Amarna Forum

Full Version: Dissident approach to child rearing
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Guest

OK, Anthony, so you would presumably homeschool, then, right? Because education is a legal requirement where I live, so "not sending them to school" is not really an option. I advocated for early childhood homeschooling (4-12) in my very first post, with integration into the school system from pre-adolescence through to early adulthood (12-18). If you intend to homeschool from beginning to end, then good luck, because by all accounts, that is a surefire way to prevent your child from EVER experiencing any of what I have outlined; and, not only that, but expect a longhousing like you have never seen before, with your son's only peers being snaggle-toothed trad-Caths, who engage in such fun things as "lawn darts", and "Christmas potluck". Oh, and good luck ever getting your wife to un-sink her fangs from the boy's neck. Every homeschooler I've ever known was a complete freakish loser, so if that's what you want, or if you think you can do better, then by all means...
(01-15-2023, 09:00 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]OK, Anthony, so you would presumably homeschool, then, right? Because education is a legal requirement where I live, so "not sending them to school" is not really an option. I advocated for early childhood homeschooling (4-12) in my very first post, with integration into the school system from pre-adolescence through to early adulthood (12-18). If you intend to homeschool from beginning to end, then good luck, because by all accounts, that is a surefire way to prevent your child from EVER experiencing any of what I have outlined; and, not only that, but expect a longhousing like you have never seen before, with your son's only peers being snaggle-toothed trad-Caths, who engage in such fun things as "lawn darts", and "Christmas potluck". Oh, and good luck ever getting your wife to un-sink her fangs from the boy's neck. Every homeschooler I've ever known was a complete freakish loser, so if that's what you want, or if you think you can do better, then by all means...

I'm not an advocate of homeschooling. I'm an advocate of deschooling. Unfortunately my post on this didn't survive the death of amarna1 so I might explain again briefly. The school and classroom structure is the problem, not the content of those classes. The founder of real homeschooling, which is deschooling, John Holt, encouraged parents to leave the choice open. Many early homeschool families let their children back and forth between school and home and jobs as they (the children) pleased. This seemed to work quite well. And I believe that if one isn't integrated up to a certain point, they never really want to.

And that's where I really take issue with your posting, the idea that integration into this feral anarcho-tyrannical cannibalistic rat-empire is desirable. I believe that the specific damages of school are time wasted, the debasement of doing fake work, and this integration. The insecure, artificially enforced age-cohort peer socialisation. Here, have some homework on that last point. I like Gordon Neufeld.



Quote:that is a surefire way to prevent your child from EVER experiencing any of what I have outlined; and, not only that, but expect a longhousing like you have never seen before, with your son's only peers being snaggle-toothed trad-Caths, who engage in such fun things as "lawn darts", and "Christmas potluck".

I'm not a Mennonite. I know normal people and grew up in schools. I knew these normalfaggots. I knew normalfaggots who played sports, were considered admirable by their peers, and got to finger maryjane rottencrotch when they were 15. You know where they all are now? They're right in the longhouse with everyone else. If anything this stuff sets you up worse for life in the 21st century because it makes you complacent. You are encouraged to consent to an impure age when it gives you mixed, superficial, socialised rewards. These guys are all system-trusters. And of course I don't believe that the experiences you make so much of are actually that inherently enjoyable or good for us, they function more like informal medals and trophies. Socially recognised markers of socially formed notions of achievement and success. But society can be wrong. That's why this forum exists.

And I don't have children. So if we're willing to get that hypothetical why do have to stick on the gigantic asterisk of "you can only live and socialise with this one very specific existing homeschooling culture of faggots"? If this is my ideal scenario I'm living in something between Captain Fantastic and Metal Gear Solid.

Quote:Oh, and good luck ever getting your wife to un-sink her fangs from the boy's neck. Every homeschooler I've ever known was a complete freakish loser, so if that's what you want, or if you think you can do better, then by all means...

Everyone is a freakish loser. It's the 21st century. And women have everyone by the balls. Even you. You'd subject yourself to life in a rat-cage for a shot at standing in line for a go at maryjane rottencrotch. You will judge human worth by this experience. I think i could do better. I like to think my contempt for women runs so deep I'd be above this. Also probably above marriage and reproduction, but again we're talking about ideals and hypotheticals.

Guest

Right-wind dissidence takes no physical form in the modern world - it's all conceptual. I think that's the major point of contention between you and I, here. It says a lot that, as I was writing a response to you, I was having difficulty really conjuring up a realistic illustration of what a right-wing dissident's child would behave like. Maybe it's impossible, but can you say what that would be like, and how it would differ from a more normative child? Could it be the case that, even in your ideal execution, where every facet of your attempt at parenting goes according to your plan (which it won't), the results won't be as romantic as, perhaps, you are thinking they will be?

That is what I've been trying to get at, overall: that even if you teach your boy to bow-hunt, rock-climb, and read Schopenhauer (fill in your own right-wing dissident child activities, here) he's still in all likelihood going to want to go to parties and put his hands down a girl's pants. If that's not satisfying enough to you, romantic enough to you - if that is your son submitting to the domesticated normie culture - then, maybe it's not the world's problem, but rather, your problem with the world.

Right-wing*

Guest

[Image: n6dfkewpll691.png?width=640&crop=smart&a...fa7daf74d2]

“He who would live must fight. He who doesn't wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”
-Adolf Hitler

(01-15-2023, 06:51 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Right-wing dissidence takes no physical form in the modern world - it's all conceptual. I think that's the major point of contention between you and I, here. It says a lot that, as I was writing a response to you, I was having difficulty really conjuring up a realistic illustration of what a right-wing dissident's child would behave like. Maybe it's impossible, but can you say what that would be like, and how it would differ from a more normative child? Could it be the case that, even in your ideal execution, where every facet of your attempt at parenting goes according to your plan (which it won't), the results won't be as romantic as, perhaps, you are thinking they will be?

That is what I've been trying to get at, overall: that even if you teach your boy to bow-hunt, rock-climb, and read Schopenhauer (fill in your own right-wing dissident child activities, here) he's still in all likelihood going to want to go to parties and put his hands down a girl's pants. If that's not satisfying enough to you, romantic enough to you - if that is your son submitting to the domesticated normie culture - then, maybe it's not the world's problem, but rather, your problem with the world.
True point of Conversation and viewpoint are revealed here. Right-wing dissidence is just idea, and actually not valid point to argue so conform to ZOG. Your dissatisfaction towards world is actually just your problem and has no bearing in reality, your mentally ill. No truth beyond ZOG world exists, go to therapy.

It goes beyond conversation of child rearing and into critique of right-wing dissident themselves. This guy is not motivated by any dissident intent, he’s a normie satisfied with ZOG world and willing to defend it. At most he’s seed-oil trad who doesn’t want fat son, that’s it. No need to further conversations with him, it would be as pointless as with any normie.

Guest

“But I did eat breakfast.”
(01-15-2023, 06:51 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]That is what I've been trying to get at, overall: that even if you teach your boy to bow-hunt, rock-climb, and read Schopenhauer (fill in your own right-wing dissident child activities, here) he's still in all likelihood going to want to go to parties and put his hands down a girl's pants. 

Take a look around you man. People in the last 10 years have been increasingly developing away from that direction. Not saying bugman lifestyle that is replacing it is any better, but you certainly have no grounds to hock the "inevitably" of your ways at us: you have actually already lost and normal people as defined by the 20th century are going extinct. In fact, the nerds you are decrying so much literally make up the cultural foundation of the current zietgeist: everyone considers themselves nerds now, very few identify with being jocks. Sure, they want to have their cake and eat it too, being normies, and so they have this phony template of cool edgy nerd who supports trans rights and smokes weed, but the nerds fucking won man. It's been over. 

That's what we're trying to get you to understand, even though this may very well be impossible due to your advanced age...the commentary you are giving us is based on a phantom of the 80's which has been lingering over culture for a while now. People invoke this stuff like idiots when they want to shame other people, but none of them are actually jocks or cheerleaders or whatever half fucking witted highschool musical steroetype you've cooked up in your head. The people who can be described this way never enter the conversation or engage with the rhetoric, even the minority of them that do exist, they exist only in the form of fetishes and totems to sling at people when you think they are straying too far off the besten path. To clarify, we are NOT attempting to rehash and define ourselves by outdated boomer garbage, we are trying to find the truth about how people are behaving and what they are actually doing, and for some reason boomers cannot understand that this isn't any of your generation's business and you will be basically unable to contribute positively.

Guest

If "the truth" is your goal, then how do you intend to enact it? Forgive me if I don't see endless online pontificating as a good use of time, anymore - I want to hear real solutions - real results - that isn't just the fantasy of twenty-somethings with no prospects. That's the problem with our space, as a whole, actually: that it's unclear exactly what it means to be "dissident", and how that materializes in the real world. How many more times do we really need to go over how niggers are a blight on civilization, or that women shouldn't have rights, or that the J is the devil? No matter where I look, it's just finding different ways to say the same thing, ad infinitum - this thread, and all of your responses, serving as a shining example of that.

Dissident child-rearing is an appealing topic, because we imagine a human being installed with all of the qualities we developed too late: a child who has all of their childhood and adolescence to be put to task for the purpose of achieving high status, and rising above the filth. But, when I cannot even get one adequate response to "how do we implement dissidence into child-rearing", and instead get an endless, circular stream of criticism, it implies to me that you all have failed to execute any "dissident approach" even in your own lives. How can you expect to raise a dissident child, then, if you can't even make a dissident of yourself?

Enough of the chiding over jocks and nerds - I'm trying to move the conversation beyond that, and am asking, if not what I propose, then WHAT?! Answer me!

I'm not a boomer, by the way - some of you might even be older than me. The fact you think I am only means you've misunderstood my greater point, even though I've tried clarifying it four or five different times, now.
(01-16-2023, 01:47 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]But, when I cannot even get one adequate response to "how do we implement dissidence into child-rearing", and instead get an endless, circular stream of criticism, it implies to me that you all have failed to execute any "dissident approach" even in your own lives.

You've been given responses to that, but then you retorted "and what's to stop the world from conforming to my retarded stereotypical view which it always does anyway?" and the response to that was, it won't, because it already doesn't and you're wrong. 

Tell me what "real results" consists of and maybe I can explain why you're having trouble here. Based on all you've said so far it consists of already being a dad and having successfully raised a dissident kid with our values who is past adolescence himself and successfully maintains the same views. Everything else is going to fall into the category of "theory" which I guess you suddenly have a problem with. And don't kid yourself with this "ad infinitum" bullshit: all of what you've brought here so far has been outdated memes and talking points we've heard a billion times for years, literally its the most surface level immediate criticism every faggot gives of the right: hurp durp how is this gonna help me in the real world!
(01-16-2023, 01:47 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]If "the truth" is your goal, then how do you intend to enact it? Forgive me if I don't see endless online pontificating as a good use of time, anymore - I want to hear real solutions - real results - that isn't just the fantasy of twenty-somethings with no prospects. That's the problem with our space, as a whole, actually: that it's unclear exactly what it means to be "dissident", and how that materializes in the real world. How many more times do we really need to go over how niggers are a blight on civilization, or that women shouldn't have rights, or that the J is the devil? No matter where I look, it's just finding different ways to say the same thing, ad infinitum - this thread, and all of your responses, serving as a shining example of that.

Dissident child-rearing is an appealing topic, because we imagine a human being installed with all of the qualities we developed too late: a child who has all of their childhood and adolescence to be put to task for the purpose of achieving high status, and rising above the filth. But, when I cannot even get one adequate response to "how do we implement dissidence into child-rearing", and instead get an endless, circular stream of criticism, it implies to me that you all have failed to execute any "dissident approach" even in your own lives. How can you expect to raise a dissident child, then, if you can't even make a dissident of yourself?

Enough of the chiding over jocks and nerds - I'm trying to move the conversation beyond that, and am asking, if not what I propose, then WHAT?! Answer me!

I'm not a boomer, by the way - some of you might even be older than me. The fact you think I am only means you've misunderstood my greater point, even though I've tried clarifying it four or five different times, now.

Just raise your son to be a doctor. Simple. Dissident child rearing. Based Doctors. If you disagree, you're delusional. This is a practical, normal, attainable source to power and physical and social excellence...
hope you're joking

Guest

I don't have anything more to add to this discussion.
(01-16-2023, 07:44 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have anything more to add to this discussion.

Hope you make an account. Great discussion. I really wanted a response...
(01-16-2023, 01:47 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Enough of the chiding over jocks and nerds - I'm trying to move the conversation beyond that, and am asking, if not what I propose, then WHAT?! Answer me!

"What's 2+2? And no don't give me any of that four nonsense, give me a REAL answer."
I was absent from the forum for a while, happy to see this topic is still in discussion. To chime into a recent post:

(01-16-2023, 01:47 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]it's unclear exactly what it means to be "dissident"

I don't think so at all. Do any of you find it hard to define "normie"? A dissident is an outspoken opponent of that. Under this umbrella, we find many views, most of them retarded. For the purpose my thread here, however, I am using {dissidence == opposition to the eternal longhouse}.

Guest Wrote:How many more times do we really need to go over ...

In general, you have to "go over it" in discussions - apropos our topic here, in discussion with your progeny, for example.

Guest Wrote:No matter where I look, it's just finding different ways to say the same thing, ad infinitum - this thread, and all of your responses, serving as a shining example of that.

Valid criticism, although I think this forum and even this thread has some original thought. In general, this is the reason I value "our sphere".

Guest Wrote:I cannot even get one adequate response to "how do we implement dissidence into child-rearing" [...] instead get an endless, circular stream of criticism

I think some others and I have proposed practical ideas. Did you not read them, or do you disagree? I can see what you mean, but that's not all that was contributed here.

Guest Wrote:Right-wing dissidence takes no physical form in the modern world - it's all conceptual

This is your major contention? It's bullshit. Our enemy is wrong about the world, this is a tangible fact. They are wrong about nutrition, health, HBD, economy, etc. and also wrong about how to raise a baby. They are wrong about strollers, diapers, vaccines, mother's milk, rough-and-tumble-play and much more. Changing this in your own life is not conceptual and yields tangible results. My thread is about comparing different opinions on this latter collection of communist misconceptions.

Anthony on the other hand with some more interesting opinions:

(01-15-2023, 10:32 AM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]I know normal people and grew up in schools. I knew these normalfaggots. I knew normalfaggots who played sports, were considered admirable by their peers, and got to finger maryjane rottencrotch when they were 15. You know where they all are now? They're right in the longhouse with everyone else

I think the imagined ideal case is to create your son in the image of the Petersonian perfectly adjusted member of society, but based. This is mostly a fantasy, adjacent to the psychology of the normal-one-haver who is mentally stuck in high school.
But judging this less strictly, I think what made you or any of us dissidents to normiehood is not the fact that we weren't popular in highschool (to use a trope), but the fact that normiehood is incompatible with our characters. If you find out your child is popular in school and loves going there (which I assume was not true for any of us), I don't think you should keep it from doing so in fear of creating a normie. Instead, the polar opposition of the values in your household and the values in society will serve to reveal the shortcomings of normie life.
I want to stress that I don't see "dissident child rearing" as a means to create a dissident. Our children will become dissidents anyway, if our values and lifestyles are actually different from society in beneficial ways. The goal of dissident child rearing is then to create healthy, intelligent and resilient adults.
(01-24-2023, 01:34 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]anthonyI know normal people and grew up in schools. I knew these normalfaggots. I knew normalfaggots who played sports, were considered admirable by their peers, and got to finger maryjane rottencrotch when they were 15. You know where they all are now? They're right in the longhouse with everyone else

I think the imagined ideal case is to create your son in the image of the Petersonian perfectly adjusted member of society, but based. This is mostly a fantasy, adjacent to the psychology of the normal-one-haver who is mentally stuck in high school.
But judging this less strictly, I think what made you or any of us dissidents to normiehood is not the fact that we weren't popular in highschool (to use a trope), but the fact that normiehood is incompatible with our characters. If you find out your child is popular in school and loves going there (which I assume was not true for any of us), I don't think you should keep it from doing so in fear of creating a normie. Instead, the polar opposition of the values in your household and the values in society will serve to reveal the shortcomings of normie life.
I want to stress that I don't see "dissident child rearing" as a means to create a dissident. Our children will become dissidents anyway, if our values and lifestyles are actually different from society in beneficial ways. The goal of dissident child rearing is then to create healthy, intelligent and resilient adults.

First on the notion of creating dissidents. You're right that one should not plan about this. I believe that the gathering we have here is less a question of acquired taste and more a the right stuff kind of thing. As you say, most people can only really be turned into elite normal. Still a great way to set someone up for a better kind of living, even if not our living.

On Amarna1 I made a Peterson thread. In his own life you can see the cracks in this. He's spent his own life trying to be a based Petersonian and the repression and self denial and wilful ignorance of the world required to work at and maintain this has clearly been destroying him all along. And he grew up in a time when it was frankly far easier than it is for us. The application of this philosophy obviously turned his daughter batshit insane. But it also ruined him. Even before fame he was constantly on the verge of a break. I get it, fine constitutions can be like that, but he wasn't burning with the unstable fire of genius. He's just a dumpster fire.

Guest

I've had the notion, before, of not having children at all. That bringing a child into this mundane, disenchanted world of suffering would be only a futile exercise in justifying my own existence; a temporary escape for the parent from the despair of their fleeting window of opportunity. Children seem almost to be a selfish cop-out when you look at it like that.

To be a parent is self-contradictory in nature, because in all of your love - or your need to give love, at least - you bring something into existence, and in doing so, exact upon it the ability to lose its existence. You force upon it - this thing you're supposed to love and cherish - that which is most universally agonizing. How could anyone do that to something they love?

In True Detective, Rustin Cohle, when talking about his toddler-aged daughter who died accidentally, rationalizes her death as being a positive thing for both him and her, because not only did she die a young, happy child, unable to conceptualize her own entrapment at the hands of her parents, but it also "spared him the sin of being a father." One of the few times he smiles in the show is when he talks about the death of his little girl. It's difficult for me not to empathize with that.
This may sound trite, but you are merely having a lib moment. Life is about suffering and fighting. Have as many Amarnite kids as you can. We need to survive and increase our ranks. You are shirking your duty to Virtue by not having children.

[Image: 0723-D9-DF-C796-48-CA-9135-381411-BB2-E1-A.png]

Guest

(01-25-2023, 08:33 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I've had the notion, before, of not having children at all. That bringing a child into this mundane, disenchanted world of suffering would be only a futile exercise in justifying my own existence; a temporary escape for the parent from the despair of their fleeting window of opportunity. Children seem almost to be a selfish cop-out when you look at it like that.

To be a parent is self-contradictory in nature, because in all of your love - or your need to give love, at least - you bring something into existence, and in doing so, exact upon it the ability to lose its existence. You force upon it - this thing you're supposed to love and cherish - that which is most universally agonizing. How could anyone do that to something they love?

In True Detective, Rustin Cohle, when talking about his toddler-aged daughter who died accidentally, rationalizes her death as being a positive thing for both him and her, because not only did she die a young, happy child, unable to conceptualize her own entrapment at the hands of her parents, but it also "spared him the sin of being a father." One of the few times he smiles in the show is when he talks about the death of his little girl. It's difficult for me not to empathize with that.
Maybe I misremember but in Revolt Against the Modern World by Julius Evola I think he talks about this. To be more specific the new seriousness of the Christian world compared to the pagan one. I feel that in general a worldview built on a moralistic foundation tends to take things to seriously.

This being one of the cases. Libtards take things to a ridiculous seriousness, especially things that don’t really require it. Not to say having a child isn’t serious but this takes it to far. Also maybe term logotherapy also related to this?

Guest

- how do you reconcile "life = suffering" with parenthood, though? How can one maintain indifference in the face of bestowing upon the human being you are supposed to protect and care for something that is inherently agonizing?

- any easiness experienced by pagans with regards to child-rearing - or anything, for that matter - was due to the universe itself being electrically enticing to them. "Religious intoxication." They did not have each and every facet of existence quantified by some Schlomo the same way we do today. Nowadays, life is a comparatively low-vibrational fuzzy dullness, not only because of the stultifying institutions, or overstimulation, but also because whimsy and flow have been replaced with a tacit "calculatory" assessment of all things. I don't need to expand on this; we all know this to be true; BAP's book is about just this.

t. blackpilled
Just be a good parent and don’t be blackpilled
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10