(11-28-2022, 09:22 PM)anthony Wrote: You read John Gatto? He was a great teacher because he just did this with every student he had. If a student had a strong interest in something he'd give them as much time as they wanted on the condition they were mastering that subject. One example I remember, a student into comic books. He didn't just let him read comics all day. He told that kid to learn how the comics industry works top to bottom, independently. Some dry detached class on business probably would have filtered this student, but through organically following his own interests he learned all about one particular business/industry with no motivation or discipline problems and ended up successfully working in it. This system of Gatto's worked fantastically. Gatto was raking in teaching awards until people started looking closely at his classes and realising why his students were so successful. Can't have renegades betraying the program like that.
That sounds awesome and exactly like what I would want to do. The other day my wife asked me if I would support a child who wanted to be a musician. I said that I would, but only on the condition that they cannot half-ass it, and must give it their absolute all. If they showed promise, will, dedication, love of their art, possession by the Geist, and agreed to my terms, I would even let them live with us until about their mid-20s, and if they hadn't gotten much of anywhere with it by that point I would push him to pursue another path and put the music on the backburner.
Homeschooling is good, because parental control pre-adolescence is paramount to childhood development, however, I would say that it has diminishing returns. Any potential benefit you accrue from being able to mold the curriculum, influence the schedule, etc. is meaningless later on when your child is asocial and incapable of relating to their contemporaries because they've only ever experienced good, clean, WHOLESOME communitarian fun! No - what you want is to cut the cord once it has run its course, and to start letting your child get some "dirt under their fingernails", so to speak. If you homeschool from the jump, and integrate into the public school system at the right time, you get to have your cake, and eat it, too, because you outright avoid kindergarten "I <3 NIGGER" indoctrination, but you get to let all of the formative experiences take place when they need to.
I would say homeschooling past the age of twelve is bordering on child abuse. Parents who want to homeschool need to get their timeline straightened out, and they need to prepare for their child's assimilation into the world. What this means to me is that you must instill the grit and independence necessary to be the "new kid". It might not seem important, but I remember distinctly from my own time being the new kid, as well as the other new kids I encountered while going through school, that it is an integrally important opportunity that can be capitalized on if one plays their cards right...
One constant that sticks out is that, without fail, the new kid is always - ALWAYS - a point of hyper-fixation for absolutely every sect of the social hierarchy. The preps, the jocks, even the bottom-feeders - every single group develops a monomaniacal obsession with the new kid, and tries to figure out where they stand, and how to sink their teeth in. There was a girl in the third grade - a girl who was understood to be the most beautiful, popular girl - who "dated" every new kid that came through the school! This behavior carries into early adolescence, also, only more subtly: there is a vetting that takes place, where this seemingly ethereal new kid that materialized out of nowhere needs to be PLACED somewhere, and it becomes the duty of all the children to facilitate this process.
Now, imagine a new kid, who has edge, independence, and can survive as an island whilst facing a week straight of poking and prodding. A new kid who, at the first taste of social interaction with some snaggle-toothed reprobate, does not concede, but instead holds out for other opportunities, and then weighs their options. I really, truly remember a German male model-type transferring over at the start of high school, and completely SQUANDERING the popular girls feeling his muscles, and instead joining some band of floor-sitting LOSERS because they had somehow related themselves to him better. If you homeschool - which you should - and send your children off to public school, later - which you should - you must, during those formative years, do everything in your power to ensure that your child does not behave like this German. That is the most important thing.
None of this advice applies to daughters, by the way: if you have a daughter, I would suggest homeschooling through to early adulthood, with periodic reinforcement of the importance of her chasteness, with the hope/cope that some Aryan stallion steals away with her in the night and puts a baby into her. In a world where a father's role in his daughter's life has been all but stripped away entirely, there is, truly, nothing more cuckold than having a daughter.
This is why I recommended (white) sports
(01-11-2023, 12:55 PM)BillyONare Wrote: This is why I recommended (white) sports
i basically agree with most everything you said however boy scouts is gay... just take them on a camping trip/cottontail hunt every so often... as a man, you do know how to set up a tent, start a fire, and hunt rabbits... RIGHT??? in the boy scouts they will be marmed by the same nigger-women rhetoric that they will get enough of in schools... it's an infiltrated institution... i agree with you about athletics: they are a must 9/10 times, and baseball in particular i like because you won't be breaking the bank as bad compared to something like hockey: skates, stick, helmet, gloves, knee pads, etc. - it's too much for children, whereas with baseball it's a bat, glove, helmet, and shoes and you're good to go. also baseball is easier as a pick-up game: not dependent on the season/rink fees... i might be too frugal, here, but i think it should only become an investment when you know the interest is truly there. both are manly sports, baseball is more nigger than hockey (blacks are confused and afraid of ice), but less than basketball, but that's ok - i think total nigger avoidance is actually not so good... just don't let your child be led astray and write on their christmas list to santa that they want AIR JORDANS.
tennis i have a soft spot for - very technical and demanding patrician's sport - but also very expensive for good lessons as it is not a team sport
music is a weird one... we'd probably both agree that nothing is gayer than the guy who pulls out the guitar at a house party/bonfire: not cool like the hollywood hippie jews would have you believe. there is something vital about being musically literate, though, and it seems like a good way to "round out" a person's character, but then again, i can't play shit for shit and i still have rhythm and cool dance moves, and maybe that's all you need - i don't know. flute or violin might be good for a daughter
(01-11-2023, 01:49 PM)Chud Wrote: -snip- Alexander the Great would have been on the football team; you did not go to prom.
Good point Chud. It is vital and sometimes difficult to separate, learning from what went wrong in your life so those things don’t go wrong in your sons’ life, and, trying to live through your sons vicariously and pushing all your neurotic regrets onto them. I do think you should set your sons up to get young love and prime underage pussy.
The best way to square this circle is to not throw your own life in the trash and be a good role model. I underperformed in life because my dad was a poor lazy scumbag without any skills or hobbies but pushed me to get perfect grades, work shit jobs, attain as many credentials as possible, do lots of chores and do worthless stuff like piano lessons, etc. Striver type stuff. This is clearly just him trying to live vicariously through me and wanting me to make him look good. If he wasn’t a self-hating loser then he would have been a good role model, helped me to get in great physical shape, helped me get girls, had lots of wealth and connections in the private sector to get me wealthy, and most importantly, have practical wisdom from experience rather than WORK HARDER AND DO MORE STRIVER STUFF YOU IRRESPONSIBLE SON.
I fail to comprehend the classic USian "High School tropes" and school tropes in general, like le jocks and nerds and the new kid and whatever the fuck is constantly repeated ad nauseam in disgusting nigger coal "coming of age" movies in such settings. It's some "this has never happened, nobody ever said this" territory.
As for the German guy - exceedingly based. He didn't fall to the hens, instead did what he found interesting - a trait of great men! That is, if he wanted to, if he in a few years starts kvetching about muh teen love he will be flayed and put in gibbets as the dogma dictates to do so.
Now, as for the child rearing part, just raise your kids to be creative, have a proper Vision and the Will to See. Social interaction is actually easy to learn as a child just playing with the other kids, with a great emphasis of social manipulation and exploitation. Their Hearts will be Closed not only to Pity but to a litany of emotions, which they shall be trained to process and dispose of instantly. This will automatically make me a bioterrorist, as my progeny will be blatantly antisocial psychoterrorists accelerating the coming of the Keyed World or whatever. Vision matters.
Popularity is not an end in and of itself, but a byproduct of physical and social excellence: it's not "vicarious living" to try to cultivate within your children the qualities that will make them desirable to the highest echelons of their social environment. I couldn't care less whether or not my children are considered "popular", so long as they are pursuing that which is deemed the most important by the highest people - we all know what these matters of importance are. If you want to read manga at the lunch table, that's fine, but that's how you attract quirky Pocky girl, and become the "German new kid", who was not at all "exceedingly based", but was, in reality, unconsciously submitting to opportunistic #libtarded theater kids who sat on the floor and wore spike bracelets during break. #exceedinglycringe
I'd much prefer if my spawn coup/overthrow/replace the "highest echelons" and put themselves there. That's sort of the only social rule there is - either destroy and usurp the structure, or submit and be conceptually cucked
I realise that many, if not most, of our institutions today are stifling, and petty, but we're discussing the lives of children, here, and how best to maximise their power across all metrics. Whatever resentment you might harbour toward this particular period of your life, nonetheless high school is one of the few places where a young man can truly exert himself upon the world, and is therefore one of the few places that should not, or really even cannot be usurped. It's why certain types of people, mainly the "jock" archetype in particular, get hung up on "the old days", because they peaked at that early moment in their life, and never again were given an opportunity of comparable glory - it's sad, and is something to consider here, also.
Besides, the salient point here is that, even if what you do want is for your child to replace the highest echelons, they are going to need to possess the traits that would make them "popular", in order to command enough of a presence to stage that coup (LOL). Nobody is rallying behind the sickly, pallid, crater-faced bookworm to get revenge on the football team - that sounds like a nerd-geek fantasy, and is way more in line with "disgusting nigger coal" Hollywood than what I'm talking about (see: "The Breakfast Club" as the premier illustration of how the "jock" archetype is subverted by sagging-lower-third, mouth-breathing dweeb-dorks).
(01-12-2023, 08:51 AM)Guest Wrote: I realise that many, if not most, of our institutions today are stifling, and petty, but we're discussing the lives of children, here, and how best to maximise their power across all metrics. Whatever resentment you might harbour toward this particular period of your life, nonetheless high school is one of the few places where a young man can truly exert himself upon the world, and is therefore one of the few places that should not, or really even cannot be usurped. It's why certain types of people, mainly the "jock" archetype in particular, get hung up on "the old days", because they peaked at that early moment in their life, and never again were given an opportunity of comparable glory - it's sad, and is something to consider here, also.
Besides, the salient point here is that, even if what you do want is for your child to replace the highest echelons, they are going to need to possess the traits that would make them "popular", in order to command enough of a presence to stage that coup (LOL). Nobody is rallying behind the sickly, pallid, crater-faced bookworm to get revenge on the football team - that sounds like a nerd-geek fantasy, and is way more in line with "disgusting nigger coal" Hollywood than what I'm talking about (see: "The Breakfast Club" as the premier illustration of how the "jock" archetype is subverted by sagging-lower-third, mouth-breathing dweeb-dorks).
Nobody is truly exerting themselves upon the world. Shake off your Aaron Sorkin brain. The people who enjoyed high school were not better people than you capable of appreciating the fucking miracle of life and having a normal one. They were content because they're pigs in shit. If you'll indulge a little rewording of BAP here, your high school is owned space. Learning to thrive in that does not create overmen, it creates bugs. If these "jocks" got off to such a great start how come they miss high school now? How many of these people go on to more impressive things?
>they are going to need to possess the traits that would make them "popular"
I went to school and I'm not popular with the masses. Something doesn't compute here. I turned into a nerd.
>that sounds like a nerd-geek fantasy
The only actual nerd-geek fantasy I see in this thread is your painfully self-aware TLP-brained shadowboxing with your own thoughts and desires.
Some of my most valuable and loyal friends were those “floor sitting losers”. Most are nibloid subhumans as you would expect, but some of them turned out to be true gems.
What, exactly, is the argument, here? I am saying that raising an athletic, sociable child, who through their distinction excels in the preeminent social environment that they inhabit, is something to aspire to as a parent, and is a good thing for your child. Popularity, as I have already clarified, is not an end-goal, nor is it a prerequisite for attaining superiority, but it is an outcome of high likelihood due to human beings valuing specific qualities above all others. I am not arguing for molding your child into any one particular archetype, but you as a parent should want for them to attain early life success through encouraging practices or behaviors considered universally, naturally valuable.
Knowledge and physical prowess are not mutually exclusive: you can have a track-and-field son who reads the classics - and, in fact, I consider the latter to be "universally, naturally valuable". As for high school being "owned space", I disagree: it is perhaps the only avenue within the typical young man's life where he has the ability to expend his power and energy with relative impunity. It is only later in life, when you are expected to toil away at some glorified serf make-work, alongside diversity hires and HR marms, that the state of the modern world reveals itself.
Now, that isn't inevitable, and shouldn't be, and it's not something I take for granted, either. I don't think supreme focus should be on how to get your child the most pussy while they're in high school/college, but again, mutual exclusivity doesn't apply, here. Your son can be in good physical condition, be sociable, read Homer, and make money is such a way that is not soul-crushing.
01-12-2023, 01:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2023, 01:56 PM by Svevlad.)
The main question, "which high school?" These can be different in each state in the US let alone other countries
01-12-2023, 02:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2023, 02:19 PM by BillyONare.)
^Imo for the most eugenic and interesting places buy a house and to raise kids look for a public high school with median ACT/SAT one standard deviation above the median, in a city with below average blax pipl, which I think is about 27 for the ACT. There are a surprising number of school districts that fit the bill, usually in a suburb of a decently sized city or a minor city down the highway from one. Real estate in these places are usually very expensive, but I think it’s worth it to live in a bastion of high class high IQ attractive people.
Moldbug theory is that when SHTF, food and security will flow to these high IQ wealthy places preferentially so it’s almost safer than living rurally. I am unsure if this is true. He lives in the most expensive zip code in Austin.
(01-12-2023, 08:51 AM)Guest Wrote: I realise that many, if not most, of our institutions today are stifling, and petty, but we're discussing the lives of children, here, and how best to maximise their power across all metrics. Whatever resentment you might harbour toward this particular period of your life, nonetheless high school is one of the few places where a young man can truly exert himself upon the world, and is therefore one of the few places that should not, or really even cannot be usurped. It's why certain types of people, mainly the "jock" archetype in particular, get hung up on "the old days", because they peaked at that early moment in their life, and never again were given an opportunity of comparable glory - it's sad, and is something to consider here, also.
Descriptions like these really fail to account for the actual reality of hanging out with popular kids which can mostly be described as "confused young people searching for space and not finding it". People are neurotic about how they fit into jew media molds like "jock" and "nerd" when their in highschool because they are not allowed to be adults and have their own lives and make their own labels that are actually acknowledged by wider society. The inner life of Chad is not what you think it is, those people quickly realize themselves how limited they are and how many walls are erected around them to control them and tell them what is right for them.
And I'm someone who enjoyed highschool a lot and look back on it fondly myself. Ironically I do not look back on my time spent with "popular" kids at all because they were not actually fun people to be around, with a few exceptions. Chud is right to say this is vicarious fantasizing...the actual world you think you missed out on was never there.
Did you play any team sports? Did you get invited to parties? Did you experience young love? Is it really so contentious to suggest that these things are inherently valuable to a young man's life, and that wanting your son to experience such things is aspirational? You criticize the "life of Chad" - well, what compares, exactly? What, precisely, is a better thing to set your son up for than what I have outlined? "It's vapid; hedonistic; degenerate!" - welcome to being a teenager, where mistakes are made, and where, sometimes, the resentful, low caste individuals smear the name of those higher than them for no reason other than their own insecurities. There's only so many outlets you can pool your resources into - science, art, literature, sports, etc. - and one or more of said outlets must take a hit if you are trying to maximize output. If any of you want to make the case that raising a son to be a scholar of Heidegger, or whatever, has a better likelihood of adult-life success, then fine - do so - but this particular point of contention about POPULARITY has just turned into incessant nit-picking.
Call it "vicarious fantasizing" all you'd like: there is always going to be an element of that - and selfishness, too boot - when raising children. Is it bad parenting, in your eyes, to take pleasure in your children's success, and to want for them things you never had?
I believe the contention is simply that you are putting forth a "King of the Normies" type of regiment versus a generative regiment. A generative regiment might lead to King of the Normies anyway, but it might also lead to sigma male of groyperous stature. Since the normie world is dictated by the pervasive moral order, you make a conscious choice to raise your child within the same thing if he is to be King of such a place. There is idea of "No, but he will be based", however, from where will this come? If you teach him things outside of this order, or (more likely if he is of quality) if he sees for himself what is outside, then why will he remain within this Kingdom -- even as a King?
Note that I am being too generous as "King" of one particular high school social structure is not particularly good. (You can simply leech off a near-by school if you get a bad "spawn" in the one you are trapped in.) Also, as others have mentioned, loyalty is more important, wherever loyalty is found.
t. High school athlete, pooopular, experienced young love (requited and unrequited), ETC.
I will add to general discussion that I think it is good for a teenager to experience some form of martial combat. Despite the risks...Getting hit for the first time teaches one something that seems impossible to learn otherwise. And the same with hitting someone. Controlled environment, exhibition between friends is probably the best for this. Wrestling and so on can be done from a young age since it's easier to do "gently", with less risk.
As for young love, I have no idea what the generative lessons should be on this matter. It likely changes drastically depending on the location.
(01-12-2023, 04:55 PM)Guest Wrote: Did you play any team sports? Did you get invited to parties? Did you experience young love? Is it really so contentious to suggest that these things are inherently valuable to a young man's life, and that wanting your son to experience such things is aspirational? You criticize the "life of Chad" - well, what compares, exactly? What, precisely, is a better thing to set your son up for than what I have outlined? "It's vapid; hedonistic; degenerate!" - welcome to being a teenager, where mistakes are made, and where, sometimes, the resentful, low caste individuals smear the name of those higher than them for no reason other than their own insecurities. There's only so many outlets you can pool your resources into - science, art, literature, sports, etc. - and one or more of said outlets must take a hit if you are trying to maximize output. If any of you want to make the case that raising a son to be a scholar of Heidegger, or whatever, has a better likelihood of adult-life success, then fine - do so - but this particular point of contention about POPULARITY has just turned into incessant nit-picking. These team sports, parties, and young love may to you be the highest way to live, but that is only for you. It is very unsettling how you so fervently defend these totally meaningless pass times. They may be enjoyable but that doesn’t change the fact that they are mere replacements for what they have truly take from you. There is yet a greater pleasure awaiting that they have stolen, that is rightfully yours, war. Young men should be sent off in to the third world to conquer and slaughter native populations, ruling over them like gods. The koryos, all young men should live a life like napoleons, or at least aspire for it.
Team sports, parties, and young love may not be that bad but know they are not the highest. Know that this world is rotten and so many young men have had a higher density robbed from them.
Go ahead and value the things you do, I do not mean to belittle them, but just to state they are not the highest and such a myopic opinion comes from a small life that has been forced upon you. It’s too much to ask you to think outside the box, your life style is ok for your circumstance.
Re: King of Normies; I think you are implying a mutual exclusivity between being entrenched in the normie system, and being a dissident thinker with aspirations beyond the Prison Planet - a mutual exclusivity which simply does not exist. I can raise a son on Homer, Melville, and Dumas, instilling in him the need for expansion, and adventure, while still encouraging him to pursue "normie" activities, so that he doesn't become utterly demoralized and asocial.
As for this "higher way" critique - what is it? Where is it? Into which vessel does an adolescent boy pour his energies into? You mention "war", or this notion of reconquering the third world, and while I might be inclined to agree that it would be productive, and exciting, do you, or I, or anybody, really, within - or without - this space, possess the wherewithal to enact such a vision? We simply do not live in that world, even though it might be fun to pretend that we do. I was criticized earlier in the thread over high school being an "owned space" a la BAP, but everywhere is OWNED SPACE - better, then, I say, that a son at least TRIES to make it his own, and leave his mark on it, rather than concede and fantasize about opportunities that may never come.
(01-12-2023, 06:16 PM)Guest Wrote: Know that this world is rotten and so many young men have had a higher density robbed from them.
Go ahead and value the things you do, I do not mean to belittle them, but just to state they are not the highest and such a myopic opinion comes from a small life that has been forced upon you. It’s too much to ask you to think outside the box, your life style is ok for your circumstance.
Re: King of Normies; I think you are implying a mutual exclusivity between being entrenched in the normie system, and being a dissident thinker with aspirations beyond the Prison Planet - a mutual exclusivity which simply does not exist. I can raise a son on Homer, Melville, and Dumas, instilling in him the need for expansion, and adventure, while still encouraging him to pursue "normie" activities, so that he doesn't become utterly demoralized and asocial.
As for this "higher way" critique - what is it? Where is it? Into which vessel does an adolescent boy pour his energies into? You mention "war", or this notion of reconquering the third world, and while I might be inclined to agree that it would be productive, and exciting, do you, or I, or anybody, really, within - or without - this space, possess the wherewithal to enact such a vision? We simply do not live in that world, even though it might be fun to pretend that we do. I was criticized earlier in the thread over high school being an "owned space" a la BAP, but everywhere is OWNED SPACE - better, then, I say, that a son at least TRIES to make it his own, and leave his mark on it, rather than concede and fantasize about opportunities that may never come. Yes, that was what I was getting at. “Everywhere is OWNED SPACE” and the destiny of so many young men has been robbed from them, it can no longer be recovered. The “higher way” does not currently exist yet you know it to be true. Going forward for the future the reestablishment of this “higher way” is and always has been an objective of dissident thinkers, to retvrn. This is our duty for the future, the task give to the dissident.
I think you know this too, this is why I did not try to belittle what other guest values. He’s just trying to make due with circumstance but the truth needed to be said as well.
One must make the opportunities for future generations, so my descendant will not suffer the same shame I have, so they may possess the future which was robbed from me.
all this talk of the next generation, when we're right here! none of us are going to have high school aged sons for quite a while, who says circumstances aren't going to change between now and then? we still have our own lives to think about you know, have you already given up on us and our ability to effect a better situation?
I am not sure. For me, once I saw the other things...there was little appeal to the normie world. I don't know why anyone would become demoralized or asocial simply by being apart from that world. Especially since others exist outside of it, and generally, they are higher quality people. It's not that they are mutually exclusive, the question is simply "why" anyone would want to play in that world once they see the other one. Maybe there is some giga-brained Machiavellian answer, some molding of a politician.
If this is the case, maybe you are right. Perhaps I am too careless. I am less optimistic about such paths, and this is my bias.
As for owned space, breaking through, it could be anyone at any moment. We are already in tumultuous times, and so it goes. The fact that it would all seem futile, suicidal, exceedingly foolish is a feature of the break-through and what makes it impressive. Consider it a sacrifice. If your son is to be this sort of man, then you have to give him up -- as even he must give himself up to such a task. So goes the saying.
Also, yes I agree with parsifal. Although some in the thread have children too. (apologies for the double-post)
(01-12-2023, 08:20 PM)parsifal Wrote: all this talk of the next generation, when we're right here! none of us are going to have high school aged sons for quite a while, who says circumstances aren't going to change between now and then? we still have our own lives to think about you know, have you already given up on us and our ability to effect a better situation? I pretty sure a lot of disagreement with me is because I’m bad at making my point, I apologize for that.
Yes, I’m not going to have a high school son any time soon either. My point was we didn’t have the war machine ready to shape us into warriors and go out and Conquer the world, we were not taught warrior culture. Seeing as we can’t be reborn and experience this the best use of our time is over throwing of ZOG. This is our battle awaiting us, to restore the order.
We would change the circumstance and be founders of the new world. Like the founding fathers before us we shall be the architects of a great future, and this glory belongs to us and us alone. Of course if we can’t kill the ZOG hydra then fuck the future generations and let’s burn the whole rotten structure to the ground. But I for one think we can win and taste that destiny that was made for only us.
(01-12-2023, 08:32 PM)Guest Wrote: I am not sure. For me, once I saw the other things...there was little appeal to the normie world. I don't know why anyone would become demoralized or asocial simply by being apart from that world. Especially since others exist outside of it, and generally, they are higher quality people. It's not that they are mutually exclusive, the question is simply "why" anyone would want to play in that world once they see the other one. I remember doing all the things that normies held so high and feeling nothing, it was an empty excitement that was inferior to going on a run. I agree with this sentiment, I feel the same.
|
