A very important shitpost


Regarding ASS movements, we will have to get around to discussing the paradox of NW European genius and low ethnocentrism. The basic idea, according to Dutton, is that NW Euros adopted a strategy of high trust, high individual genetic variance, slow life history (i.e. the chad virgin), outbreeding, and so on in order to fully exploit their competitive advantage of its high rate of geniuses. As we’ve discussed, a high rate of geniuses just means high rates of people with both high-ability and Asperger’s Syndrome because a survey of geniuses reveals them all to be fit those criteria.

According to Woodley and Dutton, this strategy requires low ethnocentrism but not too low, which is the situation in the West right now. Even Finland has suddenly and completely whored itself out to the neoliberal world order since 2003*, despite being notable among European countries for its relatively high ethnocentrism, very high average IQ, low individual genetic variance, and surprisingly low rates of Asperger’s and genius (particularly considering they are notoriously k-selected, introverted, monogamous, etc.). But too much ethnocentrism means gassing Werner Von Braun, like Hitler tried to do, and losing the competitive advantage which NW Euros have enjoyed since approximately the introduction of Christianity.

Therefore, the question becomes how to raise negative ethnocentrism (i.e. “not in my neighborhood”) without going so far as to gas Werner Von Braun. (That is, of course, unless you detest Christians and/or spergs and want them to die, in which case you’ll want to go full Chyna.)

*Ref: “The Rape of the Finns” video.

About Aeoli Pera

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

8 Responses to A very important shitpost

  1. Fox says:

    “the competitive advantage which NW Euros have enjoyed since approximately the introduction of Christianity.”
    The indo-europeans conquered more than half of eurasia and founded most of it civilizations from 3500 BC – 1500 BC. They domesticated the horse, invented the wheel and the chariot and had what where basically bronze-age industrial centers:
    “The Sintashta economy came to revolve around copper metallurgy. Copper ores from nearby mines (such as Vorovskaya Yama) were taken to Sintashta settlements to be processed into copper and arsenical bronze.This occurred on an industrial scale: all the excavated buildings at the Sintashta sites of Sintashta, Arkaim and Ust’e contained the remains of smelting ovens and slag”
    Most of the great thinkers and tinkerers of ancient greece and rome were of aristocratic and therefore of largely indo-european descent (dorian, resp. latin invasion, elite dominance) – and the same applies, more or less, to all other cultures founded by the indo-europeans.
    Therefore, the bronze sword, iron, the chainmail, hardening steel by introducing nitrogen (etc) were all indo-european inventions, too.
    If anything, the NW europeans of 500 AD (and later) were weaker, degenerated versions of their indo-european corded-ware and sintashta/andronovo ancestors.

    100 years ago, the finns were described as belonging to a different race than NW europeans, thus it is unsurprising that their characteristics wouldn’t match.

  2. bicebicebice says:

    “Therefore, the question becomes how to raise negative ethnocentrism (i.e. “not in my neighborhood”) without going so far as to gas Werner Von Braun. (That is, of course, unless you detest Christians and/or spergs and want them to die, in which case you’ll want to go full Chyna.)” hey hey heya :D I did wrote a clausula for that (sort of).
    That is the reverse ubermensch think when some people think they are unironic ubermensch all of them, they gas the retards and keeps the sapes. classic R, then the environment supported by K-effort implodes and all die. Not sure how the chinese is vs spergs, in japan nobody gases the hikikomori.
    88 billion buying manga staring into a screen preventing snowball earth etc etc.
    western gay.io already expelled all troothals from the public and scored a 100% globohomo victory. it even entertains social media site for kids where kids are encouraged to LEGALLY (h/t trump) kill themselves, and post euthanasia-selfies. Stunning strong and brave.

    But I digress.
    the shit posting of the pissed off ASS movement…100% plausible deniability, until such a time of total victory.

    I disavow. Imma go jump into the dumpsterfire that is western civ and sape everybody! watch this space

  3. Fox says:


    “A standard view among historians is that this marriage regime was a response to the unique context after the fall of the Roman Empire in which lords were forced to give incentives to laborers. This hypothesis is rejected for several reasons:
    1. there are strong currents of individualism in Indo-European culture long predating the post-Roman period
    2. the manorial system of the post-Roman world was remarkably similar to the prevailing practices of Germanic tribes during the Roman period
    3. individualist families have several disadvantages compared to collectivist families, including later generation time, uncertain inheritance, greater likelihood of sexual assault prior to marriage in households composed of non-relatives—thus making it unlikely to be freely chosen because of incentives provided by lords. This is compatible with a theory that European individualism results from genetically based tendencies resulting in a misfit with medieval environments compared to collectivist family structure

    For example, in Old Norse society, children were often fostered out to families of higher rank, creating ties that were not based on kinship—a practice that is highly reminiscent of the practice of life-cycle service that was typical of the manorial system in the Frankish Empire of the early Middle Ages

    It’s interesting that Tacitus portrays marriage among the Germanic tribes as
    a monogamous partnership

    David Herlihy notes that Tacitus had remarked that late marriage was common among the Germanic tribes (i.e., long before the Frankish Empire of early Middle Ages) and speculates that this pattern then became the norm after the fall of the Empire—obviously congruent with the evolutionary/biological influences proposed here

    On the basis of our evidence, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that the continuity of the nuclear family goes back much further in time and that it was characteristic of many regions of western Europe as early as the Roman empire
    Further, another marker of the individualist family is exogamy rather than marrying close kin as is typical in collectivist societies. Exogamy was in fact the rule even in Roman times: “There is strong evidence for continuity of the general practice of exogamy in the western Roman empire from the
    pre-Christian period (first three centuries after Christ) to the era of the establishment of Christianity as the state religion”; endogamous marriage was rare, if it occurred at all.

    Moreover, Smith claims that the very different patterns seen in the north and south of Europe “remained geographically differentiated over millennia.” If we assume that the northwest European pattern has a number of critical disadvantages for those practicing it compared to the collectivist model, and if the moderately collectivist pattern persisted in much of Western Christendom in the south and east of Europe, and if the northwest European individualist pattern can be found at the very origins of record keeping, then the possibility that the northwest European pattern has its roots in prehistory must be considered as a strong possibility.

    The idea that simply providing incentives for people working the land would give rise to individualism also runs up against data showing that cultures, particularly Middle Eastern collectivist cultures, are highly resistant to assimilation of Western individualist norms

  4. Fox says:

    Charlemagne’s conquests in the late ninth century included Saxony and Bavaria,
    both part of the northwest European family pattern. Thus, despite being
    part of the Frankish Empire for longer than Saxony and Bavaria, southern European family structure and land-ownership, including France
    southwest of a geographical line stretching from Saint Malo to Geneva,
    continued to strongly diverge from northwestern Europe despite being
    part of the Frankish Empire relatively early, by 536 (see map below).

    Several areas of northwest Europe did not develop the manorial system, and it is a difficult but critical question as to why this happened given that the manorial system has been proposed as the most important causal factor in the development of European individualism

    These points are consistent with an ethnic perspective on family structure of the Germanic and closely related Scandinavian peoples in which the manorial system is an ethnic creation of the northern European peoples, as opposed to a blank slate perspective in which the manorial system—conceptualized as an accident of history—created a context in which individualism flourished.

    To elaborate, the implicit theory in the background of the contextualist perspective is a universalist model in which all humans have the same tendencies to embrace individualism if given the opportunity provided uniquely by the manorial system which came into being as a historical accident because of the unique conditions after the decline of the Roman Empire. However, as noted above, there were strong tendencies toward individualism in Europe among prototypical Indo-European groups, certainly including the Germanic groups, that gave rise to the manorial system in the first place.

    It is noteworthy that in Germania Tacitus describes relationships between masters and slaves in a manner quite consistent with the manorial system of the early Middle Ages:
    “The other slaves [i.e., those who did not voluntarily become slaves as a result of losing a dangerous game of skill] are not employed after our [i.e., Roman] manner with distinct domestic duties assigned to them, but each one has the management of a house and home of his own. The master requires from the slave a certain quantity of grain, of cattle, and ofclothing, as he would from a tenant, and this is the limit of subjection.”
    This embodies the essence of the manorial system, with slaves having substantial autonomy while nevertheless having obligations to the lord; if Tacitus is correct, this system long preceded incorporation of the Germanic tribes into the Empire.

    The ethnic perspective is also consistent with the fact that in southern Europe, family structure was more based on traditional kinship relations despite being part of the Frankish empire and having a system where lords were due rents and other obligations

    Like the Irish sept, the [germanic] Sippe had a territory but within the territory there was individual

    This last point undercuts the argument that the manorial system gave rise to individual property ownership as a result of incentives provided by lords under conditions of depopulation. Among both the Irish and the Germans, individual ownership of land co-existed within the septs and Sippe respectively, indicating that this critical aspect of individualism predated the manorial system.”

    TL:DR : high trust, slow life history, monogamy, outbreeding was not a strategy developed in northern europe, but inherent to its population since ancient times.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      But those ancient German tribes didn’t produce geniuses or evidence a genius maximization strategy. The only nonChristian societies who can claim this are the ancient Greeks and IIRC the Song Chinese.

  5. Fox says:

    >But those ancient German tribes didn’t produce geniuses or evidence a genius maximization strategy. The only nonChristian societies who can claim this are the ancient Greeks and IIRC the Song Chinese.

    The only christian societies who can claim this are the NW euros and the northern italians (who have quite a lot of germanic blood).

  6. Fox says:

    Diodorus pictures the tyrrhenians (etruscans) as very inventive and proficient people.
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/5B*.html (section 40)
    The tyrrhenians are likely another source of northern italian creativity.

    How to evaluate the level of genius of ancient cultures who didn’t have/use a script or whose texts/inscriptions aren’t available?
    By taking texts about them written by other cultures as a reference, and – more importantly – by searching for archaeological evidence (ie where does the oldest wheel found so far come from?).

    If you were to make a list of all known significant inventions after the start of agriculture and prior to the classical era, and add information regarding the cultures in which these inventions appeared the first time, you’ll find that the majority of them can be traced to indo-european cultures (I named a few in the first post).

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