Dissident approach to child rearing

[a system is failing]

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 To clarify, we are NOT attempting to rehash and define ourselves by outdated boomer garbage, we are trying to find the truth about how people are behaving and what they are actually doing, and for some reason boomers cannot understand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.

[a system is failing]

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!

[A New Career In A New Town]

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...

[BillyONare]

hope you're joking

[Guest]

I don't have anything more to add to this discussion.

[A New Career In A New Town]

I don't have anything more to add to this discussion.

Hope you make an account. Great discussion. I really wanted a response...

[anthony]

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."

[Hamamelis]

I was absent from the forum for a while, happy to see this topic is still in discussion. To chime into a recent post:

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}.

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.

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".

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.

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:

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.

[anthony]

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.

[BillyONare]

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.

[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.

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]

@BillyONare - 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?

@Guest - 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

[BillyONare]

Just be a good parent and don’t be blackpilled

[Guest]

@Guest - 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.

“Every facet of existence quantified by some schlomo”

I was pointing out you doing this yourself, that’s why I brought up logotherapy. I also disagree with moralistic/subjective worldview. Giving too much meaning to your subjective feelings.

[anthony]

On the reproduction question, please refer to the official Amarna manga.

[Guest]

Maybe it's just one those things that you can't truly understand until you've experienced it first-hand.

[Starn]

I've seen it repeated many times in many places that having kids pacifies you. Which makes logical sense, one won't want to take risks when one's descendants are relying on him. Most men would do so, so it's a valid point to raise.

But why must it be this way? What if you simply continued to fearlessly live at the extreme? This question hasn't been raised yet.
It can't be worse than transmogrifying into a spineless ZOGfather on an endless retreat-and-surrender.

[parsifal]

i think it would be a very exciting childhood to be raised by a globetrotting amarnite polymath.