Just as progressives demonstrate caution in the face of artificial intelligence, progressives(dysgenicists) fear conservatives(eugenicists). Because if we are successful in restoring our eugenic personal, social, economic, and political order, we will leave them behind. Just as they fear the mechanical social, economic, and political order, will leave them behind.
This is the intuition of the feminine: that her offspring, the vast majority of which are dead weight on the man, earth, and universe, will not survive competition with their betters, and therefore here genes will not persist. Her emotions are precognitive genetic impulses to favor the child regardless of it’s lack of merit.
The intuition of the masculine: that the genes of the family, clan, tribe and nation must survive competition with other men’s genes through the use of female hosts – despite the fact that women choose mates poorly, that they undermine the alphas, and the polity in pursuit of equality for those who are dead weight to our genes. That they advocate against their men (“sh_t testing”) and that they destroy loyalty and cohesion through gossip.
The universe, like our parents, births life which itself will replace that universe if successful. And expire like that universe if not. Life is deterministic. Action is deterministic. Intelligence is deterministic. Cooperation is deterministic. Self replacement is deterministic. That’s all the wonderous beauty we need.
There is an aristocratic ethic in the literature of exploration and colonization – and science fiction of the postwar period replaced the *actual* aristocracy of exploration and colonization that had existed prior to the war.
So just as James Bond is really a lament to lost british power, science fiction of the period was a lament to lost european power. It was an effort to direct our exploration and colonization (and militarism) to the stars.
I think that christianity was a vehicle for aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, exploration, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man) and I think the period of expansion in the ancient world, and in the modern, was just another vehicle for Aryanism.
That same Aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man), can be heard in Ellison, Clarke, (or jules Verne, or Edgar burroughs, Or Robert Howard, or HG Wells, or Tolkien, or Stephenson and Gibson, is that Aryanism via military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes.
This is the Aryanism of the military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes, just as capitalism is an expression of Aryanism in the merchant classes.
Heinlein reformed Aryanism in the early-mid 20th century like Sir Walter Scott reframed it in the early 19th century with Ivanhoe. (or George Lucas refrormed it with the original star wars.).
And I do think that Heinlein captured that reformation in language that all of us can understand today. And that it has endured through the postmodern rise and fall of the late 20th and early 21st century.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22550286_157994568130775_2860075883038094257_o_157994568130775.jpg —“Did Heinlein have an influence on you? I have been listening to Starship Troopers and I swear I hear you and Eli, mostly you.”— Anne Summers
Great Question.
(a) I had only read Time Enough for Love (which I read upon release). I was heavily influenced by it and think I still am subconsciously.. I was more influenced by Harlan Ellison and I see him in my thoughts. Maybe Ben Bova as well. I was influenced by Arthur c Clarke, particularly Rendezvous with Rama and Childhood’s end. But I was equally if not more so influenced by William Gibson and Neal Stephenson. Im really a child of the 70’s and 80’s – when these books were published. But I was more influenced by reading weapons and warfare and in particular samuel colt, and then reading encyclopedias. I read a lot of encyclopedias.
(b) I think that there is an aristocratic ethic in the literature of exploration and colonization, and science fiction of the postwar period replaced the *actual* aristocracy of exploration and colonization that had existed prior to the war. So just as James Bond is really a lament to lost british power, science fiction of the period was a lament to lost european power. It was an effort to direct our exploration and colonization (and militarism) to the stars.
(c) I think that christianity was a vehicle for aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, exploration, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man) and I think the period of expansion in the ancient world, and in the modern, was just another vehicle for Aryanism.
(d) what you hear in Eli and I is that same Aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man). What you Hear in Ellison, Clarke, (or jules Verne, or Edgar burroughs, Or Robert Howard, or HG Wells, or Tolkien, or Stephenson and Gibson, is that Aryanism via military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes. This is the Aryanism of the military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes, just as capitalism is an expression of Aryanism in the merchant classes.
(e) Heinlein reformed Aryanism in the early-mid 20th century like Sir Walter Scott reframed it in the early 19th century with Ivanhoe. (or George Lucas refrormed it with the original star wars.). And I think Eli and I and many others are formed by that same experience. And I do think that Heinlein captured that reformation in language that all of us can understand today. And that it has endured through the postmodern rise and fall of the late 20th and early 21st century.
(f) So I think that the answer is that we have both been heavily influneced by the Aryan tradition. And that we certainly share the mid-century technological vision of Aryanism consisting of the combination of military and technology as a DEFENSE, rather than military and religion of the post-ancient period, or military and moral justification of the colonial period. And that among the technological, military, scientific, classes, Heinlein created the least apologetic vision. And that we share that least apologetic, and therefore most Aryan ethic.
(g) The only difference is that Eli is more interested in space, and I am more interested in upping our game and taking over this planet over the objections of those who need domestication. In other words, he is kinder than I. Hence why you hear a bit more Aurthur Clarke in Eli and a bit more Heinlein in me: I am ‘resigned’ to the military option as the only viable (affordable) one. ;)—“Did Heinlein have an influence on you? I have been listening to Starship Troopers and I swear I hear you and Eli, mostly you.”— Anne Summers
Great Question.
(a) I had only read Time Enough for Love (which I read upon release). I was heavily influenced by it and think I still am subconsciously.. I was more influenced by Harlan Ellison and I see him in my thoughts. Maybe Ben Bova as well. I was influenced by Arthur c Clarke, particularly Rendezvous with Rama and Childhood’s end. But I was equally if not more so influenced by William Gibson and Neal Stephenson. Im really a child of the 70’s and 80’s – when these books were published. But I was more influenced by reading weapons and warfare and in particular samuel colt, and then reading encyclopedias. I read a lot of encyclopedias.
(b) I think that there is an aristocratic ethic in the literature of exploration and colonization, and science fiction of the postwar period replaced the *actual* aristocracy of exploration and colonization that had existed prior to the war. So just as James Bond is really a lament to lost british power, science fiction of the period was a lament to lost european power. It was an effort to direct our exploration and colonization (and militarism) to the stars.
(c) I think that christianity was a vehicle for aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, exploration, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man) and I think the period of expansion in the ancient world, and in the modern, was just another vehicle for Aryanism.
(d) what you hear in Eli and I is that same Aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man). What you Hear in Ellison, Clarke, (or jules Verne, or Edgar burroughs, Or Robert Howard, or HG Wells, or Tolkien, or Stephenson and Gibson, is that Aryanism via military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes. This is the Aryanism of the military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes, just as capitalism is an expression of Aryanism in the merchant classes.
(e) Heinlein reformed Aryanism in the early-mid 20th century like Sir Walter Scott reframed it in the early 19th century with Ivanhoe. (or George Lucas refrormed it with the original star wars.). And I think Eli and I and many others are formed by that same experience. And I do think that Heinlein captured that reformation in language that all of us can understand today. And that it has endured through the postmodern rise and fall of the late 20th and early 21st century.
(f) So I think that the answer is that we have both been heavily influneced by the Aryan tradition. And that we certainly share the mid-century technological vision of Aryanism consisting of the combination of military and technology as a DEFENSE, rather than military and religion of the post-ancient period, or military and moral justification of the colonial period. And that among the technological, military, scientific, classes, Heinlein created the least apologetic vision. And that we share that least apologetic, and therefore most Aryan ethic.
(g) The only difference is that Eli is more interested in space, and I am more interested in upping our game and taking over this planet over the objections of those who need domestication. In other words, he is kinder than I. Hence why you hear a bit more Aurthur Clarke in Eli and a bit more Heinlein in me: I am ‘resigned’ to the military option as the only viable (affordable) one. 😉
All the reason you need: It is simply much cheaper to produce deception, parasitism, and dysgenia, than to produce truth, productivity, and eugenia. So over time, we cannot cohabitate.
It’s our own progressive that we must separate from. Do you understand? They are the defect that remains.
Getting frustrated. Do you realize that everything good in europe comes from northern italy, germany, austria, and england? The best genes come from the baltic and north sea – the border between german, polish and scandinavian peoples. And that nearly everything bad in europe has come from France? (Aside from Brittany). Seriously. It’s like Lotharingia did everything good and france did everything possible to turn europe to shit in every single era of history. Really. I mean. WFT is wrong with those people? Aside from terminal effeminacy? France is and always has been the enemy of europa. I thought it was just since the revolution. And that postmoderns were just another version of french mental illness. But no. I mean, the entire period from the roman fall to the present. Drive around france today and it’s largely a sh–t hole. Damn.
(I feel like I just sat down in an episode of the Sopranos. Lots of severely overweight mediterraneans with 95 IQ’s, speaking a passionate vulgar vernacular. But it’s all good natured. lol )
