Normie supremacy as neanderthal supremacy

There is an argument within the most autistic subculture on the internet, neanderthal identitarians, about whether neanderthal altruism is good, bad, or merely inappropriate for the modern day.

I represent the minority faction, which claims that the unrequited altruism of neanderthals operating in their genetic niche as geniuses is a special case of cross-group kin selection which is both morally good (without reservation) and the optimal reproductive strategy. I’ll refer to my position as “kithism”, taken from the root word “kith”, because I believe the fundamental disagreement comes from the conflation of kin selection and multi-level selection.

The majority faction can be described as the “treestumpers”, which is an Edenist meme that can be traced back to a video of a homeless guy in Canada who lives in a treestump and sucks dicks to subsidize his meth addiction. Treestumpers believe that altruism should only be practiced as part of a multi-level selection strategy, so that when the greater group fragments into atomized individuals living parasitically off the remaining accomplishments of the former civilization the genius’s altruism becomes inappropriate, an abstract form of cuckoldry. They are therefore predisposed to wait for the mass of parasites to undergo a Malthusian die-off, merely concerning themselves with increasing their own individual fitness in the meantime, so that they will be able to contribute to the next group-selected civilization as it arises.

A third group, probably the smallest, believes the optimal strategy is to form a breakaway nation of neanderthals which only breeds within itself and takes an isolationist foreign policy. I’ll offer a brief criticism of the third group first.

1. There is no reason to believe the neanderthal phenotype breeds true, as the genius phenotype has already been proven not to breed true. What would the ratio of neurotypical children to aspergic children be in this society? What would be done with the former?
2. The ratio of males to females expressing this phenotype is likely four-to-one, which raises serious issues with creating a sustainable breeding population that have not even been raised.
3. It has never been done successfully before. Where are the other neanderthal ethnostates? If they are adaptive, then we ought to be able to point to several that have existed for thousands of years.
4. Isolationism is a ridiculous foreign policy that indicates a negligent disinterest in outside affairs. No nation which is pridefully ignorant of outside nations will ever be able to win a war with them.
This latter group can be most accurately described as “Edenists”, so that’s the label I’ll use.

Ultimately, they are arguing in favor of insularity and purity-spiraling, which is why they do not engage in productive efforts toward their political ends and thus a brief criticism is sufficient.

Both kithists and treestumpers share the belief that the European genetic strategy is predicated on optimally exploiting the production of the genius phenotype. The argument boils down to the question of who needs whom more in the context of this strategy, geniuses or non-genius whites. I claim that geniuses are obligate symbionts and non-geniuses are facultative parasites. Treestumpers claim that geniuses are facultative symbionts and non-geniuses are obligate parasites.

Obligate symbionts are mutualists that tend to have a nutritional function and typically occur in insects that feed on imbalanced diets such as plant saps or cellulose [7]. In contrast, facultative symbionts have a much broader array of effects, ranging from mutualism to manipulation of reproduction [8].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081568/

A facultative parasite is an organism that may resort to parasitic activity, but does not absolutely rely on any host for completion of its life cycle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facultative_parasite

An obligate parasite or holoparasite is a parasitic organism that cannot complete its life-cycle without exploiting a suitable host.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_parasite

To reiterate, treestumpers claim the population of white normies are an obligate parasite phenotype dependent on the altruism of the host population of genius phenotypes. Alternatively, they may claim both populations are facultative symbionts or facultative parasites. However, I haven’t seen either argument put forth. Kithists claim the genius population is an obligate symbiont on the normie host population which only successfully reproduces as a group-selected phenotype.

My argument for kithism is fairly straightforward.

1. Geniuses do not reproduce anywhere near replacement levels and therefore cannot survive as a separate breeding population (i.e. not facultative).
2. Genius does not breed true. Two genius parents are unlikely to produce a child who is also a genius.
3. Neurotypical human groups likely existed for a long time before shamans existed, suggesting their relationship with geniuses is facultative. See the neanderthal origin theory and Texas Arcane’s response.

This evolution suggests that white people would be able to return to a more primitive sort of existence, painting their butts blue and running around the forest worshiping cargo planes and so on. Geniuses, however, would be produced at a lower and lower rate until the entire world descended into primitive savagery and there would no longer be any demand for group-selecting high technologies, since no one else would have it either. In this sense geniuses can be thought of as creating the demand for their phenotype by altruistically giving away their inventions.

For a micro-level example, if I increase the fitness of my extended family then we will outcompete any other extended families that don’t have altruistic geniuses in them, so that all surviving families will have one genius. But then my family may lose to another family with two geniuses in it. This becomes an arms race to increase the prevalence of genius phenotypes in our genepools until we hit an optimized ratio of geniuses-to-normies. It’s possible this equilibrium may be predicted by Hamilton’s rule:

Interacting organisms may have an evolutionary incentive to help each other (or at least to hurt each other less) if they share genes, and the magnitude of this incentive should increase with the degree of relatedness between them; this is the central tenet of William D. Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory 14– 16 (the term kin selection theory was coined by John Maynard-Smith 11 and is here used as a synonym for ‘inclusive fitness theory’ to comply with its conventional use). This tenet is encapsulated in a very simple form in Hamilton’s rule, which states that a (gene for a) social behavior is favored by natural selection if rb- c > 0, where c is the fitness cost to the individual performing the behavior, b equals the fitness benefit to the recipient(s), and r is the genetic relatedness between them 14, 15.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850877/

However, I avoided calling this “kin-ism” because one of the consequences of geniuses being a phenotype which shapes the cultural environment rather than the genepool directly (i.e. geniuses act on the level of nurture rather than natural selection) is that geniuses will often prefer their culture-shaping work over family connections. This makes them a distinct phenomenon from the “gay uncle” type of kin selection. What is most notable about this difference is that the utility of genius altruism for the genius’s reproductive strategy does not depend on the existence of other altruists in their extended kin. It only depends on the creation of the sort of high-complexity cultural environment which necessitates more altruistic geniuses in order for host populations to engage in group competition.

Going back to the example of my own extended family, let’s assume that my goal is for the world to have more geniuses in it. If, by my altruism, I shape the culture so that only families with two or more geniuses can compete, then even if my own extended family gets wiped out in group competition the genius phenotype still wins. So in purely selfish terms it is always correct for geniuses to act altruistically, even if it is not requited. This is different from the strategy for facultative phenotypes, for whom unrequited altruism just means they’re getting cucked.In that case, where the group is obviously going to lose in group competition due to high defection, it makes the most sense for the individual to invest more in their own reproductive fitness to try to survive the extinction of the greater group.

The central tenet of multilevel (or group) selection theory conveys that selection not only acts on individuals but can act (simultaneously) on multiple levels of biological organization, including cells and/or groups 48. This view suggests that even if behaviors that benefit other individuals are selectively disadvantageous at the level of the individual, they might still evolve if they are advantageous at—and hence selected for on—a higher level of the biological hierarchy (e.g. on the group or colony level) 6, 48. Altruism, for instance, is costly for the altruistic individual, but groups containing a higher proportion of altruistic individuals usually have a competitive advantage over groups that are composed mostly of selfish individuals (e.g. because altruistic groups are more productive or superior in direct confrontations). In such situations, altruism can evolve—driven by a process of selection between groups—even against the background of selection favoring selfishness within each group (e.g. 49, 50).”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850877/

If genius is not a special form of altruism as I’ve described above, but rather can be comprehensively explained as generalized mutualism, then the treestumpers are correct.

About Aeoli Pera

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

37 Responses to Normie supremacy as neanderthal supremacy

  1. Obadiah says:

    I still think the ectomorphic, high-foreheaded, gracilized “Amud Shaman” type is itself a specialized niche in a tribe of hunter-gatherer tool-users (imo most male members of a functional hunter-gatherer group would be more mesomorphic/endomorphic and practical-minded rather than impractical, super-specialized “dreamers”)

    There’s a lot to digest in this post so you may have to wait a bit to get my hot large-group-adapted opinions.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >I still think the ectomorphic, high-foreheaded, gracilized “Amud Shaman” type is itself a specialized niche in a tribe of hunter-gatherer tool-users (imo most male members of a functional hunter-gatherer group would be more mesomorphic/endomorphic and practical-minded rather than impractical, super-specialized “dreamers”)

      Could be, but a plausible alternative is that the Amud was a cosmopolitan.

      • Obadiah says:

        >Could be, but a plausible alternative is that the Amud was a cosmopolitan.

        I don’t know about that. We would expect genetically cosmopolitan types to have strong theory of mind, whereas we don’t see that w/ Amud.

  2. Obadiah says:

    I think most in a tribe of hunter-gatherers would be primarily focused on hunting and gathering–but this is not to say that the average archaic arch-thal would not be a genius when compared to the average normalfag of today.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Agreed. In a different social context I would be more than happy to just play sweeper for the local soccer team and leave the thinking to better-equipped minds.

  3. Fox says:

    Look at families that have produced academics, engineers, scientists and thinkers generation after generation, just like koanic’s produced MTs three times in a row (IIRC). Your family seems to be more of an exception, with you being the sole aspergian (like the single ginger in a dark-haired family).

    The reason purer neandethal breeding populations usually don’t crop up is simple: The thal has zero specialization for mate competition. Real thals will always be chosen by women, not choose them or chase them – and surely not “game” them. For the narcissistic melon woman (repetition), the thal man is a very good catch, for sapiens are beneath her and melon men don’t put up with her shit. Practically, the thal man is the melon lady’s personal servant and bodyguard.
    He won’t find his entwife bc searching for her goes against his nature. She must find and claim him before a melon woman does.

    Examples of thallish breeding populations (or pseudo-breeding populations):
    – puritans
    – germans in eastern europe
    – huguenotts (a lot of german geniuses in the 17th and 18th century descended from one huguenott guy, for example)
    – various scandinavian populations
    – professional classes in various countries like germany, britain, the us, france etc
    – lower aristocracy (knights etc)

    A “separation” strategy doesn’t have to create DA BURE NEANDERDAL in one iteration. Just keeping thal genes concentrated in a small genepool would be enough. Sooner or later, various groups would split off – some would be more normie-like, while others would be more thal-like. And out of those communities, newer, even more thallish ones could arise.

    The decisive point is to have an environment and a way of life that is easy for and comes naturally to thallish individuals, but is difficult and unnatural for non-thallish ones.

    Isolation is a great strategy, as long as no one is stupid enough to create a nation – look at the amish, for example.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Examples of thallish breeding populations (or pseudo-breeding populations)

      What I see:
      -Cold-adapted sapes with higher than average neanderthal admixture
      -Low genetic variance due to class insularity
      -Basically upper middle class populations from nations with ahistorically high IQs
      -Basically white people who have been bred and raised to act like k-selected northern Chinese

      What I don’t see:
      -A sociology based on mass hermitage
      -Eugenic matriarchy
      -Extreme visuospatial IQ tilt leading to a preference for impactful art at the expense of coherent philosophy (e.g. Japan) and pragmatic sensibility over puritannical ideology
      -Overgeneralized jacks-of-all-trades at the expense of specialized abstract professionals (a man in a treestump doing everything himself has to know all of the trades: electrical, plumbing, auto repair, etc.)

      • Fox says:

        Those populations had:
        – much higher individualism (compared to both parent populations and northeast asians)
        – a very different attitude towards women (see also the tribal germanics (Tacitus))
        – much higher rate of geniuses, incl technical (ie visual) ones + of individuals who are rather generalized than specialized

        Each of the example populations mentioned had sub-populations that were more thallish.

        As Tex said, thal and sapes genes are like oil and water – they never truly mixed, so disentangling the drops is relatively easy. This non-mixing is also the only way to explain how very thallish individuals can still pop up among NW euros now and then, despite no breeding programme or anything that would have a similar effect.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          It appears that you’re arguing in favor of shifting existing populations towards higher neanderthal expression rather than separatism.

          • Fox says:

            Without highly selective separation, neanderthal outliers are always submerged into the majority genepool one or two generations later (that’s what happened to most geniuses). Through several iterations of separation, selection and founder effect, a tribe that very reliably produces the visual-creative neanderthal “genius” type can arise.

            Lots of people want thals as mates, and their mating behaviour is much more aggressive than that of the thals. So in order for thals to find each other often enough, real, physical (not just merely social as would suffice for melons) separation is a requirement.

            Additionally, being surrounded by fellow thals would make them not only feel much more at home, but would also dramatically increase their genetic fitness. Imagine how far thals who already do relatively well, despite 90% of the people around them constantly sabotaging them or taking advantage of them, would go if the neighbour would reciprocate!

            Altruism-feedback-loop

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Real Edenism has never been tried.

            • Fox says:

              If your theory and Tex’s response (https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2019/04/17/theory-of-original-neanderthal-nation-a-loose-network-of-shaman-phenotypes-driven-together-by-necessity/) are correct, then “Real Edenism” was how neanderthals arose in the first place. Shouldn’t be too hard putting the pieces back together.

              How does your serve-the-normies idea help thals in the short or long run, especially considering that in an scaled and atomized environment, it’s corporations and states that reap the benefit of thal geniuses, not their families!

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >Shouldn’t be too hard putting the pieces back together.

              Maybe you should reread it, or you’ve mastered control of the sun already.

              >How does your serve-the-normies idea help thals in the short or long run,

              By raising the proportion of geniuses such that, given the correct environmental conditions, they will form their own stable breeding population.

              >especially considering that in an scaled and atomized environment, it’s corporations and states that reap the benefit of thal geniuses, not their families!

              My family and friends have benefited enormously from association with me. If someone is not actively benefiting their family, then the simple explanation is they aren’t altruistic.

            • Fox says:

              1. No need to go all the way and create the neanderthal type from scratch, bc most pieces are already there. If those pieces weren’t, we wouldn’t see even a tenth of the thals walking around today.

              2. Why rely on a non-direct way that might or might not work, when you could just apply the general principles of selective breeding via the separation approach?

              Every animal and plant breeder, as well as every eugenicist, knows they work.

              3. Most thals work for some corp or gov and get paid very inadequately for it. Most geniuses end up poor despite having made someone else incredibly rich. Most thals with normie parents have a bad relationship with them.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >No need to go all the way and create the neanderthal type from scratch, bc most pieces are already there. If those pieces weren’t, we wouldn’t see even a tenth of the thals walking around today.

              I disagree, it’s likely most of the genetic pieces have indeed been lost.

              >Why rely on a non-direct way that might or might not work, when you could just apply the general principles of selective breeding via the separation approach?

              Again, because the thals themselves don’t breed.

              >Most thals work for some corp or gov

              I think this reveals our fundamental point of disagreement. Most of the people you call “thals” I would call progressive cro magnons, or high-IQ upper middle class professionals.

              >Most geniuses end up poor despite having made someone else incredibly rich.

              That’s the nature of macro innovation. It carves out space for micro innovation, which is where the real money is made. There is no money in macro innovation, so proper geniuses will be altruistic and nonmaterialistic.

              >Most thals with normie parents have a bad relationship with them.

              Is it the duty of the majority to accommodate the minority or vice versa?

            • Fox says:

              Are you a thal according to your definition? Is Tex? How many of the people typed TT in the forums were thals?
              Were geniuses like Newton, Tesla, Nobel, Kelvin, Maxwell thals or not?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >Are you a thal according to your definition?

              Yes.

              >Is Tex?

              Yes.

              >How many of the people typed TT in the forums were thals?

              Probably about 5% were actually TTs. Robotnick, Slampropp/Lorien, Polymath (FT), and lflick come to mind.

              >Were geniuses like Newton, Tesla, Nobel, Kelvin, Maxwell thals or not?

              Yes, with several MTs mixed in, occasional MMs (e.g. Cauchy), and very occasional TMs (e.g. Rachmaninoff).

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >Probably about 5% were actually TTs.

              Glenn complained about this tendency to overtyping as early as 2014 if I recall.

  4. Fox says:

    I’ll add that melon men are likely also attracted to thal women (I think aeoli had that idea years ago). Thal women are pretty, intelligent, trustworthy and much easier to handle than melon women (who can be awful bitches).

    The competitor-type can’t cooperate with his own kind easily – it’s especially difficult if he’s been tainted or cursed somehow (that could be called “narcissism”, but it’s more than that), bc then he/she can’t submit. The melon woman can’t submit to the melon man, the melon man can’t submit to the melon women. The melon daughter can’t submit to the melon father, and neither can the melon son. Thus, they’re almost supernaturally drawn to thals – with the thal man – melon woman combination being by far the most prevalent.

    Melons are entrepreuners, so they’ll be the ones to meet others and open the possibility of a relationship. Thals are much slower and passive at these sort of things. Thus, the melon chooses. So, thal-melon hybridization is a thing that necessarily occurs, and is hard to avoid.

    • Obadiah says:

      That opposites attract isn’t just a reality when it comes to magnets–it also seems to be true in the psycho-spiritual dimension of existence. Psychic connectivity seems to generate the most powerfully magical and supernatural phenomena the more different each person is.

      • Obadiah says:

        The more psychologically distant two people are, the more powerful their psychic tension/attraction because “one has what the other does not” in increasingly dramatic measure.

        Hence British teenage boys becoming obsessed with American negro rock and roll music midway through the last century (Ahriman becoming enamored with Lucifer) and me becoming obsessed with Aeoli’s mind/blergh (Lucifer becoming enamored with Ahriman).

        • Obadiah says:

          I should say “Lucifer-leaning person becoming enamored with Ahriman-leaning person” because each person has both Luciferic and Ahrimanic traits but I would, in my initial state, definitely be imbalanced toward Lucifer (or force and freedom without morals and integrity) and Aeoli, in his initial state, would be imbalanced toward Ahriman (or morals and integrity without force and freedom).

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >I’ll add that melon men are likely also attracted to thal women (I think aeoli had that idea years ago).

      And vice versa, which is yet another reason I’d ask neanderthals to adapt to a changing environment. They may not be able to beat the melonman at his own game, but they can shore up some of their more extreme social deficiencies.

  5. bicebicebice says:

    SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER

    SOCIAL DISTANCING

    SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM

    all the while sapes + social don’t mix because they are all sociopaths in nice but problematic speak or ANIMALS in bad hitlerian speak ergo a sape can graduate into his melonbooner rulers but failing that he becomes an animal and needs more whippin for his blockpushin, with the Borgonizer they are going for a craddle to the grave style upbringing (thalbooning), complementing money instead of replacing it meaning a poor person can ride the nice bus whereas the rich but bad person can ride the corona virus deathwagon. will it (be allowed to) work?
    as we can quickly deduce, technology, invented by thals will always be used against thals, the thals greatest strength and only way of survival is his wild adaopted-body and autistic mind, happily playing with treestumps all day and there is nothing wrong with that, especially sin Martz is off the table. the prime exampool is the internet; this global “redpilling” library turned into a jewish whorehouse expediating souls to satan post haste. nice job, thal thardson. “NOOOOO muh normies they just need more nasal sprays they be good boys despite me shitting on their born-with-permanent genetic make-up”, again why the chinese are going for the borgonizer.

    Obviously, in retrospect and hindsight, thalbooning was sort of successfull in a world of around 1 billion population, today, in fuckoo-world, forget about it. itz over.

    @Fox
    based and redpilled observation and summary of the whole situation 11/10

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Obviously, in retrospect and hindsight, thalbooning was sort of successfull in a world of around 1 billion population, today, in fuckoo-world, forget about it. itz over.

      In other words, treestumping worked until it didn’t, and even if being a ronin samurai sounds romantic in reality being hungry and alone sucks dick (muh cannibal fags) and accelerates dysgenic breeding.

  6. Pingback: A superior treestump (normie supremacy redux) | Aeoli Pera

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