On the characteristic individualism of Western cultures.
“Weber suggested that one of the central causes of the emergence of capitalism and its associated features was the disappearance of extended family structures. … ‘freeing’ the market and the individual.“
The individual didn’t exist beforehand.
It’s a common question so here you go, either you can read it or stop circling the same three questions like clueless vultures.
1.How did we get here? – Libertarians who thought they could share without loss.
2.What’s going on with our demography? – r/K but read Malthus first aka Who is alive and why?
3.Why are we different? – Individualism opposes collectivism (non-Europeans) and those differences are irreconcilable, because they are genetic.
Nationalism must come before any capitalistic position or you lose all your resources to the outgroup. You must be fair on your own citizens or no good will come of it.
I was deeply dissatisfied with my final post of the year and figured I’d slapdash together something that is more intellectually stimulating, in a similar vein. It’s only mildly controversial if you’re interested in labels over substance.
“When women act like women, they are accused of being inferior. When women act like human beings, they are accused of behaving like men.”
Does that sound like a healthy civilization with any longevity?
What happened to all the meritocratic arguments to incentivize contributions in capitalist theory?
So we can accept racial differences and class differences and national differences and age differences but sex differences you can prove in a scanner or under a microscope are evil (well if God made…) and we must all be the same (the male standard is also shit) in misery and behavioural equality, the neuroscience be damned? Is that the world you want, putting power trip fantasies aside?
No society with catch 22s will survive, let alone thrive.
There must be two paths: to do, and to not do. There must be clear praise and condemnation and no blurring between those paths. No muddying the waters or blurring it for certain people. Either a thing is right or wrong, unless you are a moral relativist and then you believe in neither, for they’re absolute concepts.
The logic between sexes must be consistent also, it is no more right for a woman to steal than a man (Ten Commandments shout-out). It is no more moral for a man to assault, as they do, mathematically. Naturalistic fallacy is not an excuse, we are all biological and still retain the human quality of impulse control.
At the least, we ought.
We can uplift both sexes in a society without oppressing anyone. The technology exists now, where most of us can probably live in leisure most of the week. If we discussed it and developed it, i.e., cooperated together for mutual betterment! Where did you get the idea oppression has limits? It can’t be historical… Wealth is the hard cap but aside from that, men won’t be spared the same societal factors women would live under.
e.g. Employed singles of either sex still pay for the living of feckless breeders and the spawn without limit.
You can’t appreciate your fellows? Well, we don’t have a future then. Darwin always wins, darlings. Think of the tribe, we are not atomized, lonely individuals like the 20th century tries to force down our throats.
Where it exists, oppression spreads. Sadists work that way. It’s a betrayal whoever is on the receiving end, these circumstances predate our birth. Nobody living is fully responsible for this system, another red herring.
If we spent a little of our time wasted on the Third World that doesn’t want to change on improving our own lot, imagine what could be achieved. Immigration and multiculturalism are a deliberate ruse to throw off our resources, especially time, into establishing what used to be a norm. We’re stuck playing catch-up and tempers fray, stressed we lash out at the in-group, worsening our collective condition. It is no coincidence we replaced child labour with female. The economy will take its pound of flesh, I suggest we do robots instead of adult people. Society cannot ever again be ignorant of the female potential exemplified around the 1940s but bursting in brief lights long before. Can we afford to turn away our own kin for something minor as not being exactly like the current leaders, who, by the way, are clearly doing such a bang-up job of running things, aren’t they? /s
Do the foolish deserve to fail in any good society? How to deal with their complaints?
Failing men (and women) will complain about it. They’ll say the competition is wrong.
Obviously they will, never before have the dregs had such a loud voice. Nobody else has time to protest that much or write such long blog posts. ~glances at viewer and nods~ The antisocial and envious must be constrained from infecting everyone else like the emotional vampires they are.
They live better than Henry the Bloody Eighth. Prisoners do too. We are the grandiose brats of modern history. To compare farther back is sickening.
Again, there is no need to ban the un-competitive, they simply fall away in a fair contest. It’s obscure to claim a barrier, arbitrarily, in equal opportunity theory, either they misunderstand it or argue in bad faith.
Good for whites, bad for whites, you all say? We have a word for it, prosocial or antisocial. Use the proper terms, the Left will not. Accuracy is our strong suit.
If you only read male philosophers, sorry, but you haven’t read the subject. This isn’t like novels where they’re basically all the same, you get a pass on that for preference. Still, I didn’t skip out on male poets because that would’ve been sexist, you should be fascinated to hear the other side of humanity to which you may never belong. Unless a person really can change their sex? ….Thought not.
Violent crime statistics. MRI studies of psychopathy. Appeal to history (which cannot be demonstrated when called upon, because it never existed in fact, it was a helpful societal myth from around the Enlightenment era). Concepts like Patriarchy are unfalsifiable both ways. However, when I see Husband Selling like they’re subhuman chattel, I might believe in a Matriarchy. If you whine, do it with a smidgen of self-awareness?
Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud and a little bit of Nietzsche.
If you had a loving wife and children, you wouldn’t feel the need to rage at wombs.
Do you want us to try equally hard (effort) or are we allowed to be lazy, pick ONE.
Don’t give us shit for doing as you asked us to…?
That left-side of the bell curve… we all have stories, men don’t really think twice about it though. The sexual prevalence of obnoxious people doesn’t strike them, which is convenient and annoying.
Maybe we need studies.
They don’t even notice the abundance of Men Doing Stupid Shit stories in the newspapers, it’s like a goldfish noticing water. You don’t get to pin a badge on your chest reading Accomplished because you have a Y-chromosome. Arrogance is a male quality in all the myths for a reason, men over-estimate themselves in studies vastly more frequently. Arrogance is not esteem, far from it, nowadays it’s called narcissism. Men need to be the slightly simpler sex, because otherwise they’d have never taken the stupid risks to survive once kicked out of the tribe at the time they hit majority age (otherwise incestuous rape with female relations was a possibility, plus they needed to find a mate by travelling to other local tribes and passing their tests). Shall we bring back that rite of passage, if we want strong men again? You can’t have strength of character without the fatally high stakes that turn boys into men. Courage and stupidity are blurred but while shouting about the former, they literally deny the latter…. which rather suffices to prove our point.
Relevant so included. The mediocre ones are easier to control/rescue from life-risking stupidity that ends up ruining your whole family along with their misplaced sense of arrogance. Other men used to check them in youth but that isn’t happening soon. Average evolved as a sexual preference.
Original form of “the map is not the territory”.
It’s strange they’ll go on about Rand but only the economics and ignore De Beauvoir’s existentialism.
By strange I mean completely intellectually dishonest.
Arguments from bad faith, a certain moral cowardice common in young men at present.
Maybe some slice of laziness where they assume there’s nothing worth reading, but recall, they aren’t misogynists, somehow… Well, if that prejudiced disdain of anything female isn’t a misogynist, what is?
She pre-empted Dawkin’s Selfish Gene: “Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying.” If you care so much for truth, why not credit? It’s also a sweeping condemnation of hedonism.
If quoting a woman makes you feel insecure, women aren’t the weaker sex.
A little on metrics before I go.
Once the priming effect and other systemic, proven problems in all academic testing are accounted for, women are beginning to score objectively better than men on the blind-marked IQ test. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2174528/Yes-women-higher-IQ-men-thats-Ill-make-prediction-enrage-them.html
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. HBD doesn’t tell you what you like, it tells you what is possible.
The narrow definitions of IQ have never been legitimate, and this goes for verbal, for instance, that women score better on overall. It’s a global metric of all-round functioning as ‘g’ or invalid to be counted as the theoretical construct.
IQ is originally a learning ability test and since learning requires obedient following of instructions, you would expect women to do better on it. Learning is feminine-oriented, as an activity. It isn’t a marker of human superiority the way America has tried to make a genius idolatry a form of hero worship over Hollywood. There are no ‘celebrities for smart people’, scientism is old. The Hollywood people actually have to do something – other than exist?
Paper genius is bullshit. They sell the official piece of paper to ditzy parents.
However, IQ and other metrics correlate to life outcomes, it is useful scientifically.
Identification (with celebrities) should inspire you to act, not live vicariously like a stage Mom but claiming involvement in the glamours of STEM work (anyone can get involved, go clean test tubes).
Wilson: “And a second very big question is, since, women are as intelligent as men, or more so, why did feminism take so long, historically, to get started?”
That one is easy, compulsory schooling about 150 years ago, universities places about 60-80 years ago, in living memory women were forbidden from competing fairly. He goes on to make the classic error of assuming men haven’t changed too. They don’t try at school, porn is a distraction during school years and schools are mixed when evidence says that reduces scores. A blend of exam and coursework is best, not to avoid favour – although this too – but because the more metrics of knowledge, the better the qualification in the market.
And isn’t that the point? These aren’t vanity academics.
Boys were pulled off the farms in the middle ages in the first schools, same boom of intellectual achievement happened then too… since it pre-empts the mythical Enlightenment time period, atheists do not wish to discuss that priests might’ve done something right, to the collective denial of male work ethic and social mobility. The middle class sprang up and families were liberated.
Simone on the decline:
“Whatever the country, capitalist or socialist, man was everywhere crushed by technology, made a stranger to his own work, imprisoned, forced into stupidity. The evil all arose from the fact that he had increased his needs rather than limited them; . . . As long as fresh needs continued to be created, so new frustrations would come into being. When had the decline begun?
The day knowledge was preferred to wisdom and mere usefulness to beauty. . . . Only a moral revolution – not a social or political revolution – only a moral revolution would lead man back to his lost truth.”
You don’t read this stuff, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Remember the original feminists objected to the idea that former slaves would be treated better than them, relatives of the men drafting the laws with demonstrable intellect and accomplishments. It has a history soaked in race realism. We can pick and choose the structures from history that suited us best then and apply now. Nobody is doing this. The scientific approach. Machiavelli would be disappointed.
I hope Odin brings you plenty of shiny Asian-produced crap this year.
It’ll break by February, much like my patience on the topics that are life/death to conceited white people. We are all human and all flawed and all riding in the same, sinking boat.
This is a post I’m proud of.
“Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth.” Sartre, her lover.
How this isn’t better-known I do not know. https://archive.org/details/pdfy-2F_iHS6BLtGJb2ad
It’s short. 26 pages short.
I must admit my own stupidity because I wondered in a quiet moment, why is nobody citing this? I assumed I’d already linked to it and like Camp of the Saints, it should be popular. Searched, nothing.
My prediction: you’re going to see a much more blatant anti-white/male/straight propaganda as time goes on. This must take place, in order to keep the left from collapsing.
I think we chalk that one up as confirmed.
One way to stop the left is to divert attention away from an ambiguous threat from abroad and instead shift the focus to the left’s different faction of activists. The narrative to fragment the left could work as such: the power that you want to fix your oppression is finite, and not only is it finite but all the other activists are vying for a bigger slice of that power. If you don’t take it, they will take it from you. If you want to end your oppression, then you need to secure it from the others, who, if they had it, wouldn’t even throw you a bone. They’re privileged after all. They can’t see your oppression.
So Anonymous Conservative’s fine work on the amygdala.
You remind them they are still in natural, biological competition with one another, their survival goals are opposed and the stack screws them over, personally. The priors were temporarily ignored – i.e. when this is over, who will run things, black men or white lesbians?
They have NOTHING.
Each writes their own personal utopia.
You just gotta prod in the right direction, remember most of these people are unstable – on meds. Still unstable.
Rentseeking eventually runs out of a rich daddy figure.
It isn’t one homogeneous blob. It’s going to tumble eventually.
Stop giving it an external target to shoot at and pool its resources. They adored that Charlottesville march, it was the first thing they had to talk about in decades and it galvanized them post-Trump. You made them stronger. This is why many of us agreed to stop engaging with them, even online – shortly before they went stir-crazy from lack of input. Their own anger short-circuits and blows on the nearest enemy.
They already hate each other, they just hated us more. We disappear from the picture, at least partially from their view and temporarily, they must start getting their outrage relief at one another’s expense.
Holier than Thou tosspots.
Change your hat, get a new coat and concern troll. How hard is that?
Remind them of the danger different factions pose. Hey, who do you think made TERFs a thing?
Start with the biggest demographic ally, usually the vapid white women, because obviously they have privilege and must pay a special fee to the Church. Being too happy and secure is a sin. Begin introducing the fellow whites to alternate explanations. Small fry. Allow to simmer.
In one: Block off the low IQ from the high IQ and wait.
These are not smart people. Stop letting them win.
They don’t even believe in IQ so this is a cinch.
You wanna feel oppressed? You already are, so shhh. Patience is required.
The goal is to allow the neutrals in their life, to see what’s in store for them. You don’t want them to have a private meltdown at an internet “Nazi” – you want them to call their boss a Nazi.
We want to pump up the rookie numbers of Pride. Normal people have a negative reaction to pride as an emotion.
There is a far more immediately practical reason for reaction to involve itself in the exploration of time, however: to take steps to avoid what it could scarcely otherwise avoid becoming — a sterile orgy of disgruntlement. Finding nothing in the present except deteriorated hints of other things, reaction soon slides into what it most detests: an impotent micro-culture of vocal, repetitive protest. This isn’t right, this isn’t right, this isn’t right quickly becomes white noise, or worse (intelligible whining). Even when it escapes the ceaseless, mechanical reiteration of a critical diagnosis (whose tedium is commensurate to the narrowed times it damns), its schemes of restoration fall prey to a more extended repetition, which calls only — and uselessly — for what has been to be once more.
Ever brilliant and timely.
We shouldn’t shirk critique of the past nor improvement in the present.
Any fool can say That is wrong, it’s concern trolling, few people can tell you what to do instead.
Has the requirement for the old policy changed? It’s like interpreting the Bible as if you live in the place/time of its writing. Don’t. It should be a living document.
I don’t expect those who pretend to care about the IQ dearth to read around.
I post these things for the intellectually honest.
It may seem strange to include this specific form of hatred with the list, but a fact is that many inferiors have a deep hatred of women, which makes it a characteristic of inferiority.
If we’re examining personality traits of inferiors, it is completely valid as a behavioural marker.
Just as with geniuses, most inferiors are men. The ultimate in this are feats like the burning of widows, or demanding women to spend their lives indoors or walk six metres behind their husband, covered from head to toe with their genitals cut up beyond all repair.
In addition, rape is standard behaviour of inferiors, typically resulting in the conception of multiple children with many different women. Relevant in this respect is that imprisoned males in Western countries conceive more children than do males on average, mirroring the phenomenon that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies the males with the most offspring – as confirmed by modern D.N.A. studies – are those who have made the greatest number of kills in tribal warfare.
Uncivilized breeders who can’t cooperate to literally save their lives, sound like any type of selection we know?
Because it’s been years since I read the book, (it actually came out in 2014-2015, moron) I’m going to ‘review’ (rip to shreds cruelly) this review. [tldr: Y’ALL NEED HBD, JESUS.]
5,000-ish words. Putting the shit into shitposting.
Because I can.
I feel I’ve lost YEARS off my life doing this, like the machine in Princess Bitchin’ Bride.
That’s its name now.
They’re bigging up Charlton because so many others (including yours truly) did first. Happy little lemmings of the online trend.
I’m happy for him and his co, Genius Famine is a solid 4-star book. It’s actually K-selection, that missing puzzle piece, a norm of religiosity is a part of it, not the other way around. Also, excess religion kills everyone. Massive hypothetical problems right there. MOVING TAYLOR SWIFTLY ON.
WE NEED HARDER SCIENCES. It’s a little like porn, the soft stuff is never enough.
“intelligence is negatively correlated with genetic signs of high mutational load–such as an ‘asymmetrical’ (ugly) face”
I linked to that the other day lately, and I’m basically the ONLY person round these parts who calls it mutation load when the correct scientific nomenclature is ‘genetic load’. I thought mutation/al was more descriptive. I am one literary bitch. WHO is stealing my shit?
Naturally, the only solution to an unnatural, manmade boom is artificial eugenics. I digress. There isn’t even a bar cart in sight. It’s my inner alcoholic. Charlton tries so sincerely to answer an HBD question with philosophy, applying religion to (a problem of) evobiology is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. My linking to his blog was intended as a supplement, not the substantive meal. For that, look up key HBD authors. If God himself came down on a fluffy cloud and zapped people with lightning bolts like a rock star Zeus, it still wouldn’t change the fact DNA exists and evolutionary genus have undergone speciation. If God created everything, why is any of his creation a bad thing to you? Where is your faith? Why wouldn’t He want us to understand all the incredible detail He threw into this video game? He’s got the whole world in his hands. So technically, God is cupping your balls. Respect Him.
The Industrial Revolution is fingered in A Troublesome Inheritance (uncited) but the evidence to support it is limited. Sharing the technology seems to have been the problem, the profit motive. Releasing certain technologies puts them in the hands of the low-IQ by default. This doesn’t end well, see the concepts of game theory and the arms race for further details.
There were actually two sexual revolutions before the one we know of the 1960s. Boomers are not the pivotal generation of history. The 60’s finale is the nail in the Western coffin with the Long March Through the Institutions, as the brilliant minds of the prior century finally died off.
1 – The Romantic Movement of the early 1800s. You’ve heard of it, Byron? Suddenly feelings were more important than facts and everyone realized what a special snowflake they were.
2 – The Belle Epoque and a little beforehand. The lifetime of Oscar Wilde fits it neatly. Again, the postwar generosity of K-types to struggling unfit societies in the name of God is the problem. Yes, I posit that Missions from God are demonic. When you consider everything they spawned to the outgroup is suffering – from the continued spread of leprosy, booming and starving populations, the rise of HIV, NGO child rape scandals and various tribal wars over scarce resources, the do-gooders of the 19th century killed it for the whole world of the 20th onward, who have had a dependent child in the guilt over the Third World it created ever since. Prove me wrong, internet. I know you can’t.
There’s an academic book, about 500 pages, called Pathological Altruism if you wanna know the mindset behind dumb white people who selfishly think the whole world should aspire to be Just Like Them. As if that’s possible or desirable. It’s written by a woman though, so I don’t expect it to make the same splash in this part of the internet, that constantly complains there aren’t enough women (while insulting and ignoring our contributions, bc thinking tits are terrifying).
HBD answers the concerns about inter-class fertility/fecundity, because class is rather constant based on your genome down the centuries. As in, social mobility has its limits. You can look all this stuff up in your own sweet time, you are literally online to be reading this, you’ve got no excuse. This is forbidden science because it is predictive. The current paradigm of equalism is not. The factors mentioned in this article precisely fit into other topics.
Family size – time preference, present and historical age at marriage, cultural expectations, national wealth and debt. Therefore, you’d expect Western(er) fertility will NEVER rise until national debt is removed as a dysgenic pressure. Not one of you wankers boo-hooing over the future has mentioned this. Clarey got close.
Not as random as it sounds.
I say Westerner because Magic Dirt isn’t real and we don’t want to bring up fertility in the West using non-Westerners, who have their own homeland to despoil. People are not interchangeable cogs, personality is genetically heritable too! You can’t build high-trust healthy societies with people who prefer to marry their child cousins and rig elections.
Luther, while based AF, not so much, on these topics.
The word dysgenic isn’t used in these conversations either. Atheism may be dyscivic but agnosticism is a human right. The Pope hates this.
Personality metrics are as important as IQ. Plenty of the world’s leaders are above-average IQ, they know what they are doing. These are the Fifth Column.
By chance alone, they couldn’t keep doing exactly the wrong thing for the People.
There are many myths about Christian fertility. If you breed beyond your ability to provide, another tenet of the religion, then all the children and the entire family die. This happens quickly or slowly, with reduced prosperity and poor marital prospects in times of K-selection, that either cause no marriage to occur, sub-standard fertility in the non-assortative pair match, excess labour and no creative production (bad for epigenetics) and/or mutation accumulation. Time preference correlates to industriousness and what we now call grit but is essentially prudence. It’s tempting to claim Idiocracy! because listing pop culture in place of papers is part of the dumbing down you so despise but first you must understand what an Idiocracy is = r-selection.
The K-shift we are undergoing is a prelude to the Malthusian contraction of population better known as the Malthusian trap. Think the big toothy metal things in cartoons.
You cannot describe demographic patterns without the Malthusian trap.
Nobody cites the meme “demographics is destiny” when that’s obviously the topic too. If you’re trying to make the complex easy to remember for simple readers. I just use GIFs to break up the text. Evidence of too much thinking intimidates them, y’see.
Get with the clickbait times, grandpa
The best argument I have seen on the spread of upper-class genes by the death of the lower orders was the spread of Black Death. This happened in bursts that appear to correspond to social and cultural leaps. It also targeted the urban leeches.
It is not a coincidence.
The strangest regressive trend is the spread of STDs, which are not purely r-selected, since the species must reproduce in K-types too and spouses do cheat. In the era of premarital sex, they may have brought the infertility or birth-defect causing pathogens (by mutating development) into the marriage itself. Religion happens to prevent these problems e.g. no prostitution, keep celibate, it doesn’t answer them. The strongest candidate for a shift after Black Death is the probable damage caused by Syphilis. I noticed this but I haven’t found anyone to explicitly study it.
There is also the matter of atheist scientist superhero. It’s a myth of scientism. There is social pressure. Anonymously, plenty of scientists identify as non-atheist, something else. The atheism probability exists on a bell curve of one to two standard deviations; beyond this, belief in the supernatural and faith in bizarre, paranoid delusions also increases greatly.
That’s why they tend to go a bit ..loopy at the end. Especially the mathlete Olympiads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck
There’s a shocking lack of historical (OLD, dusty-ass) case studies (Freud did this! If Freud can do this!…) and historical or cultural asterisks on the (largely but hardly acknowledged personality) theories of Genius Famine, but the bare bones is correct.
Here’s where I go off on one.
“The emancipation of women only worsened this fall in IQ, argue Dutton and Charlton.”
There is no evidence and quite the opposite, as child IQ conforms highly to maternal IQ and there is growing evidence about the benefits of delaying motherhood, at least until after the teenage years, once the body has stabilized and ceased to grow. Men traditionally delayed fatherhood too but don’t expect parity in discussion because questioning your priors is so sissy apparently.
The suffrage was universal, as the most cursory reading of history will confirm. Women could actually vote in many places before it anyway. ‘Women’s suffrage’ is a feminist myth.
I’ve covered this and so have others, in extensive detail. Modern young woman is more conservative than the average young man and in Charlton’s own country, women now vote more conservatively than men. This is a mathematical trend you can take to the sperm bank. Calm down.
Fridge horror. Did nobody bother to look this all up? Where is the intellectual curiosity in intellectuals these days?
You don’t just get to proclaim an opinion because of your name or its letters, or else we’d take Lena Dunham’s advice on the biology of abortion. This is called an appeal to authority, emotional children.
It’s also another reason I go anon. I don’t want to get attacked IRL for stating basic truths any asshole could point out with five minutes and an internet connection. You are already in the place you need to be, I’m crudely drawing a map.
“They have far fewer children than less intelligent women, who are more likely to become pregnant young and by accident”
That is a failing of the Sexual Revolution, availability and attitudes to contraception, the abandonment of fathers and all those things combined that caused the monolithic rise of the modern welfare state. These are the true culprits of the issue, not voting. Most socialists are men, for example. Cthulhu swims Left. The voting is splintered far more by race than it ever could be by sex, and not one of them has the stones to finger ‘race’ as an issue. Try studying Voting Behaviour 101. See the recent election of Trump, where white women mostly voted for him and hardly any non-white. It’s a racial composition matter.
On a finer note, I’ve yet to see a modern civilization that isn’t white in root or base. I don’t see civilization as a bad thing either, it depends what you consider Peak, a question the NRx keep bitch-slapping over, especially in the Catholic blogs, that I feel Brucey would enjoy.
It is also strange to note that they deny intelligent women exist – until it’s tempting to criticize us for our responsible breeding habits.[But if we’re irresponsible, we’re also evil single mothers? Because all conception is intentional, right? And the father will definitely marry them, huh? And finding a spouse is so easy for anyone, m/f, not-dumb? And they have magical solutions for all these conflicts of the postmodern with the biological? Without actually going into the biology of it? ] Intelligent women breed far more often than intelligent men, if you look historically. They do not. There is no comparison of the sexes upon which to make these snide remarks. They fixate on one half of a whole problem. Blame Women! as your standby is literally sexist (and stupid, these are societal issues). As would be Blame Men! be sexist, and stupid for similar, anti-natal reasons. I proffer Blame R-types, since they are exactly the problem here. It doesn’t stroke the ego but it settles the mind.
Women discuss family problems far more than men, you just don’t look for us.
Family politics is literally our domain, the home.
You don’t get to pretend this is your area. It shows. Low EQ and SQ.
Men crowd around a table and discuss money, women discuss socially.
Maybe ask mumsnet how easy raising babies is today?
IF so, why no more stay-at-home dads and let her do the ‘hard work’?
The looming factor post-IR isn’t mentioned once. The world wars were incredibly dysgenic.
The healthy and young and brave died. The cowards and feeble and corrupt remained safe and plump and sexed at home, to later provide for their children (Parental Investment Theory) and give them an advantage over war widows (the reason for our welfare state). Draft limitations are a problem not one man has the courage to mention.
You spared the genetic detritus. Darwin is laughing at you.
Might I impose that this selective blindness is an arrogant bias, on part of a sex who wishes fully to blame the Other?
Where geniuses do breed, they do not mention the potential for dead-end mutations e.g. Goethe’s children.
I suppose they mustn’t know? That’s encouraging.
Not to mention the female germline is more stable. The male is prone to mutations, because it’s constantly regenerating. So any problems with homosexuality, for instance… yeah, that isn’t on women. Infertility in men is literally measured by their mutations. Little X-men swimmers. The superpower is schizophrenia.
The American Model of collegiate academia killed the Medieval University of Europe. Chief among the concerns is tenure. There is no sound reason for tenure, a form of academic welfare. Naturally, I expect too much for academics still in the Matrix-like system to admit this. Universities have too much money and hence waste their time. It’s affluenza on the level of an organisation. I do not expect that idea to be popular, but it is the truth. If Harvard couldn’t be left money in donations and wills, would it be so arrogant? Would the conceit spread to its founders? Why is the state teat extended to these people? They have become like the modern church, with the same problems e.g. tax exemption. The Bible says ya gotta pay taxes. The Vatican gets around this by being the State. Again, I don’t expect these problems to magically wax into focus given the bias of the writers, I have to mention it.
And someone’s going to act like it can afford to go unsaid.
“Academics contribute to this by getting funding, publishing frequently, and attending conferences.”
The social scene is poison. There, I said it. It’s populated by the midwits Vox Day complains about. They think they’re clever because they all mutually agree. Aren’t they lovely? Good in front of a camera, bad thinkers.
It is a little sexist to call the model of fault Head Girl when her role is often second to Head Boy and anyone British knows what a massive kiss-up the Head Boys are. Most of the leading academia they complain of is still generally male, so I wonder how they can square that circle…
The obedience of school is the Prussian model. It’s based on the male military complex. Before that, the rote form to teach monks. ..Were they girly too?
Boys’ schools do not magically produce geniuses on par with Tesla. Women and femininity are not the problem and assuredly not a weakness. This is a cheap, trivial argument. The problem is sub-par management, which, if you look at politics too, is decidedly male. Is the masculinity a problem? No. Gender has nothing to do with it. The people running the show are simply incompetent, due to generations of suck-ups getting promoted, largely thanks to credentialism.
I fear they may be a little intimidated by the findings that girls’ scores have exceeded boys’. Well, if we stopped grading on a curve, used a mixture of testing metrics (papers and exam because there are problems with both), in an anonymous exam condition it’s the same paper, either you know your stuff or you don’t. If we stopped grading on a curve, male grades would slip further down because they don’t care, they’re kept in education beyond vocation age (13-14). Girls are more receptive to any instruction, including education. Blame the white matter, learning is a social experience. Maybe in one-on-one tutor setups boys would do better, but good luck getting state funding for that!
Also, why do grades need to be an intersex competition? Curriculums have always been crap, you’re meant to go beyond it.
“This person will be excellent at playing the academic game and will make a great colleague. But they won’t innovate; won’t rock the boat.”
The problem there is a culture called collectivism, it is the opposite of Western individualism and dampens creativity. Snuffs it, kills it dead. It’s prevalent in Asia, not female-only spaces. You also cite a personality trait called agreeableness and another, conscientiousness. Personality types are not wrong per se, they have a place. Bad academics were hired there by other bad academics who slipped through the old net and now academia is bad. Where is the XX in this, specifically? There were all-good female colleges and still are, same with boys’. Don’t grasp for simplistic bullshit.
If you knew as many stories about Catholic boarding schools as I do, you’d know godly obedience is not the norm. Have you heard of St Trinians? If anything, the veil of religion is an excuse to misbehave, because you can just go out on Saturday and confess to a priest on Sunday and it’s all fine with The Big G by Monday.
Naturally, I don’t expect two men to know this. However, it’s their job to check.
Part of the rationale of mixed sex schools was to reduce rebellion caused by sexual frustration, by channeling it socially. It has been moderately successful, except class sizes present a new issue.
The above incompetent management issue applies to religious schools for boys as well, that also have rampant abuse (fagging), pedophilia and homosexual problems... don’t ask the ‘hard’ questions though, guys. Very manly.
“Once upon a time, they note, a ‘country vicar’ had lots of free time to research” –botany, no
You can’t build a quantum tunnel in the average English garden. Stop it. Citizen science is dead barring medical trial subjects.
Ironically, those botanical studies led to the theory of evolution. It is strange to read a man who clearly doesn’t believe in evolution, make references to biology that stands on it.
There were also scientific nuns. They do not get a look-in (ever) although they meet the criteria of being both heavily religious and scientific….
Moreover, the search for Adam and Eve led to fossil studies. It’s almost like you can’t suppress epistemic truth and this upsets idiots.
“The genius has no institution to nurture him and his potential will not be fulfilled.”
He has never needed one, he needs a shed.
Scholarly pursuits didn’t begin in the Middle Ages!
Let’s wrap this up a little.
The problems are thrice:
1. if everyone is equal, nobody is special and there’s no such thing as genius. We don’t need to worry about it or nurture it because we must deal with the dullards and dunces, who need us the most, say the low-IQ themselves, who want to feel superior to someone.
2. if geniuses can’t get credit and funding, they can’t do anything. Duh. Science has a price tag.
3. if geniuses somehow happen to succeed, society looks for any way to tear them down out of envy, from claims about mental illness (currently, autism) to political reasons or simply Tall Poppy Syndrome.
“But we have reached a point where our lives are so secure, and where death is so remote, that we no longer believe that our lives, or our society, has eternal significance.”
All Cultures Are Equal lies. PC censorship, yes, we know about.
Punishment of in-group preference.
I mean, these concepts aren’t hard to research.
Most exist on wikipedia, for beginners.
“Western society is selfish; the human race is damaging the Earth.”
Those are two separate points. Europe is the only continent below replacement level.
We are the only sustainable continent. No conversation on sustainability can be had until we address population. The Left thinks it owns the environment as a topic, but they’re really retaining ground so we cannot discuss this in the mainstream, public spheres (denying a platform?)…
“In addition, our high level of comfort means that the problems with which a genius may now grapple are either too theoretical to care about or too long-term to think about now.” Lie.
“He will cause offence and question the dogmas which give us the comfort of certainty all for the sake of a problem so distant that most of us can postpone thinking about it.” Lie. I’m sick of these sweeping statements that pretend to be scientific. You get some jumped-up upper-middle class white prick who thinks he’s the next Hitchens because he ‘cares’ about XYZ topic (right-wing virtue signalling). Hitchens read books before mouthing off. For many years. Go back to reddit if you want delusions of grandeur.
“In this context, of life not being serious, we would expect the genius to be pilloried.”
How is life less serious now for anyone paying attention? Literally how? Where is my surfboard to coast?
It’s more serious and seriously depressing than ever! Sweeping statements! Geniuses are not insulted, they are denied. They are disqualified so as to be ignored! The findings may as well not have happened!
The cultural message is Noblesse Oblige is dead. We don’t need you, we haz iPhones. Unmentioned goes the fact that most illustrious scientists were members of the aristocracy. I guess Neoreaction slices a little too close to the nerves!
Academia just replicates the environment of aristocracy – badly.
Look up the story of ‘snob’.
“And geniuses are more sensitive than most.”
In themselves, yes. Externally? Have you read the stories about Newton? He was a Grade A pillock socially, a total misanthrope who neither cared about nor sought approval. It was awesome.
He was worse than House. #herogoals
But I suppose the author wants to self-identify (Hello, Millennial) with Illustrious Status Group by the convenient emotions of existence. Why? If what you’ve written in that very paragraph is true, you’d be signalling anything you could that you were anything BUT a genius, if they’re so openly reviled!
Common sense, there is not.
“Life will become harsher and simpler and, eventually, more religious.”
This is already happening with economics and I linked to Jaymans exemplary coverage of liberal fertility being a feature, not a bug.
They tend to assume all religion is good for science though, when clearly it’s just the one (Protestantism) that allows it.
Not one big Mormon scientist, is there? Catholicism literally killed people for doing maths during the Renaissance. We could be living on other planets and piloting flying cars by now if the Pope weren’t a thing (and nothing in scripture says we need one). The Bible actually says to beware of false prophets who try to replace scripture and that God wants his followers to be happy and prosperous. That would be an easier sell, huh? Human rights aren’t really negotiable if you want someone’s labour so persuasion is the trick.
“At the moment, it seems that there’s nothing we can do to stop this short of a horrendous reversion to pre-Industrial levels of child mortality.”
We won’t stop magically knowing how child-rearing has evolved, this kind of knowledge isn’t academic. It’s preserved in the matrilineal line. This is obvious.
No blackpills unless they’re real.
“But if we could better nurture genius then somebody might come up with a solution before it is too late.”
Almost sounds like the entire point of eugenics. And do you want historical reversion or progress? Biblical living standards or First World ones? Decide. Pick one. Also, way to pass the fucking buck. You want it? You do it, prick.
These people say they’re So Smart (complete with IQ claims) …but not smart enough to get off their arse and actually do something.
Sure thing, kid. And they call us damsels.
Your armchair philosophy is gonna Save Da World.
Adults in the room, inwardly:
Why should a Feynman work for you?… There is no sane answer to this question. Rand’s stake of a point in the heart of greedy vampire societies that don’t appreciate the people who make it so good. Marx said who do you work for? Rand says WHY.
God-damn the entitlement of normies to the hard-earned property of the intellectual. Fruits of one’s labour, a human right. Read your philosophy, child. Sowing, reaping…
It is evil. Bible says a man who will not work, should not eat.
Aaron Clarey has actually covered this, there is no greed, there is only theft. It’s well-known in economics that anything less than a choice is force. That’s left-wing, isn’t it? All working [no leisure, no robots] … according to his abilities…[like you can work above them?] in a kind of commune [rejects family]… that contains everyone [supranationalism, no borders, open borders]… for universalism, a value. [we call this multiculturalism, still]
A little on the theft and self-ownership angle. This isn’t egalitarianism in the modern variation that doesn’t work, it’s from humanism, originally.
At most, they the producer get to choose to limit it to potential consumers as they see fit – exclusive to themselves, genetic kin…not everyone. This is Polyanna stupidity, Bill Gates has kept most of his fortune and he’s meant to be the nice one. As stated above, taking things from geniuses is part of the Problem TM. No regulation, no oversight, no Nanny State. Control is part of the ownership conditions. I don’t get to decide to sell your house. They got to that point, you didn’t – they earned the right to tell you to fuck off and build your own spaceship.
Pearls of wisdom are not for the herd of swine. Nope.
“The genius will combine this very narrow intelligence with very narrow interests.”
Hahahahahaha, you’ve never met one, have you?
They take time to decide on topics and between those, they rove. See von Neumann.
Don’t believe the Hollywood trope of a man in slacks sitting in front of a blackboard screaming WHYYYYYY? at the air (or God?) and throwing balled-up pieces of paper at his coworkers who JUST. DON’T. UNDERSTAND. Like that’s *their* problem. The tortured genius is trite and over-used as a metaphor for teenage angst.
“He’ll also be socially awkward and eccentric.”
Define this. Everyone is a weirdo once you get to know them for a few years.
Do you mean autism?
Rain Man wasn’t autistic. Stop. Being. Stupid. Question. Your. Assumptions.
Priors. Whatever fancy fucking name you want. If it makes you feel clever, delta/gamma-tier.
I proceed, insulting nobody in particular.
“They tend to be useless at everyday things” I knew. I just kneeeew the digs would come in eventually. Point three.
Do you mean all of these people are savants?
And you don’t technically need to be autistic to have savant or splinter skills.
Do they look this up?
INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A DISEASE. DO NOT PATHOLOGISE IT.
WHY AM I YELLING.
BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS CRITIQUE AND I LIKE YELLING, IT’S 5AM HERE.
If you actually want a society led by people better than you (some kind of aristocracy cmon), to care and take care of you, then don’t play into the enemy’s mind games.
“they are very fragile people and they are not usually interested in money”
Are they children? Can they not develop? Well, if you’re basing that last on the tenured….
“They need long-term security so that they do not have to worry about ordinary things, which they not interested in and are no good at.”
I feel basing this on mathematical niche SWPL men of the 20th century America is a method flaw.
Einstein is not the prototypic genius. Read more.
He became famous as a meme. The tongue meme. You know the one.
“If we can make these changes, insist Dutton and Charlton, then in spite of declining intelligence, it is possible that a genius may be produced who can develop a solution to this problem”
And I must scream.
Define the problem.
Use your four operational brain cells.
IF no geniuses = problem, how can we sprout one like a magic beanstalk of N-IQ?
IF intelligence is declining, surely plug the leak in the boat before you begin to bail?
IF there are geniuses, give them the media platform. Give them power. The media platform is the biggest problem because it encourages the stupid. Stop the comedies and MTV reality shit, even the ones you like you must give up America. It’s like taking a dummy from a baby, for much the same reasons.
IF academia is the problem, it isn’t geniuses then, is it? It’s the Cultural Marxist structure that is hostile to anyone that tells the truth.
IF someone had a solution, none of you would listen. That’s your own point, by the way!
Being lectured about degeneracy from a resident of New York.
The irony is five miles deep into Chomsky’s rectal cavity.
I quit this topic, for like… five months, until I’ve forgotten why I hate it again.
I already know the default reaction to this post, for example.
How shitposty do I have to be for you to listen to me? This is proof of what I mean, you complain everything spoonfeeds but then throw the rattle when someone dares break it down because it wasn’t how you’d do it. That’s the purpose of teaching, dumbass. You can’t yet. It wouldn’t work.
It isn’t personal, it’s societal. Not everything is about you.
Get new rhetorical strikes, please. Buy some. Get a GF pillow and a sense of humour too.
Next there’ll be a series of E-books on How to Save Western Civ and step one is grab the testes’ cream…
None of this will be glib, for we are truly the damned. How can you fix people who brag about being broken? How can you save what you can’t find? How can you cooperate with people who turn everything into a WWF match?
The medieval range of mid-twenties, which also happens to be when women are most fertile and men are fertile but capable of self-control (both bodies and cortices are finally matured).
” The greatest indicated likelihood of being in an intact marriage of the highest quality is among those who married at ages 22-25″
“However, the findings do suggest that most persons have little or nothing to gain in the way of marital success by deliberately postponing marriage beyond the mid twenties.”
They’re going to marry someone else. Dating is like musical chairs and after 30 the options are grim.
The 20s are neurobiologically intended to equip you for parenthood.
You can’t waste them.
For a relatively good breakdown: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/02/05/dont-waste-your-20s-train-your-brain-for-lasting-success/
You find the right person? You put a ring on it.
That sort of thing doesn’t happen twice in a lifetime.
Obviously, you need to be self-improving and on the lookout for the One in the first place.