Re: Koanic

“Fuck bitches you Goddamned pussies.” -Koanic

I’ve been thinking about this and I can’t figure out precisely what I’m feeling. I’ll try to disambiguate somewhat.

0. It would be Good if I settled down with a nice gal and popped out eight kids. I can sense this, and I believe my family, acquaintances, and fellow online wharrgarblers would agree with this moral sensation. It would feel correct in the same way that proper charity feels correct. However, it is not Good to be stupid or act stupidly. Except for sometimes, because by all purely material considerations it is “stupid” to be put to the question and refuse to repudiate Jesus.

Right now I’m poor in the extreme: in money, debt, social network, useful skills, marketable skills, a good first impression, and capital. All the things that matter. Perhaps the anxiety of having a kid would drive me to greater productivity, as it does with most white males. But so far anxiety has been the opposite of helpful for my economic success. I think my best bet is to turn the things I do have (aptitude, very good medium-to-long-term impression, deep and strong bonds) into the things that matter (above), and *then* breed if possible. The knowledge now exists and I just have to follow the directions with at least minimal conscientiousness.

So this is the primary tension that underlies all other considerations: having kids would be Good, but at this particular time it might be stupid, and stupid is only Good when it means being stupidly devoted to Jesus.

1. I’m a genius, albeit a very low-intelligence genius (fortunately psychology has a low g-loading :-D). So it’s not necessarily *my* job to breed, and I could continue going without and suffer little-to-zero dissonance.

2. We can actually talk about who *ought* to be breeding in objective terms of average brain matter volume, because the important thing is to raise the average within arbitrary territorial boundaries.

For instance, we don’t care that Nigerians are reproducing 8 kids apiece (or whatever) at 75 IQ (or whatever). As long as our borders are secure, they can play Malthusian trap as much as they want.

Also for instance, it doesn’t matter so much whether people above 135 are breeding above replacement because they are only 1% of the population (also regression to the mean is stronger here). But it matters a great deal how much the 115-130 crowd is breeding because they are the weightier part of the bell curve’s right side. They have to outproduce their dysgenic competitors in the 70-85 range, who are producing at an unnaturally high rate (below 70 they are still being naturally culled, generally).

Now, I’ve noticed that there is a big noticeable split in the category “white people” between “normal-functioning” and “high-functioning”. I think it’s important to understand that these large groups have very different averages.

3. Maybe give us a fight we can win? This is not just fatalism.

The major problem for most high-IQ folks, Game, has been effectively solved, thank God. But the folks you’re trying to cajole are hampered by another difficult problem: scarcity of resources and social networks, and constant geographic relocation. Essentially, we can’t even get it up unless we can expect to live in the same place for a while, have at least one or two close friends and family in the area for support, and can expect to feed the newborn consistently.

Right now is the time for MTs to earn their glory, I think. And I think Spring for TTs is coming again soon, and we’ll be able to get a lot of momentum going if we play it right and push the pendulum hard at the right time. The genes that have survived have been preserved for 40,000 years, so it’s not like we’re in a rush. What’s another 10,000 years? So right now I think we need to solve the big problems of socioeconomic survival, then finding each other and thriving as small tribes with relatively high genetic distance, assuming the continued dominance of large tribes (whatever form they take after the nation state).

4. ITZ coming. Maybe winter is coming. All this talk would be moot, and only a few hundred breeders like Tex will repopulate and play out the whole story over again.

I, personally, am not sure exactly what form ITZ will take, and I’m only about 50% sure it will be catastrophic rather than simply degenerative (which is admittedly the most I can be sure that anything will happen two decades from now). Maybe Tex is wrong about the weather, and it’s just a mild winter, and maybe the dollar crashes but the transition is actually pretty smooth. With my resources, there are contingencies I can plan for (some of the less catastrophic scenarios) and those I can’t. None of those include toddlers in tow.

How can I possibly overcome that sort of anxiety and become a breeder? I can see the 120 IQ folks being persuaded to blithely pop out kids until “holy shit no one saw ITZ coming!” Not me though. I need *at least* the slightest bit of assurance that I can make it work during resource contraction. Right now I have zero.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Re: Koanic

  1. Koanic says:

    I was talking about making the deliberate ethical choice against. Practical feasibility is different.

  2. aufeis says:

    For me, the main disincentive to breeding is that the combined influence of the legal system, compulsory schooling and electronic Bernays, means my kids would not be my own. A related hazard is that sooner than later I would hurt someone who insisted on crossing the line, and then all would be lost anyway.

    It’s not yet too late, though, and I remain hopeful. What I’ve learned so far in life has been hard-earned, and it seems a waste to not pass it on.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Edenist Whackjob’s suggestion to get a second passport might be the perfect answer to this family of problems. Usually they start with small compliance tests and escalate, so you can always get out early if you’re smart.

  3. Edenist whackjob says:

    What I would do:

    Acquire career as software contractor.

    Do your fishing in a country with better women (Baltics for instance).

    Possibly try and acquire a second passport.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I would prefer to be rooted in the ground somewhere and never move, but I think I’ll have to get farther north if that’s going to be remotely possible. Everything presumes a light winter ahead.

  4. Heaviside says:

    You can have any girl you want if you’re a rapist. We’re just talking eugenics here so you don’t have to stick around to actually meet the rugrats.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Quantity has a quality all its own. I should get a job watching the drunk tank.

      • Heaviside says:

        Raping women is a revolutionary act against the sexual marketplace. The sexual marketplace is a crime against love.

        Arbeiter! Bauern! Nehmt die Gewehre! Nehmt die Gewehre zur Hand!

        pre-selection + hypergamy = capitalist mode of reproduction

      • Heaviside says:

        I know this idea sounds silly. It is everyone’s knee-jerk reaction, yours and mine, to think this idea of a militant revolution based on sex is patently absurd. However, it is just because it still seems ridiculous to us that it demands to be thought. We think it is ridiculous to have a totalitarian revolutionary movement based on sex because sex is such a private issue. However, the bourgeois “liberation” of sex has wrenched sexual relationships from the private realm into the market and civil society. No longer does one have sex with a particular woman, instead now one has sex with a single representative of a class of mutually fungible women. This is what the concept of “sexual market value” implies. Sexual relationships are now a form of price discovery.

        family –> market –> state

        Just as property has made the journey from the first of these spheres, through the second, and into the last, sex will make that journey too.

        What we have here with “game” and “the red pill” is the humble beginnings of a classical theory of sexual economy, and that theory will demand a critique, a ruthless criticism of everything existing.

        Figure 1: Ruthless Criticism

        Just pick any romantic comedy at random and there is already a jaded asshole character, who can be either a “PUA” or an “MGTOW”. It is that character seen through the eyes of the “Feminine Imperative,” but the “Feminine Imperative” is the sexual marketplace. The sexual marketplace maximizes female copulation with the most attractive males. Both the “exploitation” (PUA) and “drop out” (MGTOW/religious enclaves) strategies are already thought by and part of the kingdom of the sexual market. Marriage itself is supposed to be a drop out strategy, but Heartiste is quick to remind us that marriage is no shelter from the meat market, which indeed it isn’t. What the sexual marketplace cannot think, cannot comprehend, cannot pigeonhole, cannot nullify, and cannot countenance is sexual revolution.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >We think it is ridiculous to have a totalitarian revolutionary movement based on sex because sex is such a private issue.

          Yup, it feels absurd. But as you mentioned, that is exactly what feminists have already done on purpose, over the course of decades.

          I’m with you up until the revolution part, which is a big black box on the end of your argument. Presumably you mean rape or eugenics via forced IVF. So I assume further that you’re just having fun here.

      • Heaviside says:

        “Feminine Imperative” = class interests of women = sexual marketplace

        “Masculine Imperative” = class interests of men = dictatorship of men = state enforced monogamy, chastity, and eugenics

        I am not for spree shootings anymore than Lenin was for individual terrorism, but for the same, and only the same, reasons. Spree shooters are right in principle and wrong in practice. Gas the bourgeoisie, class war now!

        Feminists have not perverted the meaning of rape. They have refined it down to its very essence. Rape is sex that women don’t want, i.e. sex with unattractive men, i.e. men with low SMV. After the SMP is abolished, all sex will be rape, because it will have nothing to do with women’s preferences in men. Women will have no say in the matter.

        Men’s interests lie with the state for the same reasons that they did in Antigone. Lukacs here argues that Hegel is anticipating Bachofen in the conflict between the masculine state and the feminine, but even though I don’t care much for discussions of who “anticipated” who, the important thing is that Hegel and Bachofen are right. Women need to be oppressed by the state as part of the progress of history. Engels edited Marx’s works to make them more anti-feminist and pro-statist, which I heartily approve.

        So, the point is that its important to keep your Gewehren ready-to-hand, not for individual terrorism*/rape, but for Revolutionary Terror and mass rape.

        *spree shootings are just individual/apolitical terrorism

      • Heaviside says:

        Marriage is a legal institution, and without the state it cannot exist, hence why it no longer does. The only choices are sexual socialism and sexual capitalism.

      • Heaviside says:

        >No longer does one have sex with a particular woman, instead now one has sex with a single representative of a class of mutually fungible women.

        Corollary: If you’re a man with scarce access to women, every time another man fucks an available woman, you’re being cucked.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          More like they’re stealing from me, I think. According to this, I think every rape should be expressed in dollars earned, e.g. I can either work an hour for $20 or spend that hour raping a $30 womb.

      • Heaviside says:

        >I’m with you up until the revolution part, which is a big black box on the end of your argument.

        Well, it was no different with Marxism.

        >Presumably you mean rape or eugenics via forced IVF.

        >After the SMP is abolished, all sex will be rape, because it will have nothing to do with women’s preferences in men.

        After this sexual revolution, men will no longer compete among themselves to make themselves attractive to women, because women will have no say in the matter. Instead they will have to meet the standards of male institutions to have access to women.

        Institutions are great because women hate them, don’t respect their hierarchies, and never found them. The founders of states were always mythical heroes.

  5. UlricKerensky says:

    “So right now I think we need to solve the big problems of socioeconomic survival, then finding each other and thriving as small tribes with relatively high genetic distance, assuming the continued dominance of large tribes (whatever form they take after the nation state).”

    Finding each other seems to be the current bottleneck, we exist, but how hard is it for others to find us?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Well, we find each other on the internet by dumb luck and following links. Further, we know they exist but they have no idea we exist. Even further, a lot of aspies simply aren’t open to this stuff because they’re stuck in childish aspie mode, which still believes everyone is smart if they try hard enough, authority figures generally mean well and know what they’re doing, etc.

      I think the final answer is we need to find them. They don’t even know they’re supposed to be looking. The way to do this is clear, but hard. We have to babystep them through red pill ideas up to the big cahunas, based on the knowledge and context they already have.

      • UlricKerensky says:

        Two thoughts:

        One, where do aspies congregate? Are those locations or groups open to our ideas? Are some locations or groups more open than others?

        Two, what sort of formatting information would we use to “babystep them through”?

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Answer to 2 requires answer to 1.

          1. Examples: manosphere, gamergate, doom metal fandom, bronies.

          2. Depends on where they’re starting from. Examples: The gamergaters are reactionary in disposition but still PC in ideology. The manospherites are PC in disposition and reactionary in ideology.

          So it can’t be mass produced, as far as I can foresee. That’s fine with me, I have no stomach for mass producing ideas or humans.

  6. UlricKerensky says:

    Mass producing ideas would be counter-productive and not necessary. Just finding each other would improve our position. That said, while a full-scale codification of our viewpoint is probably overkill, we do want to have some pre-formatted information out there, almost a “calling card”. As referenced elsewhere, you’ve put together quite a bit already.

    Is it necessary, at this point, for newcomers to completely buy in to reactionary points of view?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      It will be until we can collect a convincing array of STUDIES from Scientific Authorities that say what we’re saying. Unless people are either a) already familiar with the stuff we reference without explaining or linking, or b) sufficiently unplugged, independent thinkers, then they simply aren’t going to buy this crap.

      Ex. “IQ only measures the ability to take IQ tests.” <- This is what 95% of college grads still believe, because it feels good and that's what they're taught.

      • UlricKerensky says:

        Studies will be largely ineffective, even on the comparatively well-educated and statistically-literate population we’re looking at, because the studies can and will be distorted by whoever is presenting the story. People, even in our population, like to cherry-pick information.

        To use your example, Steve Sailer in particular has been against that line of argument since at least the late 1990s, to minimal success, for much the reason that you describe, through he also has explored the reasons behind the wide-spread, but not complete, social consensus against IQ tests and g-factor loading.

        How does one make our views “cool”? I doubt it will take too terribly much to appeal to those like ourselves.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          “We” don’t respond to cool, e.g. “we” were into LOTR before it was a movie.

          I think the answer is to drop interesting open questions in the right places. Why do nerds have high average thal DNA according to 23andMe (drop study links)? Why are nerds also unattractive to women (drop study links)? Why don’t Asians and blacks miscegenate (drop study links)? Etc.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        Obvious retort to that: 40 yd dash only measures your ability to run fast. No carryover to football. Or insert other Combine tests. Ie frame “test for fundamental operation ability” in a way that is more relatable.

        Also, to accept Edenism, I suspect an anxiety condition is necessary. You have to be a bit unhinged.

      • UlricKerensky says:

        “Cool” in the sense that there are positive motivations to join us. Madison Avenue spends billions to get people to buy one brand of clothing over another brand, and I haven’t seen evidence that ALL advertising is ineffective on our demographic.

        It’s easier to get people to post a response on a blog with 29 responses than zero responses.

        The target for us is to establish networks among our own, and the more connections we establish, the easier the task becomes.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >“Cool” in the sense that there are positive motivations to join us. Madison Avenue spends billions to get people to buy one brand of clothing over another brand, and I haven’t seen evidence that ALL advertising is ineffective on our demographic.

          Hmm, I think we have 1) the tendency to hate advertising when we recognize it, 2) low general response to advertising by nature, and 3) different general response by personality as well (preferring different colors, for instance). This might just be me.

          >It’s easier to get people to post a response on a blog with 29 responses than zero responses.
          The target for us is to establish networks among our own, and the more connections we establish, the easier the task becomes.

          Agree all here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s