On cooperation

Guest post from Fox on the Discord, with the intention of clarifying a simple but important idea:

Regarding the previous discussion about alt-vox, alt-lite, 1488ers, alt-petersons:

Common goals of 1488ers, WNs and vox:
– Keep a native supermajority in european countries, and a white super majority in countries like america, canada, australia.
– decisions should be made on a national level, not by international/global institutions
– Keep/install social norms according to which: men should strive towards being masculine, women should strive towards being feminine,
a traditional family structure is desired, sexual deviance are recognized as such and not glorified

Common ideals of 1488ers, WNs, vox and peterson:
– men should strive towards being masculine, women should strive towards being feminine, some sexual deviances are recognized as such and not glorified
– man needs meaning, something “higher” (the three parties don’t agree on what this “something” is)

So the themes are:
– nationalism instead of globalism (both on an ethnic and on a political level)
– traditional family structure and polarity between man and women instead of modern perversions like feminism.
– some kind of “religion” instead of materialism

I think a principle everyone who wants to cooperate with others should internalize is: Do not criticize unless it is absolutely necessary. Most topics are not relevant for the common project, most points of contention are not important enough to risk alienating your companion. And regarding the important points on topics that are relevant – they aren’t relevant in most situations, either. So only start to criticize when there is a very, very good reason to do so (which includes that alternatives have been exhausted). Once you do that, you’ll be able to bond with other people (even over the internet), and out of these bonds, projects and friendships can arise. But this requires that you stop spreading and provoking negativity in your interactions with others.

If a companion is an asshole towards you, how should you respond? Don’t respond. Take the damage his words produce, do not try to “defend” yourself or “fight back”. Instead, gauge whether this is an exception and try to assess whether cooperating with this individual is still possible and worth the trouble. And if it is not, then just end the cooperation.

H/T TRS for comix:

Criticism is useful and necessary in the context of an irresponsible party giving negative feedback to a responsible party, where the expectation is that both will benefit from the improvement. But it automatically designates the critic as dependent and therefore subordinate, like a woman, child, consumer, citizen, or prisoner. But the general rule of power, as expressed by British aristocrats, is “never complain, never explain.” Criticism = complaining + explaining, whether constructive or otherwise.

“Never criticize except where necessary, and then always in private”. This principle comes from at least four sources that I know of: leadership, statecraft, training, and seduction. I break this rule a lot but you’ll note I’m also on the low end of aptitude for the skills of leadership, statecraft, training, and seduction (and would not have attempted them in a normal, less gay situation). See the Holm Center Training Manual chapter on Feedback for principles and concepts as applied to training, specifically. You can find it as a PDF online. For a deeper understanding, see Appraisal Theory. Or just watch the show Evangelion, which (on the psychological level) is about the interaction of Appraisal Theory and Freudian attachment theory.

About Aeoli Pera

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

5 Responses to On cooperation

  1. SirHamster says:

    Criticism is useful and necessary in the context of an irresponsible party giving negative feedback to a responsible party, where the expectation is that both will benefit from the improvement. But it automatically designates the critic as dependent and therefore subordinate, like a woman, child, consumer, citizen, or prisoner.

    This doesn’t make any sense to me in that teachers and coaches absolutely need to break down wrong answers and wrong processes with criticism, so that students can rebuild with the right fundamentals.

    That doesn’t make teachers subordinates or dependents on their students.

    I can see the concept being a true and useful rule in particular contexts, but it doesn’t apply to all criticism. Though in terms of interpersonal cooperation, assuming the position of teacher when the other does not consider himself your student is a shortcut to miscommunication and conflict.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      You’re correct in a common sense way because relationships are complicated and people switch power dynamics within them often and rapidly (this is part of being socially fluid), but I’ll show that the metaphysical principle holds. When a teacher offers criticism they are taking the lower position, because they are admitting they are in fact dependent on their students’ goodwill to change. From the training manual I mentioned:

      “Their Responsibility. Just like your message during the EXPECTATIONS phase, it’s important to reemphasize, although you don’t like a person’s behavior and are still willing to support them, you cannot–and will not–take responsibility for their actions. The subordinate must understand that a change in behavior has to occur and it’s up to them to do the changing. Subordinates must be held accountable for their own actions.”

      This is why coaches and teachers who do nothing but criticize become objects of scorn, not social dominance. And why lower SSMV people predominate the comedy profession. The difference is that comedians don’t have the threat of institutional consequences behind each criticism–each appeal to these is an admission of weakness by the leader/teacher/etc. So each criticism is a tacit ultimatum, which is a small abnegation of (idealized) leadership and weakens positive motivation, putting the two parties on more atomized terms.

  2. SirHamster says:

    The subordinate must understand that a change in behavior has to occur and it’s up to them to do the changing. Subordinates must be held accountable for their own actions.”

    The subordinate changing is necessary for the skill is to become internalized – a student must generate the correct result from the input. It must not be the student generating the correct result through the teacher lending the correct processing. The latter creates the appearance of correct processing, but fails once the teacher is absent.

    Holding subordinates accountable is not the action of a subordinate. It is the action of a superior.

    The polarity of your concept looks backwards. According to Fox’s essay, the right reaction to this difference is to COOPERATE COOPERATE COOPERATE. No criticism safe space!

    From my engineering and Christian training, I think the foundation needs to be double checked. That requires criticism, and known good reference points.

    Mistakes get more costly to fix the longer you build on top of them.

    This is why coaches and teachers who do nothing but criticize become objects of scorn, not social dominance.

    And why lower SSMV people predominate the comedy profession.

    Comedy does not have a monopoly on criticism. But it does reflect the responsibility of the profession. No one expects a comedian to fix anything they mock.

    A politician who criticizes the system is expected to do something. Trump would not have the support he has if he only talked about the Swamp.

    I get that 100% criticism is not the way to inspire and motivate a group or individuals. I question the concept of never criticize when incompatible groups are bundled together for the sake of “cooperation”. Cooperation is not a core value. Truth is. And Truth divides as a sharp-edged sword. Again, I think the concept as practiced will give cover to wrong ideas and doom its believers.

    I find “praise publicly; criticize privately” to be a far more useful saying. It does not discourage criticism, but channels it to be more discrete. We need negative feedback, even if we need far more positive feedback. (Engineering: Systems without negative feedback are UNSTABLE)

    If you want to build and propagate a mental model and protect it with “no criticism”, that model better be perfect on its 1.0 release.

    I’d never trust my own intellect or wisdom enough to execute on that plan.

  3. thordaddy says:

    So the themes are:
    – nationalism instead of globalism (both on an ethnic and on a political level)
    – traditional family structure and polarity between man and women instead of modern perversions like feminism.
    – some kind of “religion” instead of materialism.
    — Fox

    Yet… All of these themes percolate solely within the racist white sphere. IOW, outside the white race these themes don’t meme anything.

  4. thordaddy says:

    It is simply inexplicable at this stage of the “game” that the “best and brightest” of the white race are still unable to recognize that the desire for objective (S)upremacy just is the creative force of History. And even though the {{{enemy}}} has been screaming of the “evil” of “white (s)upremacy” for fifty plus years, “our” most astute alt-writers hears, sees and feels nothing for the explosive charge, but rather, knee-jerkingly denies it as though confined to a place of guilty submission.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s