Theme: Ethnoculture

  • PACIFICATION AND TRANSCENDENCE GIVE US PURPOSE (Generally I date in my gene pool

    PACIFICATION AND TRANSCENDENCE GIVE US PURPOSE

    (Generally I date in my gene pool. But I dated a half-amerindian woman for years. They are wired differently. It’s kind of beautiful and tragic: dream state and reality are not so separate as they are in us. I have also dated three jewish women for long enough periods to understand them – and I thought the differences were cultural – but it’s genetic. They’re just wired differently. Probably from only recently giving up frequent husband swapping (serial marriage) relatively late in the late middle ages, combined with higher semitic aggression, combined with higher distaste for outsiders, combined with lower trust. It taught me a lot about what we ‘do wrong’ in our civilization. Just because you’re better politically doesn’t mean you’re competitive against every other group. It’s a weakness. And this is one of the origins of my emphasis on expansionary pacification and transcendence. We need purpose. Pacification and transcendence are a positive purpose for change rather than every other groups parasitism as a negative purpose. This is important.)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 04:05:00 UTC

  • Reminder. I Don’t Do Racism. But I Do Paternalism, Classism, and Culturism.

    [I]t’s turning into a weekly effort but it’s time once again to reiterate my position on biases. I don’t do racism. I definitely do classism and eugenics – but not racism. I definitely do truth and and morality and therefore culturism. People, cultures and civilizations are objectively superior and inferior to one another. Degrees of Truth, Commons, Suppression of Parasitism, and Genetic Pacification determine superiority. I put my people first. Just as I put myself and my family first. I want to defend my kin and our civilization. I want to resist the lesser people’s doing damage to us. But it is my ambition to raise all people into transcendence. And the Christian soul has no room for hate and idleness where it can be replaced by paternalism and hard work. We are aristocracy. We are man’s aristocracy the virtue of the greatest suppression of parasitism, the greatest truth, the greatest commons. If man is to Transcend, then we must raise mankind into transcendence. To do raise mankind into transcendence we must look at the evidence, and have the courage to rule.

  • Reminder. I Don’t Do Racism. But I Do Paternalism, Classism, and Culturism.

    [I]t’s turning into a weekly effort but it’s time once again to reiterate my position on biases. I don’t do racism. I definitely do classism and eugenics – but not racism. I definitely do truth and and morality and therefore culturism. People, cultures and civilizations are objectively superior and inferior to one another. Degrees of Truth, Commons, Suppression of Parasitism, and Genetic Pacification determine superiority. I put my people first. Just as I put myself and my family first. I want to defend my kin and our civilization. I want to resist the lesser people’s doing damage to us. But it is my ambition to raise all people into transcendence. And the Christian soul has no room for hate and idleness where it can be replaced by paternalism and hard work. We are aristocracy. We are man’s aristocracy the virtue of the greatest suppression of parasitism, the greatest truth, the greatest commons. If man is to Transcend, then we must raise mankind into transcendence. To do raise mankind into transcendence we must look at the evidence, and have the courage to rule.

  • Q&A: Eugenics and Race?

    (important post)

    —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

    [B]ecause eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties. 1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism) 2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism). 3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics). The first is simply non logical and immoral. The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable. Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism. Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males. So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters. Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males. Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement. A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity. But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine. Does that hurt? Well, you know it’s just true. The data is in. Women have no place in politics. It’s suicidal.

  • Q&A: Eugenics and Race?

    (important post)

    —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

    [B]ecause eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties. 1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism) 2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism). 3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics). The first is simply non logical and immoral. The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable. Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism. Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males. So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters. Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males. Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement. A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity. But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine. Does that hurt? Well, you know it’s just true. The data is in. Women have no place in politics. It’s suicidal.

  • Three Tribes of Men with Hair. 😉

    [I]n the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner. The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    [pullquote]…on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.[/pullquote]

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women. But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress. One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms. What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction. Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression. So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium. Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? smile emoticon Curt

  • Three Tribes of Men with Hair. 😉

    [I]n the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner. The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    [pullquote]…on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.[/pullquote]

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women. But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress. One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms. What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction. Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression. So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium. Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? smile emoticon Curt

  • THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem

    THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR

    In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner.

    The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women.

    But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress.

    One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms.

    What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction.

    Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.

    So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium.

    Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? 🙂

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:34:00 UTC

  • Q&A: EUGENICS AND RACE? —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to r

    Q&A: EUGENICS AND RACE?

    —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

    Because eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties.

    1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism)

    2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism).

    3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics).

    The first is simply non logical and immoral.

    The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable

    The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable.

    Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism.

    Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males.

    So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters.

    Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males.

    Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement.

    A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity.

    But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine.

    Does that hurt?

    Well, you know it’s just true.

    The data is in.

    Women have no place in politics.

    It’s suicidal.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:04:00 UTC

  • What Love About Ashkenazi Genetics – But What Does It Mean? It’s pretty simple:

    What Love About Ashkenazi Genetics – But What Does It Mean?

    It’s pretty simple: verbal acuity persists into the lower classes, whereas verbal acuity in my people seems to decline quickly in the lower classes. The ability to observe mental projection and narrate it at the same time is just so common in that gene pool. And it seems to persist through substantial outbreeding.

    Its just so much EASIER to talk to someone in ANY class if they have the ashkenazi gift of language. They have much higher verbal comprehension and much higher empathic comprehension than their white peers. And as the depth of cooperation increases (the size of the economy) this talent increases in value. (even if the talent for deceit increases as well). Outlier genetics produce outliers in all directions remember.

    It’s very different from the East Asians. They lie and cheat like — like always — but they are terrible at it. And they have no ability to use verbalism to rally and lead. So aside from the fact that they’re more racist than we can imagine (that’s a good thing), they are not disruptive or difficult to organize with. You do not want an asian lawyer, and I would be very nervous about an asian accountant, but an asian engineer or employee is almost always a good thing – especially for those of us who like to heap praise on good performers, because they’re so damned appreciative of it. Our heritage as egalitarian warriors does not facilitate our complimenting subordinates all the time. (I love working with the Japanese and the Russians. )

    Here in Ukraine, and especially here in L’viv, which was at one point very close to the capital of Ashkenazi civilization, (as a border protectorate under the governance of greater powers – or a ghetto at greater scale with a better economy because of it, or a crusoe’s island) we have a LOT of people with minority jewish heritage (just as Afghanistan does by the way). And you notice it here as much as I notice it in america. If you can get a catholic with minority Ashkenazi genes that convey that verbal ability it seems to produce pretty interesting results. So as I’ve said for a long time now, the jews have been ‘capturing’ superior genes for a long time the same way we have been creating them through constant hard work.

    Lack of jewish artistic creativity is equally obvious for reasons I understand both culturally (art is a moral commons) and genetics (visualization). But not just here – everywhere. And a lot has been written about it both by westerners and jews. And we still see it in the dominance of (immorally biased) jewish script writers and financiers, and (morally biased) christian designers, actors, and directors. And the dominance of jews in pornography, comedy, and pulp, and the dominance of christians in the moral (horror/scifi) and high arts. And perhaps it is an unfair comparison given western excellence at physical creativity. Just as it is unfair to compare other cultures to jewish verbalism. But genes express themselves in culture and in our commons. Jews are overrepresented in every criminal field perpetuated by verbal means, and every deceit field (academia, media and press) just as they are overrepresented in a few non-criminal fields (hard science). Why is it that the jewish people are so excited by scamming and free-riding and that whites are so excited by production? (Thats just data. Don’t kid yourself. i work with data. If you haven’t got a LOT of data, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.)

    And this ability – the ability to introspectively narrate experiences versus introspectively construct visualizations is what provides the interesting utility of our cultures (races) to one another.

    So I’m stuck on this issue of mutual accommodation. I know that it is possible to eradicate jewish cultural immoralism through the application of incremental suppression by outlawing untrue, unwarranted, immoral (parasitic) speech in matters of the commons. I know that it is possible to outlaw the Talmud and the Koran (and possibly the bible) if they propose competition to law, versus competition to spirit. Both the Talmud and the Koran are objectively immoral books, with objectively immoral laws. And as books of law they are not as is christianity, a book of wisdom but a book of commands. And as such are not religions but competing political systems. The west was reliant upon natural law before the church gave it a name. It is the law of our indo european ancestors.

    I suspect that a verbally articulate ashkenazi underclass over represents itself dramatically because the competition in that underclass is non-existent from the host. They are natural leaders of the underclasses by the simple virtue of putting sentences together. The west has eradicated those people from our own polity if they ever existed. This leadership ability creates a long term problem for the western ethic that unconsciously tests verbal ability for ‘rank’. Where we must convert to judging moral action and conformity as rank insulated from eugenic suppression.

    To do that we must know objectively what immoral and moral, true and false statements are, so that we can prosecute immoral and false statements such that a culture predisposed through indoctrination, culture and genetics, to verbal criminality (specialization in parasitism and free riding by various acts of fraud and entrapment) finds the incremental suppression of their ability more costly to contend with than to engage in productive and moral activity despite their ‘feminine’ group reproductive strategy.

    So I am fairly sure that the demand for truthful and moral speech in matters of the commons is sufficient to eliminate the abuse of verbal ability just as westerners have limited our excellence at martial ability (we’re heroic, we don’t run, and most importantly we hold formation and act as one – and there is some sort of awareness of where we are in space that allows us to act in concert more readily).

    I don’t know however how frustrated that population would become if they had to find alternative means of income, or if like women whose strategy the Ashkenazi have exaggerated to perfection, whether they cannot help it and will represent a constant problem to our civilization.

    Our great experiments at the underclasses, catholics, jews and women, and now third world underclasses, has been a failure. We assumed that western man’s truthfulness (science) and natural law was a universal if given voice. This is not true.

    Mankind evolved fastest wherever the incremental suppression of free riding was most active. Man PACIFIES the universe, including himself.

    We pacified women first, then our underclasses, then competing civilizations.

    When we stopped pacifying we lost.

    Back to pacification.

    Back to paternalism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 04:43:00 UTC