Further Owl convo re: JUA

anyway, JUA suggestions?
the point I keep coming back to is motivation…PUA had obvious motivation, (indeed, the most intrinsic)
but JUA isn’t going to fill a need unless that need is known, acknowledged, and accetped
now, there’s the Henry Ford approch of mkaing something first so people know what they want after they see it
This is going to have to be any first step. we then have two reelvant camps of people
those who realize they need basic norms and institution-building, and those who can be brought to need it
*rather, brought to accept the y need it
in time, success is the best advertising, but bridging the gap between this point and that one is going to require smart planning, flexibility, and a bit of luck

one intersting aspect of this we face is the human capital element
we can’t assume this is going to have significant input from those already pro-social and capable already
using Vox’s terms, we have to accept that this is mostly going to be low-delta phenomenon with significant proportions of omegas and gammas
the weakness of PUA ended up being that is was broken people doing dancing monkey routines, and that’s an end result we need to avoid
which implies there needs to be a deeper element to it

They were successful for a while, but then the immune system of society adapted.
This is comparable to the world of sales and robo-calling.
There’s a similar dynamic here because the immune system of society is designed to prevent disfavored men from having sex, etc. And we’re talking about disfavored men having male relationships, which is more or less equally desirable.
And the immune system both passively adapts to new strategies and actively seeks out disfavored men to destroy them.
What I’m referring to as “the immune system” is basically just the men who are on the top.
Correction: The common interest of those men and its mimetic network.
In our society the common interest is essentially organized crime with a facade of respectability.

Regarding the spectrum, where we’re proposing to collectivize the low end, I think it pays to conceive of it as the head girl-to-hermit spectrum.
A bestiary, ranked by GFP, will help.
What’s a good suffix that could replace -cel?
Maybe that’s a question for later.
So on the one hand, you have people who don’t need to be told to form groups.
They do it like breathing. Their social networks are wide and deep. Everyone likes them.
If they wanted to form a new church, they’d just say so and it would happen because they were born to organize people and have applied themselves to practice their profession for their entire lives.
Despite the “head girl” term, the majority of 9s and 10s are going to be men.
Do we think this is a bell curve or Pareto?
I.e. Genetic or biographical?
We’re more or less proposing a self-help curriculum for learning demogoguery.
Maybe call it a mix of demogogue and…whatever you’d call the administrative part.
The former is going to overlap significantly with sales skills and the latter will overlap significantly with “soft” skills like maintaining a CRM.

For example, there’s an idea in B2B sales to big companies (ref. the eponymous Jill Konrath book) of finding the “decision maker” among the chaff.
In terms of organizing a group, this is the equivalent of identifying the influencers.
Back in the day the government tried to organize the black community by giving money to “community leaders” before they realized nobody listened to them, because black people don’t listen to anybody.
That’s more or less the situation now among white men, except we’re operating under the assumption that there’s genetic potential that’s being actively suppressed.
We should probably quantify the actual difference between genetic potential for cultural activism versus the realized potential.
As usual, this gets us into the weeds about definitions. Are Asians better at cultural activism than white people just because they have higher IQs and higher GFPs? Or is it just verbal IQ that matters?
Does art count?
What’s the preferred ratio of men to women in a farmer’s market? A school board meeting? A knitting circle?

that last bit is probably a bit too “trees” versus “forest”
and while i still think there’s merit in the term cultural activisim, we should be careful not to let the language cloud our thinking
ultimately, this is just regrowing cultural and civil society
occidental culture has always been one of organizations: clubs, salon, lodges, socieites…etc

In that case, it may help to define why we want to nurture a culture and society.
What’s in it for you?

big-picture: better life outcomes.

For you?

better health, better social relationships, healthier counry and culture
for me personally or for our particular target indivudal?
latter: hopefully what we’ve defined
me personally: what’s the point of life if you don’t leave something positive and lasting behind?

If I may summarize your governing philosophy, salus populi.
Salus populi suprema lex esto.

broad strokes, pretty muhc

And I’m inclined to summarize your intrinsic reason as the philosophy of Solidus Snake.
Do you want/have children?
Solidus focused on memetics because he couldn’t have children.

definitely want but don’t have them yet

There’s a very good chance your priorities will shift once you do.
At that point it’s salus domus lex something something.

so i’m told. i accept this

In my case it’s Jean Valjean’s choice. I’ve been driven to the choice of being either a saint or a monster.

“Did he understand all those mysterious murmurs which warn or importune the spirit at certain moments of life? Did a voice whisper in his ear that he had just passed the solemn hour of his destiny; that there no longer remained a middle course for him; that if he were not henceforth the best of men, he would be the worst; that it behooved him now, so to speak, to mount higher than the Bishop, or fall lower than the convict; that if he wished to become good he must become an angel; that if he wished to remain evil, he must become a monster?”

i think i’ve seen that fork in the road once or twice

And since I want to go to heaven and not hell, it’s a simple choice. Albeit not an easy one.


It’s like when I talked about how aspies don’t have the option of being human, because that’s a two-way street between you and society. At best, we can be conceived of as a force of nature.
We’re also uniquely suited to fill that role, which offers a connection back to humanity, albeit a different one.

it’s a different piece of the bigger puzzle

There’s great value to society in being an unmoving, objective reference for the normies.
Heaven and earth may fall away, but while floating in the all-changing ether if you find an internet connection you will find a new video of Reviewbrah being disappointed by Burger King’s latest creation.

the genuine dearth of unmoving objective references is a fsacinating thing to think about, especially in a bigger picture sense
i think the most fascinating fact in astrophysics is that even time itself is only measured relative to phsyical objcets
solar versus sidereal day, and that sort of thing
but even the bigger units of time such as years also involve reference to points such as the first point of Aries and that sort of thing
i’m a bit rusty on all this as its been a while. my terminology might be imprecise
anyway, my point is that we don’t get any objective measurement of time without an unyielding, permanenlty fixed point on which to base everything
and even in the really foundational stuff, the points have moved over thousands of years
if we knew exact universal center, we could finally have a single fixed reference point
but we don’t
that’s always struck me as a problem that exists in all realms of human knowledge and inquiry
where is the fixed point?
and “God” is an easy answer that only theoretically answers the question

Well, by analogy you could use the Big Bang in astrophysics.
And presumably for physics generally.
Although that probably gets into questions about definitions I’m too dumb to understand.
The typical strategy is to define things by the nearest, biggest, most predictable thing.
So…the sun, things like that.

sure. obvious move, and one that works when dealing with the human scale

We have a theoretical reference and a practical reference, what’s the problem?

my fascination isn’t with the day-to-day “how do we measure things”, whihc is pretty well sovled after thousnads of years, it’s the bigger question of absoulte understanding
it’s the whole philosophical “lac of absolute certainy in the things we think we know” thing

I’m an epistemological pragmatist, if that helps.

so am i, in truth
but more out of habit and necessity than genuine conviction

Oh I see, we’re in the same boat that way except it doesn’t bother me.
By nature I’m inclined to gnosticism and the “gnostic fallacy” as I described it.
But life beat that foolishness out of me.

i wouldn’t say it bothers me, but it’s certainly an interesting wrinkle to how i think about the world
maybe it all ties in with ideas about the priscia sapienta and all that
the quest for the unmovable, fixed point from which all genuine knowledge can flow


well, te general flow of metaphyscis from descartes to hume to kant

These days I’ve come to realize even logic, as defined by Aristotle, could be a delusional schizophrenic type of certainty.

really, the central conceit of western metaphysics in a nutshell, i suppose

But again, in pragmatic terms Descartes is an excellent starting place.

well you can derive anything logically depending on your inputs
as in programming, data science, and a lot of other fields: garbage in, garbage ut
if i start with the assumption that i am actually a mermaid, i can derive no shortage of magnificent but untrue conclusions

You could also come up with mostly true conclusions.
It’s always struck me that people of all belief systems can agree on the most practical statements of fact.
Molyneux and I may not have much philosophy or religion in common, but we can both give directions to the nearest gas station.
That example has served me well in thinking about lies and deception.
Even a murderous psychopath will typically give correct directions to the gas station.
The only two examples that come to mind for deception in that scenario are a high school senior giving the wrong directions to a freshman on the first day of school as a prank (trolling) and a predator who has thought of a way to entrap prey this particular way.
Both are very unlikely, although the former happened to me.
Returning to philosophy, I’ve noted that what people tend to disagree on are the more momentous things, and what they agree on are the more trivial things.
I believe Jesus is Lord and my next-door neighbor is going to hell because he doesn’t, but we agree where the gas station is.
He thinks Russians should be exterminated, I think Ukrainians should be exterminated, but we agree where Russia and Ukraine are on the map. Surely the former is more important.
(This is a hypothetical, I don’t think Ukrainians should be exterminated and I haven’t met my new neighbors.)

yeah, point taken

That’s more of a psychological observation.
Oh! The point was to say that if you believe you’re a mermaid I bet you can still give directions.
Unless you’re a woman.
I suppose this observation is ultimately why I became an empiricist at heart where I’m inclined to be an idealist by nature.

well some forms of knowledge don’t need a grand theory
you don’t need to parse heidegger to find a gas station
and i wouldn’t trust someone to build a gas station using only being and time as a reference guide
we would definitely get the idea of a gas station, and yet quitle likely not the key substance
anyway, better knowledge comes from 1) refining your inputs and 2) refining your data processing

Call it a day here?

sounds good

Next week?

next week works for me
and i shall strive not to be late next time!

Very good sir. My German side dominates my personality in the world of business.
Don’t know why, but it’s certainly preferable to the Irish approach to business.
>Be genial
>Lose focus
>Lose money

It’s the mullet approach
Prussian in the front, gaelic in the back

About Aeoli Pera

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

6 Responses to Further Owl convo re: JUA

  1. Zeb Zebley says:

    -civ for civitas, citizen

    civlord vs inciv

    I’m thinking don’t say unciv, the word feels like a beacon for pua oathbreaker wannabe barbarians, who would try to live up to the name and score pussy points by wrecking actual progress.

    • aiaslives says:

      Everything and anything is a beacon call for misshapen chumbuckets these days, you can find some idiot inverting a good thing on the internet without fail. Most PUA people are now also life coaches or something and are experts in handwaving and extracting money from said chumbuckets.

      PUA -> JUA is a bad solution, what is *really* needed is to capitalize on the extensive internet use by normies and influence what they do in meatspace by letting your words build up in their digital space. We go from normies -> ruler class antics.

      And remember, whatever feels “new” likely isn’t, it’s likely being practiced somewhere by some group successfully. We need to see a few steps ahead rather then stick at position 0, so we can determine where position 0 should be, and if we should even care about it.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        > And remember, whatever feels “new” likely isn’t, it’s likely being practiced somewhere by some group successfully.

        This is important, and it’s why I’m interested in hackbooks.

      • aiaslives says:

        > what is *really* needed is to capitalize on the extensive internet use by normies and influence what they do in meatspace by letting your words build up in their digital space.

        I don’t advocate joining their digital spaces, but their meatspace exclusively. Maybe even as a supposed person who tried to socialize online but was rejected.

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 )

Connecting to %s