Interesting summary of what’s going on. I’m speedrunning through your content now. Do you have a take on Silicon Valley’s “techno-nativism”, e.g. what Musk or the Collinses family are doing with siring and rearing numerous gifted children? This might seem negligible demographically but can generate individuals who will be highly adapted to a cognitively demanding landscape while possibly mainting their kernel of autonomy and freedom and a fulfilling culture.
Historically it was the rich that had more children than the poor, because the poor did not have enough resources to raise enough children. It is only in the modern welfare state era where these dynamics have been turned on it's head dysgenically, a very unusual historical anomaly that, because we're immersed in it, we don't understand how strange it is. I discuss this element briefly in my post on the 10,000 year explosion in relation to Ashkenazi Jewish breeding patterns during the Middle Ages: “Gregory Clark, in A Farewell to Alms, shows that in medieval England the richest members of society had approximately twice the number of surviving offspring as the poorest. The bottom of society did not reproduce itself, with the result that, after a millennium or so, nearly everyone was descended from the wealthy classes.” https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
Furthermore, historically and across different civilizations ultra-rich men having harems was common. It disappeared west of the Hajnal line during the ascent of modern western technological civilization; 1 man 1 woman marriages led to increases in average IQ, community trust and social stability necessary to propel civilization forward (harems = lots of men without spouses = societal instability). Musk's reversion to harem dynamics is both a smart thing for him to do personally (if I was ultra rich I might do the same thing; who wants to be like Bezos marrying a blown out whore?) and an ominous thing for the future, as it can only portend increased societal instability.
So we had the Ashknezi who lived in a very competitive, harsh environment for centuries where winning men among them would take a lot of resource, status and women whereas the bottom of their community would not reproduce. This had eugenic effects on them and prepared them to social climb aggressively. Sure, they are way more represented than what their IQ would explain, with high levels of nepotism and tribalism within the West, but they still have a high IQ and a huge leg up to manipulate the unsmart around them.
European IQ might have improved over time but certainly not as much. Whites are also plagued with adverse social programming and most Whites today tend to behave as NPCs.
Nowadays we live in a world where the average is over, winners take an absurd share of the pie (see Tyler Cowen's "Average is Over" although he was not the first to see this). Most people are plagued to become useless as AI takes over, averagers are not attracted to each other, have no ability to create much value or wealth... at some point someone who's not a NPC should wonder whether we even need to care about the NPC majority. Why would we care? I care a lot more about whose who exhibit initiative, autonomy, self-reliance, curiosity, those who go down the process of individuation (as you recommended doing in another piece), more often than not I have much more interesting conversations with such individuals and will not feel like I'm talking to a programmed robot within a shell of flesh.
People like Musk have tons of children is interesting IMO, even inspiring. Musk might not be trustworthy but he is by no means a NPC. Same for a number of Silicon Valley counter-elite figures. Such individuals clearly have a high IQ, the will to retake power and mold the West according to their own agenda, i.e. the only credible alternative/road facing globohomo. The counter-elite agenda allows for families, masculine and powerful men, having tons of gifted children and securing a future for such children who can create value and carve a life for themselves and others where the average NPC cannot. It may be a far cry on my part but I believe the techno-nativist project is the most credible to "save the West". Become wealthy, powerful, create gifted children with an iron mind and a sense of destiny, and perhaps enough of these remarkable individuals will lead and change things for the best. Not as the average guy would like, but hey, why defend the average when you are an introvert high IQ and you know you wouldn't have been happy amongst the average dumbs even during the 80s or 90s?
Sorry about the long post! I had these thoughts in mind for a long time and your answer is my first opportunity to articulate them in an interesting place. Keep the inspired takes up.
No, don't agree. Women are dual: you have the female/virgin side which is receptive and you have 'mother' which is wise - nurturing life - and/or bossy. We come from matriarchy - because women matured quicker - which is unequal: mother leads, he is little boy. Then, because men are stronger, we took over: patriarchy. Adolescent/puberal men suppressing women. Stiill unequal although generally behind the scene mother still ruled. Now, because of the pill etc and because of technological developments patriarchy doesn't work any more and because they are more mature women often lead. The new matriarchy. Men need to grow up and become mature, that is the work. Then a natural polarity between equals can develop where he is fully male, and she can be fully female. He leads and she follows because he is a good leader. See: www.mature-masculinity.com
Interesting summary of what’s going on. I’m speedrunning through your content now. Do you have a take on Silicon Valley’s “techno-nativism”, e.g. what Musk or the Collinses family are doing with siring and rearing numerous gifted children? This might seem negligible demographically but can generate individuals who will be highly adapted to a cognitively demanding landscape while possibly mainting their kernel of autonomy and freedom and a fulfilling culture.
Historically it was the rich that had more children than the poor, because the poor did not have enough resources to raise enough children. It is only in the modern welfare state era where these dynamics have been turned on it's head dysgenically, a very unusual historical anomaly that, because we're immersed in it, we don't understand how strange it is. I discuss this element briefly in my post on the 10,000 year explosion in relation to Ashkenazi Jewish breeding patterns during the Middle Ages: “Gregory Clark, in A Farewell to Alms, shows that in medieval England the richest members of society had approximately twice the number of surviving offspring as the poorest. The bottom of society did not reproduce itself, with the result that, after a millennium or so, nearly everyone was descended from the wealthy classes.” https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
Furthermore, historically and across different civilizations ultra-rich men having harems was common. It disappeared west of the Hajnal line during the ascent of modern western technological civilization; 1 man 1 woman marriages led to increases in average IQ, community trust and social stability necessary to propel civilization forward (harems = lots of men without spouses = societal instability). Musk's reversion to harem dynamics is both a smart thing for him to do personally (if I was ultra rich I might do the same thing; who wants to be like Bezos marrying a blown out whore?) and an ominous thing for the future, as it can only portend increased societal instability.
So we had the Ashknezi who lived in a very competitive, harsh environment for centuries where winning men among them would take a lot of resource, status and women whereas the bottom of their community would not reproduce. This had eugenic effects on them and prepared them to social climb aggressively. Sure, they are way more represented than what their IQ would explain, with high levels of nepotism and tribalism within the West, but they still have a high IQ and a huge leg up to manipulate the unsmart around them.
European IQ might have improved over time but certainly not as much. Whites are also plagued with adverse social programming and most Whites today tend to behave as NPCs.
Nowadays we live in a world where the average is over, winners take an absurd share of the pie (see Tyler Cowen's "Average is Over" although he was not the first to see this). Most people are plagued to become useless as AI takes over, averagers are not attracted to each other, have no ability to create much value or wealth... at some point someone who's not a NPC should wonder whether we even need to care about the NPC majority. Why would we care? I care a lot more about whose who exhibit initiative, autonomy, self-reliance, curiosity, those who go down the process of individuation (as you recommended doing in another piece), more often than not I have much more interesting conversations with such individuals and will not feel like I'm talking to a programmed robot within a shell of flesh.
People like Musk have tons of children is interesting IMO, even inspiring. Musk might not be trustworthy but he is by no means a NPC. Same for a number of Silicon Valley counter-elite figures. Such individuals clearly have a high IQ, the will to retake power and mold the West according to their own agenda, i.e. the only credible alternative/road facing globohomo. The counter-elite agenda allows for families, masculine and powerful men, having tons of gifted children and securing a future for such children who can create value and carve a life for themselves and others where the average NPC cannot. It may be a far cry on my part but I believe the techno-nativist project is the most credible to "save the West". Become wealthy, powerful, create gifted children with an iron mind and a sense of destiny, and perhaps enough of these remarkable individuals will lead and change things for the best. Not as the average guy would like, but hey, why defend the average when you are an introvert high IQ and you know you wouldn't have been happy amongst the average dumbs even during the 80s or 90s?
Sorry about the long post! I had these thoughts in mind for a long time and your answer is my first opportunity to articulate them in an interesting place. Keep the inspired takes up.
Elongated Musk-RAT is a figurehead of the Jews. He’s not actually that smart.
The reason you defend the average is because you Never Sell Out Your Soldiers. Ever. Learn Honor or get called a Fucking Jew.
The “Techno-Nativists” Are just COMPED By Jews and worship machines; they’re all faggot traitors. There Has Never Been A Worthy TechNigger.
Trump did not have problems with his divorces because he had a marriage contracts. Years ago all marriages started with a contract.
No, don't agree. Women are dual: you have the female/virgin side which is receptive and you have 'mother' which is wise - nurturing life - and/or bossy. We come from matriarchy - because women matured quicker - which is unequal: mother leads, he is little boy. Then, because men are stronger, we took over: patriarchy. Adolescent/puberal men suppressing women. Stiill unequal although generally behind the scene mother still ruled. Now, because of the pill etc and because of technological developments patriarchy doesn't work any more and because they are more mature women often lead. The new matriarchy. Men need to grow up and become mature, that is the work. Then a natural polarity between equals can develop where he is fully male, and she can be fully female. He leads and she follows because he is a good leader. See: www.mature-masculinity.com
Isn't that option 2 ("go live permanently in a more traditional country to have marriage and children")?