Oh my:
http://blog.jim.com/war/after-the-flight-93-election/If you are not in a condition to fully read and process my replies then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.
JAD is well and I urged you to attempt to debate him.
My disagreement with JAD is that I think Trump was put in power by Rothschilds and for the specific purpose of divide-and-conquer. I don't think we strong men win with a top-down collective. We can only win with an Apache-style decentralized paradigm reinvented with stronger knowledge and principles of cultural evolution. So although I appreciate JAD's knowledge and perspective, I will have to lead because I don't think he is leading effectively. And he is censoring me and refusing to let me post on his blog. Ditto Eric Raymond who in spite of writing about the damned facts, continues to not admit the truth about for example woman's suffrage and besides he has no kids and thus no skin in the game. And he also continues to censor me and not allow me to post on his blog.
then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.
That sounds like you don't want to refute:
What have you stated that you think is true which you think refutes my claim that putting the woman's hindbrain a par with the men's obligation to lead destroys the society with social activism?
Where have you refuted that fact that you claimed that men are unable to think for themselves and that only God can tell us what is moral and ethical?
You made a claim that conflicts with your stated thesis about morals (wherein you claimed that men can't be objective because they can decide that evil is really good):
If a religion tells you not to think for yourself then you have chosen the wrong religion. Your argument against religion are indeed a valid complaint against some religions but not all.