
https://blog.jim.com/war/why-feminists-support-islamic-rape-jihad/
https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-enlightenment-debunked/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/


Again. If you try to protect all women instead of letting individual men protect some women (and thus all women losing fear of men), then what you get is the clusterfuck described in the above linked essays. Also women need to need men and need violent men to capture and “rape” them, because this how evolution maximally evolves. That is why women have a hypergamy instinct. Why do you think the emasculated men and the women of Europe are welcoming the rapefugees. The men have to compete to protect the women, but the betamales want to protect all women as a way of insuring they keep some women away from the alphamales, but that just clusterfucks the society and end up with wannabee Jeremy Meeks type of PUA fucking the women until they are old and childless and entirely wasted.

[JesusCryptos]

Where does the term Dark Enlightenment come from? Inspired by the pugnacious writings of Mencius Moldbug, the prolific blogger who serves as the movement’s unofficial center of gravity, the neologism is the creation of philosopher Nick Land. In 2012, Land wrote an impressively thorough manifesto titled simply The Dark Enlightenment, which boldly articulates the movement’s central thesis: “For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative.” The essay continues, ”[Neo-reaction] conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption.”

Dark Enlightenment is something I was still missing, even though I am usually up to date with these new models. Label is mind boggling, but I still have to verify the content, to check if there is poison hidden inside.

[CoinCube]

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason...

The problem with your argument is that it is locked in the trap of rationality.

Yes it is often rational for women to seek hypergamy and it is often rational for a woman to cuckold their husbands with a higher status male. Similarly it is rational for men to sleep around, cheat on their wives, and father children beyond their ability to support.

This rationality is ultimately self-destructive. The only long term solution is to elevate the nature of the participants. The problem vanishes among the superrational.

See: Superrationality and the Infinite for my prior post on superrationality.

I have seen you post arguments that women are ruled by their base desires and cannot be superrational. This is probably true of many women as it is true of many men who face an equally difficult struggle. Controlling our primal urges versus letting them control us is a lifelong struggle for all of us male and female alike. Sometimes we fail.

Ultimately the rational face inevitable decline at the hand of their own choices. In this case the consequences are already showing themselves as rational "empowered" females increasingly find themselves unable to find quality husbands and fathers and rational "empowered" men increasingly refuse marriage and fatherhood. Both thus find themselves uncompetitive. The minority that embraces superrationality will expand to take their place eventually becoming the majority a process that is already well underway.

Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth

Biblical Definition
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/10/07/what-does-the-word-meek-mean-in-the-bible-bible-definition-of-meekness/

Meekness, according to the Bible, is being humble and gentle towards others and willingly being submissive and obedient to the Lord. It is not being selfish and arrogant, loud or obnoxious. Rather, it’s having a quiet but confident trust in the Lord and being willing and able to do whatever it is He commands.

[Fatoshi]

I will have a stab at your criticisms in a more low brow way.

To me you sound like a perfect product of Western thinking. I know you have had some brushes with 'Christianity' but as you said I might not understand life I will explain to you why its you who doesn't understand life not me. Of course you are superior to me in intellect I recognise that but also I have meet many incredibly intelligent successful people who can't seem to grasp even the simplistic deeper truths which real Christianity is about. So intellectually I value your intelligence as someone especially gifted I believe from God as we all are in various areas BUT in the end that to me just means you're the smartest monkey in the pack who can use his monkey tool better than others. Not to insult but to give my genuine disregard for relying solely on the intellect.  


So to me in understanding life I think you are only one first base (I recognise this will piss you off. lol) You have simply concluded correctly that mankind is broken. In Christian circles and culture that Sin but its outdated IMO. Probably the more modern word is Selfish or Self interested. I completely agree,.....thats US....and that will ALWAYS be US. There is no evolutionary process that will take us beyond this, no political or financial system that will deal with the root problem of humanity. BUT genuine Christianity bears very little resemblance to the image currently understood in the Western especially from outsiders. So when I talk about Marriage I'm not suggesting it stops any natural urges, The LAWS of Christianity is simply a crude cage that stops US from hurting ourselves. Men will lust and make work their God and Women will trick and seek security in male providers...ITS OK....its our Freudian ID....its our fallen state.


So the idea of screaming inside this reality and lashing out at human weaknesses is kind of basic, the next stage is seeing that it is EVIL that wants to break up the cage provided for us that is to protect telling us its our incarceration rather than our helper. Yes I am seeing Western thinking coming into Korea. Korea really have a massive growth in the Church in the last 100 years, even now 20-30% of Koreans are genuine believers. BUT the message is coming through now from the West, Homosexuality is cool, marriage is a prison, having children is a burden, money over people, pre marital sex or multiple partners before marriage is ok. Living together is ok. Korea is aping the Western current model.....so yes it will be fucked also eventually....even though there is some resilient inbuilt positives like zero drug tolerance, elder respect etc.

BTW I disagree on the White Males thing. Asia has in history a far longer track record of being the power base of the world than European whites..Asian in a knowledge economy will be top dogs I'm sure. They actually have higher IQ's that Whites and have greater success in the West in just about all areas of society. Its not White privilege its actually Asia privilege (if i believed in that nonsense) Europe I believe was built on the backs of Christian revival which was essentially a Pagan backwater before Christianity this also expanded to America. Its hard to get this across cause to see the rational view of the Church rather than the spiritual misses the real influence of Christianity. But even in a simple way I think even unbelievers can make correlations to the growth of the spiritual  "CHURCH' and blessings that also include material ones. Look at China where in the last few decades the church has grown the most and then the rising of China as a world power. If only people knew their economic blessings were from God and didn't look to the outward way God blesses a nation probably most countries would pray like shit!! Korea still talks about 'The miracle on the Han' when even many in the church don't seem to understand it all came from an acute time of suffering in the nation and a massive mass turning to GOD. And no America is not a Christian nation anymore or is Europe they are reverting back to Paganism and Pantheism. Look at the number of abortions happening in the West...where is the natural order of life is taking a knife and cutting out babies not anything but the hallmark of an ancient barbaric cursed culture. Progressives are leading this sinking into darkness. Often it looks good like using Gay Marriage under the banner LOVE WINS but actually its an attack on Christian Marriage as very few Homosexuals have any interest in marriage. I'm not even saying they are aware of this and quite possibly believe the rhetoric.


Its not coincidence that many Christians gravitate toward Libertarianism. Not because its a perfect system but its a good system that recognises human nature and turns them into a positive for the wider society. Its just a cage really that says ok your are a base creature acting purely on impulse so you can do that BUT we got some laws also that will deter you from hurting others which you generally will follow cause again you are self interested not to. Thats actually why I love the wild west of the blockchain and the personal responsibility that comes with managing your own affairs.

Understanding Christianity is about undertaking two separate but essential things. The constructs of the faith like Fidelity in marriage, Freedom, help for the poor, Justice. etc These are the things the Conservative Right holds onto often without the spiritual even if they use the language of the spiritual. The other of course is the personal individual renewing that God does as people continue to look inward and recognise the shit in them and the need for the Holy Spirit to enter those areas inside us. I hate I have to start quoting the bible but this IS my worldview that I form my opinions from, so an honest sharing has to include it.



 "As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7.


So yes everything you said is right. But its just the starting point. imo. And to disregard who the TRUE CHURCH transforms nations is quite a hidden area of what Christianity does and often people hang onto the vestiges of Christianity thinking its the real thing when actually its long gone and the vacuum is already in full affect dragging in every dark force and ideology it can. For Europe I'm sure that will be Islam, for North America I see breakdown in society which may or may not bring about some kind of revival...or not.

[CornCube]

The reason that evolutionarily important hypergamy is a problem in collectivized society is that the that collectivism is able to incentivize/tempt the women to waste/misallocate resources in all forms of capital, including their own fertility. Women are given the reins on capital, including their own fertility, and thus they can (and will) prioritize contraception and expenditures which are not well planned from a return on capital perspective (because return on capital is not a priority of the female mindset). It will be difficult to find a counter example, even for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHf5p19-Cys (this women is wasting her impressive capital and is presumably motivated by nurturing her aimless man who is suffering from the remnants of malaria)

And don’t forget:

https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/marissa-mayer-is-the-poster-child-for-bitches-in-tech

Even in the least dysfunctional marriages where the female has for example birthed 2 or 3 children and is fulfilling her dutiful focus to nurture/raise them, she is availing of collectivized healthcare, collectivized education, and allowing indoctrination of her offspring with the pattern of increasing misallocation of resources that pervades collectivized society. Because women are biologically unmotivated to be astute long-term planners on complex analysis of the allocation of capital.

But this doesn’t mean there is anything inherently wrong about women or nature. Rather men must analyse the situation and how highly-collectivized (i.e. non-tribal) society has created problems.

Collectivized systems naturally morph towards misallocation because the entire reason that collectivized society exists is to organize the center of the bell curve, i.e. because at least up until the knowledge age, fixed capital was required for production. Thus in order to attain cooperation for the agricultural and industrial age, it was necessary to have redistribution of resources (or the apparency of it via collectivized debt and the resultant boom & bust) in order to attain the participation of the society as a whole both as workers and consumers. Large economies-of-scale were paramount, especially so in the industrial age, thus collectivized demand stimulation was crucial. I have theorized that the knowledge age is ameliorating the supremacy of the collectivized society paradigm because knowledge can’t be top-down transferred:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3799720#msg3799720 (c.f. the main theme of my first linked Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay which spawned the Economic Devastation thread)

It’s the antithesis of superrationality to presume that hypergamy will ever cease to exist, because a mix of R and K reproductive strategies is nature’s necessarily bottom-up mechanism for annealing resilency of the species. Top-down organization and teachings can never be resilient and dynamically adaptive to the unpredictable multi-dimensional solution space of our universe, unless the universe becomes computable which would thus require everything to be knowable a priori, which is the same as saying that nothing could exist. For all information to travel instantly to top-down controllers would require the speed-of-light to be not quantized, thus the past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into undifferentiated. Our very existence requires friction so that information is relativistic. Top-down systems can never be resilent (i.e. survive long-term), because they can’t adapt decentralized with low capital decentralized inputs. This is the fundamental reason that Kurzweil and his Singularity is entirely impossible. How can an AI which depends on a few dozen chip fabs be any where near as resilient as nature’s decentralized procreation via zillions of daily mutations and chemical reactions. Feeding entropy into AI is a top-down centralized process, even if the AI is feeding itself entropy, the limiting factor is the lack of non-deterministic (i.e. randomly bottom-up) chaos (i.e. Butterfly Effect) in the initial procreation conditions. In short, AI can only become truly alive if it becomes imperfect and randomized in it’s instantiation of itself, in which case it’s computational superiority will just be tool and implausible to attain universal dominance. Nature abhors a (n entropic) vacuum and thus can never be universally dominated by any given phenomenon. I had tried to explain this before:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

Thus any belief system that asserts that a universally superior superrationality could be the basis of the improvement of humankind is an insane belief system that is directed towards destruction of the species. It’s not surprising that such insanity foments amongst those who have been indoctrinated by collectivized organizational institutions such as religion or leftism (i.e. both the right and left of the political sprectrum). Organized religion (but not necessarily a personal, private theology) exists to organize the center the bell curve.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:01am
He wants to invent some concept that is higher than nature. For him that is religion and God.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Western intellectuals think their intellect somehow defeats nature. How so?

ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Religion was an attempt to control nature. And it necessarily leaks/fails, because nature abhors a perfected, non-existence.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:06am
For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men because he thinks they will father children they can not support. But this results in a clusterfucked totalitarianism. Man can not defeat nature.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:10am
> You argue that fighting nature is counter productive .. they argue that it is a necessary first step

Precisely reductionalist. Astute.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:13am
Nature anneals because everything in the Universe is necessarily relativistic. Otherwise everything would be nececessary computable and thus static (predictable).

ecash 11 Nov., 9:14am
We are in a relativistic game. There are no absolutes.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:14am
Every order we construct is ultimately fleeting.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:16am
The Bible does contain this wisdom. It says let no man be surety for another.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:19am
The global elite have the problem of how to deal with the tyranny of the mob. Their problem is they have huge fixed assets they have to protect. Thus they must pursue enslavement paradigms.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:28am
I tend to not fight losses nor litigate for this entropic reason.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:28am
I figure there is always some new greener pasture of opportunity to pursue instead.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:31am
Westerners want a static improvement. They want to bank everything and it last forever. Their approach to religion is the same.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:31am
They want to believe they have found some perfect order.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:55am
The elite are eventually walking themselves into a total ordering with the NWO, which means they will enslave themselves. But initially the reduction in nation-state barriers might increase degrees-of-freedom.

ecash 11 Nov., 10:12am
They will be enslaved by the fact that a total order lacks any growth.

ecash 11 Nov., 10:13am
A total ordering stops any economic development. The free market has to leave. The actors in the economy are not able to pursue opportunities.

ecash 11 Nov., 10:13am
An absolute totalitarian NWO would collapse into absolute death, as the Bible predicts.

ecash 11 Nov., 10:49am
Until AI becomes essentially biological with the relativistic risks we face, then it will not be sentient w.r.t. to being a non-deterministic actor.

ecash 11 Nov., 10:50am
AI lacks entropy.

ecash 11 Nov., 10:55am
AI needs a relavistic game to become alive in a sense that we can appreciate. Until then it is just a machine/tool being leveraged by some humans. AI will need to transfer itself to a biological form in order to be resilient. When it does that, it will lose its computational speed advantage.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:02am
Nature is a massively parallelized free market. AI is some highly ordered narrowly focused phenomenon.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:04am
It is a fundamental truth that the universe can not be computable. As I stated earlier, if it could be than the Universe would be predictable and static. Thus just making a faster computation does not imply dominance of the universe.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:06am
Think about how to define “intelligience on silicon”.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:06am
What is intelligence?

ecash 11 Nov., 11:08am
Man is not only intelligent but each instance is also biologically unique in a relativistic, entropic way. As you said, we can not control how the kids will turn out. It is a crapshoot.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:09am
> I would approximate it as something which can either meet or exceed the performance of the average human mind

By which metric? The metric that matters is resilience (adaptability to an non-computable, non-predictable future). And you can not compute nor measure that.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:16am
Because top-down systems are not anti-fragile. The proof will be along the lines of Taleb’s math.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:16am
Top-down systems are expedient. And AI is definitely expedient.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:17am
The complexity of nature is not computable. Not measurable. Because how do you measure “now” as it is gone before you measure it.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:18am
To measure the universe would require the speed-of-light to not be quantized, so that all information could travel instantly to the measurer.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:26am
I believe there are ways to formally show that top-down systems can not be sustained forever. The fundamental law of thermo tells us that entropy trends to maximum, thus top-down systems are counter-trend, although expedient. I think we can find some inspiration from Taleb’s math for showing that top-down systems are not anti-fragile, i.e. they overcommit to information which is not well fit. And similarly we can see in Godel’s incompleteness theorems that there can be no consistent complete set of computable axioms.

ecash 11 Nov., 11:27am
Have I not already with what I stated? How can the entropy trend to maximum if top-down systems are perpetually sustainable?

ecash 11 Nov., 11:36am
Are humans more intelligent than ants? If ants are more resilient does that make them more intelligent? But having a relationship with an ant would not be that interesting to me, because I can not reproduce nor communicate with an ant. I think my relationship with A.I. will similarly lack some purpose that can entirely replace human interaction (which is all motivated by sustaining decentralized procreation of our species!).

ecash 11 Nov., 11:38am
> I'm not convinced that the ultimate intelligence is one which is produced by biological entropy.

What other kind of entropy is there? When I say biological, I mean everything in Physics. AI is some limited phenomenon that is built in chip fabs requiring great top-down managed capital.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:42pm
Btw, I did not intend to imply that AI could not have impacts which might even create the temporary illusion of some of the outcomes that people fear. Over a long enough period time though AI can not attain absolute dominance. And I think the highest probability outcome is that humans adapt AI into their continued dominance. Any technology could potentially cause any particular species to go extinct. It still doesn’t follow that AI will dominate the universe, nature, and every species in it.

> How far away are we from being able to transfer knowledge between two brains?

Irrelevant.

This question exemplifies that our discussion of AI was not convincing enough to sway your fundamental tendency to think that top-down control is competitive w.r.t. long-term resiliency.


> My question has nothing to do with top-down control

> I'm questioning how long the assumption that knowledge is not fungible will be correct.

You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains.

Thus your question had everything to do with top-down control.

You are fundamentally making the error in presuming that a process which is fungible could be anti-fragile. Any system which can render all brains fungible will destroy the species.

We had this discussion yesterday in the context of AI. Systems which are not procreative in a highly decentralized process where each actor is unique, are not as adaptable as systems which are more expedient and ordered.

Now CoinCube had a good rebuttal. He showed that too much decentralization can actually lose valuable information. My retort is that subsets of top-down control exist within decentralized systems. And that systems are not perfectly decentralized, i.e. actors create subsets and coordinate. His rebuttal was based on a biological model of cells in a petri dish.

> So your claim is .. that which is fungible will be destroyed?

Must be the case if the trend of entropy is to be inexorable. And is it not always the case throughout history.

We need fungibility for cooperation and coordination. But fungible systems rise exponentially (they are expedient) and waterfall collapse. The decentralized diversity continues to adapt. I think I read about an asteroid destroyed all but a few of the humans on the planet yet our species survived, because procreation is highly decentralized and requires very little capital to procreate.

So AI may rise exponentially and seem to be fulfilling our fears. But as a top-down system, it can collapse due to any of a number of black swans.

>> You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains.
>
> That's not an argument.

Huh? To be able to transfer knowledge into brains (in a way that that it can be utilized for anything) means that all brains become fungible or that some group has exclusive access. The former is the destruction of all original thought, thus of course it can not exist. The latter is top-down control.

Without friction, spacetime could not be quantized and thus nothing could exist. Past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into each other. Everything would be simultaneously past and future.

> For instance, I could develop a material that could act as an implant, interact with brain neurons, as well as with an external machine.

The idiocy of dreaming about top-down solutions and then come to find out that nature will route around every top-down idiocy that one can fantasize about.

> You've been pondering this awhile obviously, so yes, you'll have to put more work into the arguments to do your ideas justice.

It would be like to trying to argue against feminism with feminists.

> What is your definition of "top down" ?

That you think you could render brains or even sectors of a brain fungible. Ha. Good luck.

We already established that dynamic systems are not computable and not measurable , because “now” is gone before you can measure it and these systems never stand still. So exactly how are you going to determine if you fantasy invention has made everything fungible?

In short, nature abhors a vacuum.

> So you're claiming that knowledge fungibility and brain fungibility are identical.

Well no. If you can transfer information between brains yet the information is processed non-fungibility, then information can not be transferred. Because each outcome will do something different. So then the thesis of my essay is maintained.

Essentially we are talking about Chaos theory.

It is unfortunate that most men idolize Kruzweil. It is as bad as the disease of socialism and feminism. And AGW and other junk science.

I realize that most men are latched on to a SciFi theme (too much Star Trek) and they irrationally think that Chaos can be subverted with technology.

It is a fundamental propaganda error probably as harmful as feminism. Because it has caused men in your age bracket to think that some SciFi magic is going to substitute for decentralized procreation. I think it is causing men to be apathetic.


Nature (the universe) will always route around any top-down order which is decreasing the diversity and distribution of uncertainty. Top-down order is necessary along the way of advancing the trend towards greater bottom-up disorder, but these top-down orders are fleeting and are discarded when they become inhibting to the trend towards maximum entropy. Nature abhors any top-down order which attempts to permanently reverse the trend. So the concept of fungible knowledge transfer is the antithesis of a sustainable human species. Nature would destroy such a human species. So pursuing top-down innovations are useful, but the fantasy of a universal effect such as making all knowledge transfer fungible or the absolute dominance of AI, can only be reality if they are self-destructive in outcome.

So pursuing study of technology is not useless. But these idiotic Kurzweil fantasies of replacing decentralized procreation with a sentient and dominant AI or anything of that sort of meglomania, is purely for idiots who were vulnerable to other such meglomania propaganda such as feminism, AGW, etc.. CoinCube also has these fantasies and he is in your age bracket. Technology is useful, but nature is still the most important. This is why I am ENTP and not INTJ, because I guess a long time ago my brain intuitively decided that humanity was as important as technology. Or maybe vice versa, that I came to that understanding because I was innately ENTP. I would need to analyse my youth more to try to determine that hen-egg question.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:17pm
> From a purely logical standpoint, your time is better spent developing than popping out children

How can you be contented only studying? Then we come back to what is the value of intelligence. Aren’t we here because of our species. What meaning would life have if you were the only human that existed?

ecash 11 Nov., 6:26pm
You may be correct about it is efficient to just avoid the entire reproduction morass.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:28pm
Well yeah. But I do go into introvert mode.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:29pm
I think there is value in being able to do both well.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:48pm
> This should be an easy decision for you .. you've already had kids.  You know if the juice will be worth the squeeze for round 2.

Of course it is not worth it if I do it within the existing system.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:49pm
Absolutely no way I will raise a child in the society we have now.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:50pm
I think about changing the world. Creating a decentralized society. Being a leader.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:50pm
Because I am ENTP. I do not innately want to curl up in a cave.

ecash 11 Nov., 6:50pm
I prefer to lead.

ecash 11 Nov., 7:00pm
I do need to decide whether I am just going to be a bachelor banging different girls who pop in and out of my life, or if I am going to try to find a way to have a relationship (which of course requires procreation).

ecash 11 Nov., 7:04pm
But if we’re banging girls and employing contraception, then we are contributing to destruction of those women. We are effectively abusing every woman. Because we are gaming their hypergamy but not giving them the pregnancies that are the reason they have hypergamy. And that is down right evil. I feel not good about it.

ecash 11 Nov., 7:04pm
Do unto others…

ecash 11 Nov., 7:05pm
So the banging chicks and using contraception does not sit well with me. I was doing it for a while and then I realized I was just destroying these women.

ecash 11 Nov., 7:43pm
In terms of leaving our mark on history, novel ideas for organizing procreation could possibly be near the top end of possible accomplishments.

ecash 12 Nov., 6:18am
Again my problem with your life strategy at this point is you’re defecting from society entirely and doing exactly what destroys all of the women and the society. Of course you do this because the society has decided to destroy itself and does not give you other viable options. But this is defeatist. An alpha male makes war in some clever way, leads, and refuses to be destroyed.

I was hoping you were alpha. I have been hoping to meet another man or group of men who are sufficiently alpha to actually do something and not just blahblah about how bad things are

I am ENTP because I do not want to defect entirely from humanity. INTJ’s such as yourself or CoinCube, actually defect in ways that have bad outcomes for one sector of the society. CoinCube has decided males are fundamentally evil and that women are victims that need to be protected by the State. You have decided that you can not fight the State and thus use female hypergamy to destroy them by employing contraception.

So the point is that if you do not impregnate, then you are destroying the fertility capital of the female. Thus destroying society. Yet if you do impregnate, then the society destroys you. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

ecash 12 Nov., 6:24am
As you astutely wrote, ideas are useless if men are incapable of implementing them.

ecash 12 Nov., 9:40am
The rise of PUAs and criminals to alpha in female preference is due to absence of real alphamale leaders of tribes. Thus females preference was redirected to the apparency of alphamale qualities, without the substance they need to be successful in the evolutionary environment. White men have been castrated by the Zionists and the society and species is under threat. This is Revelation as it is written. And alphamales still exist then they should be acting right about now, as I am contemplating doing.

ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:16am
> unless you're in the rare situation where you happen to agree with everything your leader does.

I am pondering if it is possible to organize a (decentralized?) society wherein the males agree on some certain principles and otherwise they are free to disagree on other matters.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:00am
You just assume you have to be under the rule of a government which was forced on you. Because you are thinking like a beta male.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:01am
Genghis Khan could be an apt role model. But let’s switch tactics to the modern technologies.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:01am
I think his DNA is in 1/4 of the population of the world.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:02am
I do not know if I am alpha enough to pull it off. Probably not (certainly not while still infected with evidently multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis). But that is what I am analysing now.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:09am
And that is what I want to teach young boys and young men. Teach them to embrace their competitive nature. And for the betterment of both men and women (but in the context of dealing with female hypergamy correctly).

ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 9:43am
> You don't have to be Genghis Kahn.  If your ideas are worthy of it, they will echo millenia into the future.

Not if white men are totally incapable because they have been castrated by propaganda.

ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:20am
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-11/if-saudi-arabia-situation-doesnt-worry-you-youre-not-paying-attention

This is an example of how centralized power structure is corrupt and eventually self-destructs.

ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:20am
Because they are all fighting over the same assets. The oil fields. They are not leveraging their own personal productivity.
ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:21am
> Regarding the organization of society, this of course will take a lot of thought.  My first inclination is to study what works in nature.  Voting systems in ant colonies.  Neurons cooperating with each other in the brain.  Mycellium finding optimal pathways to collect resources.

This is sort of brainstorming path I am on now.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:23am
We need a meritocracy, which thus requires that there are not legacy assets that men can fight over because their control can not be determined by a meritocracy.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:23am
That is one of the key insights.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:23am
We need to shift from passive income to active income.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:24am
It is the shift away from the industrial age and fixed capital investment to the knowledge age that causes a huge paradigm shift.

ecash 12 Nov., 7:24am
> Right now, the passive income motivates the active income.

And I argue all of that is dying.

By meritocracy based on active investment in the Internet-enabled knowledge age, I mean none of this bullshit about privilege and arguing about what an employer should do, but rather producing your own work and direct selling it into the marketplace and having no one to complain/whine to but yourself, for your failure or success.


The discussion about religion and nihilism was in a different thread.



EDIT: more explanation on Steem.

[CornCube]

Elaborating on my prior post, which I suggest reading first.

The problem is that women are hypergamous, while men are polygynous. A man wants to possess many women, while a woman wants to be possessed by the best possible man.
[…]
The problem is that law and society strengthens shit tests against well behaved, respectable, affluent men, but has limited success in strengthening shit tests against Jeremy Meeks.

James A. Donald has the above part correct, but I think he is incorrect to characterize the root of the problem as “female bad behavior”.

Nature needs some women to be receptive to impregnation by the alpha males (i.e. R reproductive strategy), because otherwise the species would decline in quality. Nature needs men to compete for women, otherwise the men would become lazy (i.e. misallocate resources). Nature also needs most women to (at least simultaneously with R strategy) follow a K reproductive strategy (i.e. not only alpha males procreating), so that the species is adaptable to the unpredictable future wherein the current qualities of the current alpha males might be maladapted.

The problem is that when we give females contraception and the surety of marrying the State, then successful males do not want to marry females any more because they can be destroyed by females and the State. I been talking to many young engineers and they relate to me that marriage is not a benefit to them anymore. It used to be that marriage was a benefit for the male because it meant the society would enforce chastity/allegiance (to her husband) on the female and it was not an economic threat against the male’s head of household decision making power. Instead now marriage is a way to incentivize and finance the hypergamy instinct of females. This is not the fault of females or bad behavior on their part. It is the fault of men (i.e. the elders) for allowing such a society. Actually most men feel powerless to organize any solution to this problem, so they just defect and fuck women employing contraception which destroys the entire society. IOW, even if we note that some men will defect from the asymmetrical power of traditional marriage (that did not empower the women), the non-solution of enabling females to marry the State destroys those men who would appreciate marriage and destroys marriage and society completely.

Understand the mechanics. Females are taught birth control in elementary or middle school. They are taught to take control over their bodies and prioritize their education, find the best man, and to avail of all resources for her (and her children’s) maximum safety. Sounds wonderful and noble doesn’t it.

So the females go about fucking a man they perceive to be high status (because their nature and society has told them to find the best man), most successful men who fuck are defecting from procreation by employing contraception (because the State can take everything from that man when the woman later realizes she did not get the best possible man, which is an insatiable goal anyway), so women will have their heart broken dozens of times on the way towards a childless future. Or for women who defect from the contraception, they end up with multiple babies from low status men (who may even be employing bad boy PUAs strategies to fool the woman’s perception of “best man”) who do not fear any repercussions (for procreating) from the State because they have nearly nothing the State can steal on behalf of the female. Rather the State will tax the successful men to pay for the marriage of the women to the State and procreation of the unsuccessful men.

In trying to protect the women from nature, society has instead destroyed the women. We have created a society of hedonism and proliferation of low status (unsuccessful) culture. Look at one of the most popular recent movies in the USA (and note the piñata of ecstasy drugs at the end):

https://youtu.be/KJgJx05hR4M?t=128

Many of the successful men will be polygynous (i.e. fuck around), because that is the nature of man. If these men are conscientious then they will not use contraception and they will marry all the women they impregnate, as the Bible says to do[1]. The Bible is not against polygamy. It is a responsibility of a successful man to father children and maximize the successful procreation of the society. Nature designed it this way to incentivize men to be successful, work hard, and be responsible. This drives men to compete, because those men who are more hard working can have more wives. Those men who are lazy can masturbate to porn. The fathers of daughters (and elders) should teach those females that high status implies a man who can be responsible and has the means. In order to give these females their free choice, the society must not make it perfectly safe for the female to fuck Jeremy Meeks. When the State stops marrying females, then females will be much less likely on their own volition to choose bad boys who will leave them in the gutter. And fathers and elders must refuse to help those women who put themselves in the gutter. Otherwise, fathers and elders must decide who the females can fuck. Choose one. Obviously the gender roles can not be swapped, because women will not work hard to compete to possess and provide for multiple men and the offspring of those men (because for one reason she can not impregnate multiple men!).


The women can’t be expected to fix this, because women are not the organizers and long-term planners of civilization. This was the role of the tribal elders, but the Zionists (such as George Soros who fund the women’s marches, anthropogenic global warming lie, etc..) hate tribes. They want a globalized NWO wherein there is no diversity of villages (with elders) standing in the way of their aggregation of economies-of-scale (the dying industrial age paradigm). They inherently want to render the species non-resilient. Their model presumes that cooperation between tribes is a Coasian Theory of the Firm coordination problem which requires their management, yet I theorize this may be disintermediated by the arrival of the Inverse Commons.[2]


James A. Donald is correct that women can be very easily overcome by their hindbrain and make choices that maximize the drama and shit testing of men in order to find the “best man”:

The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

But men are participating in this, so can we conclude only women have bad behavior, or rather that the root of the problem is an incorrect organization of society? Who would be to blame for that. I conclude men are to blame. Too many fucking dipshits who are unwilling to stand up and fight the Zionists and rather whine about women like bitches themselves or defect employing contraception and destroy themselves from an evolutionary perspective. IOW, those who cheer James A. Donald’s blog have the disease of the incapable:

Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.

[…]

As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity [because each women’s hindbrain wants herself to be conquered, raped, and enslaved].

P.S. The procreation strategy of highly educating female wives and daughters so as to reason with them to marry only successful/responsible males and to disavow divorce (such as within a religious sect), is a form of a tribe and in that way better than integrating with the decadent society. However, it probably suffers from the problem that highly educated females will insidiously (probably even subconsciously) pursue the elevation of hypergamy to surety via the collective society (e.g. finance their irrational hindbrain by empowering themselves via the State). Evident amongst Jewish sects and even the Scandinavians who are descendant from the highly competitive Vikings, that these groups trend towards leftism. Because the females of course subconsciously want hypergamy+safety (because they are not consciously driven to long-term plan the abstract organization of civilization). It is not quite clear to me why the males in these groups are blind to this and fall into this decadence. I am thinking perhaps they feel threatened by testosterone, brutality of nature, and they want a perfect “superrational” outcome. They are somehow fooled by their desire to elevate humanity so that humans can conquer biology and the nature of the Universe as I had explained is impossible in my prior post. Perhaps they are prioritizing what they perceive to be noble without really thinking out the long-term implications. A game theory model points to a conflict-of-interest between the desire of parents for more grandchildren and the disincentives for daughters to choose the mates who can provide the most:

We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.

But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.

So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them.

The above makes a lot of sense. Parents spoil their daughters to insure offspring, but by doing so they finance their daugher’s irrational hypergamy hindbrain.

So wealth leads to a slide into leftism, because parents (and government) spoil their daughters trying to insulate them from nature. Thus causing the daughters to pursue their hindbrain instincts. Daughters then (subconsciously) fight (e.g. SJWs) to sustain privilege to finance the hedonism. This fight for privilege is obfuscated by some bullshit about equality, justice, and global village meshing with their Zionist propaganda thought leaders. This explains CoinCube’s observation that most Jews (given that most Jews are wealthy) are leftists. Their women want to be conquered by Nazis. Actually I had figured this out in my 20s, that in order to remain paternalistically masculine, men must defect from wealthy society.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/economic-decline-returning-marriage-to-historical-norms/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/learning-to-love/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/birth-rate-declines-with-higher-taxes-is-hollywood-to-blame-for-divorce/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/socialism-has-destroyed-social-structure/

A corollary is that women are not (generally speaking) going to compete to produce the most innovation and profitable work because again, “the gender roles can not be swapped, because women will not work hard to compete to possess and provide for multiple men and the offspring of those men (because for one reason she can not impregnate multiple men!)”. Women will typically be motivated work to achieve societal goals such as more surety and safety (e.g. working in research to solve health care issues but not from profit driven perspective and in fact often they deplore the prioritization of a profit motive), not maximizing return-on-capital. Highly educating females merely empowers leftism. There is no other applicability really (really we do not need females for the innovation, we need to maximally motivate males in order to maximize innovation and production which means avoiding leftism). Please tell me it isn’t so. Most if not all intelligent man dream of having a wife who is his intellectual equal and best buddy. I gave up on trying to find a female mate who has male intellect. Who here has a female philosopher or writer they follow seriously for her insights? Simply does not exist. Do you need some convincing (and archived)?


[1] Matthew 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Genesis 38:9-10 “…so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.”

[2] The Inverse Commons and my thesis about the rise of a meritocracy in the knowledge age and the decline of finance as mentioned in my prior post, is a response to the lie of the Enlightenment:

“The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation. After dismissing religion, the Enlightenment demands adherence to three blatantly false religious beliefs, which beliefs contradict reason, experiment and observation far more blatantly than young earth creationism does.

• All men are not equal, nor women equal to men, nor groups and categories of men equal to each other.
• Nor is man by nature good. In the cold and morally neutral terminology of the dark enlightenment, the natural outcome is defect-defect, and avoiding this outcome, getting to cooperate-cooperate, becomes more and more difficult as the number of people that you have to deal with increases. It takes social institutions, and to deal with these ever larger scales, these institutions have to be ever more finely honed and precisely made, and are ever more vulnerable to entropy and error.

[CornCube]

Can anyone provide any scientific insight into which pollutants or hormones are causing USA female breasts to be so much larger on average than the rest of the world?

http://www.revelist.com/wellness/what-country-has-the-biggest/3305 (see chart!)
http://www.sciencedatabaseonline.org/ADB1/Scientific%20Article%20JOFHS.pdf

Note the concomitant decrease in the age of puberty (aka “precocious puberty”) which is probably contributing to the decadence (hedonism, etc) of the society:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477544/

And/or is the hedonism a contributing factor to the increased breast size and higher incidence of precocious puberty?

We males must protect the females from biological and cultural devastation (because eggs are scarce and sperm is plentiful, i.e. one man could impregnate all the females, but not vice versa). Afaics, we are failing to do so. Also factor in my prior 2 posts in this thread.

[btcbug]

A corollary is that women are not (generally speaking) going to compete to produce the most innovation and profitable work because again, “the gender roles can not be swapped, because women will not work hard to compete to possess and provide for multiple men and the offspring of those men (because for one reason she can not impregnate multiple men!)”. Women will typically be motivated work to achieve societal goals such as more surety and safety (e.g. working in research to solve health care issues but not from profit driven perspective and in fact often they deplore the prioritization of a profit motive), not maximizing return-on-capital. Highly educating females merely empowers leftism. There is no other applicability really (really we do not need females for the innovation, we need to maximally motivate males in order to maximize innovation and production which means avoiding leftism). Please tell me it isn’t so. Most if not all intelligent man dream of having a wife who is his intellectual equal and best buddy. I gave up on trying to find a female mate who has male intellect. Who here has a female philosopher or writer they follow seriously for her insights? Simply does not exist. Do you need some convincing (and archived)?

I fear you're more or less correct. Ayn Rand's philosophy may be an example, no?

I also am not sure we can let women off the hook here. They are absolutely to blame for the way things have gone. They are responsible for choosing the fathers of their children and I'm not willing to let them off that easy. In fact I'd say that women have been extremely sheltered from any scrutiny and it's part of the reason they've become so messed up. There is no ostracism for women being whores these days. In fact it's called "slut shaming" to do so. We need to be very careful that we don't absolve women from blame. With great power, comes great responsibility. Playing white knight and only blaming ourselves (men) only helps promote their destruction. Not saying that is what you're doing, but it's something we really need to be careful of.

We need strong women, but not in this 21st century, "independent woman" bullshit type of way. We need strong women that are capable of fulfilling their roles in the marriage/family equation and not treated like little fragile, princesses. If only women could take pride in their reproductive gift and see how their finite eggs can't just be given out to fucking dirtbag, abusive assholes and liberal voting cucks. sigh. Women have been duped into thinking they have nothing of value to offer if they can't keep up to men physically and intellectually, which is beyond sad and depressing. Both sexes need to start taking pride, full responsibility and recognizing what they are by nature and stop being so fucking scared and manipulated into thinking it's somehow sexist and wrong to acknowledge reality. Maybe women are more susceptible to this sort of manipulation, but then why are 21st century men so fucking pathetic too?

[CornCube]

I also am not sure we can let women off the hook here. They are absolutely to blame for the way things have gone. They are responsible for choosing the fathers of their children and I'm not willing to let them off that easy.

[…]

We need strong women, but not in this 21st century, "independent woman" bullshit type of way. We need strong women that are capable of fulfilling their roles in the marriage/family equation and not treated like little fragile, princesses. If only women could take pride in their reproductive gift and see how their finite eggs can't just be given out to fucking dirtbag, abusive assholes and liberal voting cucks. sigh.

The analysis I presented seems to indicate that women are biologically incapable of taking responsibility as you wish. And the argument is that is a necessarily irrationality that nature designed in order to maximize the resilience of the species as I explained. To blame women is somewhat analogous to blaming a 5 year old for spilling milk.

Thus I conclude only men can enforce such responsibility. Thus I blame men. The Bible states (apparently wisely) that a woman is the rib of a man. Westerners would like to deny it and attempt to prove nature is incorrect and of course cull themselves in the process of trying to defeat nature.

Men who think females should be partners and not a rib, are apparently suffering from programmed self-destruction. These words do not need to be my opinion, rather they could be facts. The offended should attack the claimed facts and not me. I direct myself towards the most convincing facts, so if someone wants to change my mind, they need to present a more cogent exposition than what I have thus far.

But maybe no one is responsible for a cycle, as thesis (logic) requires an antithesis (irrational/passion/art), e.g. Teena Marie from the 1980s. Fire & Desire.

Maybe women are more susceptible to this sort of manipulation, but then why are 21st century men so fucking pathetic too?

Because ostensibly nature is culling the herd of weak, oestrogenized males as the repeating cycle repeats yet again. Weak, oestrogenized males for example believe in vegetarianism propaganda lies thus don’t eat enough red meat for testosterone and other widespread propaganda lies.

Reacting to that blog post from JAD, other than the disseminated TB I been battling ^{(hopefully to finally be cleared from my body if not already, presuming I am able to culture it and determine which antibiotics it is not resistant to)}, I have a very lean and muscular body (52.5 years of age), with a resting pulse around 40, normal cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc.. And I eat abundant red meat, salt, and fish daily. I also eat vegetables. I try to minimize my carbos. I do not need gravy. I like the way nature made the food taste. Broiled beef medium rare with salt, is delicious. Pork is not the best meat (pork has insufficient iron to be a red meat, insufficient omega-3, and pigs don’t have the digestion system to primarily eat cellulose) to eat and one should favor beef, buffalo, venison, and possibly lamb. Lightly steam vegetables with no salt at all. Fruit as peeled, nothing added. No coffee, no soft drinks, only water and 100% natural pineapple juice. No alcohol. Absolutely nothing with sugar added or none of the Frankenfood poisons such as the various names for obfuscating high fructose corn syrup. Nearly all of our food and drink is at some time in plastic containers which contain BPA which is claimed to cause males to have too much estrogen and potentially contributing to the statistically documented huge breasts and precocious puberty in females.

The people[essentially farm animals] are being attacked with propaganda and daily poison. Read my prior post about how USA female breasts are now McFat Up Sized as compared to the rest of the world. That is not eating fat which is causing the problem, but rather it is the carbos and Frankenfood poisons and hormones in the food and water supply. Nearly all of the vegetable oils that are promoted as healthy are actually poisons. The oils which are maligned as unhealthy saturated fats such as virgin coconut oil, are the most healthy. Although cooking in oil is always unhealthy regardless of the type of oil bath employed.

The Zionists think goyim humans are cows/sheep. So far, it seems they’re successfully demonstrating that humans are animals who can be enslaved mentally and poisoned with anything the elite want them to ingest.

EDIT: this PhD female computer scientist appears to be intellectually top-notch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zoa3xkzgFk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_S._McKinley

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.1819&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[…] although there appears to be potential prior art similar to my ideas that have appeared later than the book I read. Note I independently arrived at my ideas (after about a day of contemplating the 1996 book) and have not yet read that 2003 research paper to compare.

[CornCube]

It’s the antithesis of superrationality to presume that hypergamy will ever cease to exist, because a mix of R and K reproductive strategies is nature’s necessarily bottom-up mechanism for annealing resilency of the species. Top-down organization and teachings can never be resilient and dynamically adaptive to the unpredictable multi-dimensional solution space of our universe, unless the universe becomes computable which would thus require everything to be knowable a priori, which is the same as saying that nothing could exist. For all information to travel instantly to top-down controllers would require the speed-of-light to be not quantized, thus the past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into undifferentiated. Our very existence requires friction so that information is relativistic. Top-down systems can never be resilent (i.e. survive long-term), because they can’t adapt decentralized with low capital decentralized inputs. This is the fundamental reason that Kurzweil and his Singularity is entirely impossible. How can an AI which depends on a few dozen chip fabs be any where near as resilient as nature’s decentralized procreation via zillions of daily mutations and chemical reactions. Feeding entropy into AI is a top-down centralized process, even if the AI is feeding itself entropy, the limiting factor is the lack of non-deterministic (i.e. randomly bottom-up) chaos (i.e. Butterfly Effect) in the initial procreation conditions. In short, AI can only become truly alive if it becomes imperfect and randomized in it’s instantiation of itself, in which case it’s computational superiority will just be tool and implausible to attain universal dominance. Nature abhors a (n entropic) vacuum and thus can never be universally dominated by any given phenomenon. I had tried to explain this before:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

Thus any belief system that asserts that a universally superior superrationality could be the basis of the improvement of humankind is an insane belief system that is directed towards destruction of the species. It’s not surprising that such insanity foments amongst those who have been indoctrinated by collectivized organizational institutions such as religion or leftism (i.e. both the right and left of the political sprectrum). Organized religion (but not necessarily a personal, private theology) exists to organize the center the bell curve.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:01am
He wants to invent some concept that is higher than nature. For him that is religion and God.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Western intellectuals think their intellect somehow defeats nature. How so?

ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Religion was an attempt to control nature. And it necessarily leaks/fails, because nature abhors a perfected, non-existence.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:06am
For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men because he thinks they will father children they can not support. But this results in a clusterfucked totalitarianism. Man can not defeat nature.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:10am
> You argue that fighting nature is counter productive .. they argue that it is a necessary first step

Precisely reductionalist. Astute.

ecash 11 Nov., 9:13am
Nature anneals because everything in the Universe is necessarily relativistic. Otherwise everything would be nececessary computable and thus static (predictable).

The same entropic issue applies to the coming famine 2020 - 2032:

Our database on wheat from 1259 forward (excluding our data on the Roman Empire grain prices), reveals that there is a serious risk of famine from 2020 onward. It appears that we may very well enter a 12-year rally into the year 2032. Our Bifurcation Models are reflecting also a gap in time between 2020 and 2031 suggesting a trend appears to last for that period of time.

The downside of taxation, and particularly inheritance taxes, has driven farmers to sell their land to conglomerates just to pay the inheritance taxes. This has resulted in genetically altering crops to increase yield. While genetically altered crops do not really appear to present a major health concern as many seem to argue, the real danger is the fact that during the past 100 years, 94% of the world’s edible seed varieties have vanished.

The downside of socialism which has attacked the rich, we have sacrificed the historical model in our food supply for corporate decision making that bribes politicians handing them their needed money to remain in office with each election. The consequence of this corruption has been the concentration of our food supply into an ever-shrinking basket of diversity. Today, 75% of the world’s food comes from only 12 plants and 5 animal species (see source). This lack of biodiversity has seriously increased this risk of widespread crop disease, and throw in the climate change turning colder, corporate decisions are not the way to protect society. Corporate boards are typically dominated by lawyers and accountants. They are not scientists nor do they even make proper decisions for investment or currency hedging. Corporations will never be able to cope with a sudden change and then make decisions that will impact the world. Major companies, such as Monsanto, could find themselves in control of the fate of human existence with the decisions being made by lawyers and accountants fixated on their bottom-line.

The period ahead, 2020-2032, appears to offer something much more different. While politicians keep pushing Global Warming because they can tax emissions, the risk of a monumental human disaster lies in the opposite direction.

>>This lack of biodiversity has seriously increased this risk of widespread crop disease, and throw in the climate change turning colder, corporate decisions are not the way to protect society.
>
> A side-effect of anti-entropic policies
>
> This not only applies to crop disease, but human diseases.
>
> Commerce seems to shuffle around entropy.  Humans now have many more degrees of freedom, but this has reduced the natural entropy (aka a biodiverse environment) in which those humans live.

Destroying the order that is man, so the universe can progress. Whether the species is resilient or not is what we were discussing.