Dissident approach to child rearing
(02-04-2023, 02:20 AM)Guest Wrote: “and as racial and gender barriers came thundering down across the globe” 
“personally hired John Edmonstone, a former slave and black freedman, to give him lessons on taxidermy outside of his classes”
“early feminist, and all-around Renaissance man.”
Just read the first one, thanks for the articles, but can you put a  libtarded warning first. 


The Aristocratic tutor becoming fesible with advances of AI is very interesting. Has anyone talked about quality of material yet? Books themselves can be a very dense Source of knowledge for a child old enough to be autodidactic but it’s quite difficult to find books that are actually useful. 

The Goethean education was a very good idea but I think the modern day equivalent would be anime education(although Goethe is very good, I keep a copy of the sorrows of young werther with me where ever I go). Also I feel like twitter itself acts like a pseudo form of this Aristocratic tutoring, maybe besides AI something based off the “twitter form” could be made? I’m not sure how this would work but I think it would be an invaluable tool. 

Also jewsteins tutors last name being Talmud is very kek.

Right now what we have kind of organically emerging is younger people finding more natural role models and respectable influences online than they can find in person. But the power of this is limited by the time and/or interests of internet people. Andrew Tate is seeking attention in this and sinking a lot of time because he wants money and for stupid people to worship him. Better people have stuff occupying their time and can't be dad or tutor. Also they'll probably want it less, both because it's not something our culture encourages good men to do, and better people are less likely to see themselves as worthy of the attention. Twitter is short, full of histrionic and absurd characters, clique oriented, etc, but it can still be a foot in the door for some very good things to younger people I believe. Probably got most of our userbase here.

The power of emergent "AI" is that it can be an always there, always available guiding presence. Of course this would be an extraordinary amount of power and influence to grant to what is ultimately a tool. But it's an inspiring thought. Every boy with his own personal 'Cortana'. The value of this is related to the books thing. Who is setting up and programming cortana and what for? Pretty much all of us went to schools, and schools are full of books. But did any good come of that? It's back to the most general problem of schooling, which is that it is not built around good intentions anymore. Obviously if you could arrange your own cortana that'd be brilliant, but also way off. But a chatGPT taught to be halfway friendly and respond a bit more organically to a childlike line of inquiry could do extraordinary things. I am extremely optimistic on the potential of all things "AI".
The multi-generational family business is just "aristocratic tutoring" for the peasantry.

Addendum: the newest episode of Caribbean Rhythms coincidentally covers the failures of the public education system - go listen NAO!!!
(02-04-2023, 08:17 AM)Guest Wrote: The multi-generational family business is just "aristocratic tutoring" for the peasantry.

Addendum: the newest episode of Caribbean Rhythms coincidentally covers the failures of the public education system - go listen NAO!!!

How about you do us a solid and cover the essential points?
Honestly? It's just a short rant, and it mostly just reaffirms much of what has already been said ITT. Disregard.
I finally came around to Anthony's assigned reading (Hoel on aristocratic tutoring, and SSC's comment on it). My comments:

Re: Genius, and the lack thereof:

This seems to be mostly a discussion about what makes a genius, and thus not extremely important for our discussion. What I would add is that Hoel (like others) prematurely dismisses the low-hanging fruit explanation for the ebb in scientific breakthrough. This is not our topic here, but I think it is truly underappreciated how different the landscape of knowledge has become over the last hundred years. It's not that there is nothing left to discover. Rather, what can be discovered now (often at high expenses) rarely brings about a new understanding of the field. This is means most discoveries now expand owned space, rather than conquer unowned space. This changes the nature of a scientist from that of an explorer to that of a labourer. Is somebody like that ever considered a "genius"?
 
Further, I think Hoel (like others) doesn't calculate how important reverence is to the status of genius. One reason why we don't have a Mozart right now is that there is no way for him to attain a comparable status by achievement. He can't be court composer of a beloved or feared king, and any way to achieve success is routed through economic institutions that make a commodity out of fame, such that the achievement is forever diminished. Naturally, the same goes for our contemporary Einstein: Can you name the people who won the last few Nobel prizes, usually for their life's work? The reason you can't is because none of their achievements are attached to any metaphysical structure that furnishes them with the appropriate gravity. 

Compound these two points with the usually discussed facts about academia, women, nigs and nogs, and you arrive at our predicament.

Re: Tutoring

On one hand, I don't think Hoel in any way demonstrates that this is the mechanism that brings about geniuses. Actually, he unwittingly seems to argue that intelligent and wealthy parents are the biggest predictor of genius (I agree with this), and that tutoring is mostly the way children were taught before we had modern conceptions of school. I do, however, agree that some form of tutoring would be the ideal way to educate your children, if you can afford it. At this point I want to distance the discussion from "genius", and maybe even from excellence. As I alluded to in my previous post, I don't think you need to (or should) set this goal for your children. Making your children excellent in ZOGworld is not admirable. You should want to your children to develop their potential. At least, you should want your children not to be miserable (which many of us were in public school, and blame that institution largely for it).

I think one underdiscussed aspect of home schooling is that parents are not in the best position to be teachers to their offspring. As the one who most likely coached the child in every aspect of life, like how to sit still at the table or how to use a toilet, you are in a way too familiar with each other to build the optimal atmosphere for learning. Instead, a tutor, somebody who can become a friend, but is decidedly from outside of the (inner) family, is foreign enough to be both interesting and respected, and on his side, doesn't connect the childs behaviour to a long history of previous experiences. 

If it could be arranged, I think every intelligent and curious child would profit immensely from having a tutor or counsil in many different fields of interest. Such a person can be both a figure of authority as well as a peer. He can be a peer because he is subordinate to the parents. A public school teacher can never come into that realm, as he is always an extension of state authority. If anything, I would say that sport coaches and private music teachers are in a comparable role today as such a tutor: A somewhat controlled environment, where the child can experience confrontation with the real world under supervision, but outside of the direct control of the parents. Immensely valuable for development. 

Re: Aristocratic tutoring

If you arrange tutors for your child (not just for piano lessons, but for the whole education), how would you do that in an aristocratic fashion? Materially, it is aristocratic by merit of being expensive, exclusive and excentric. Does it need to be aristocratic on a metaphysical level as well? If we understand that question to mean a certain telos to the education, that is, the cultivation of a higher spirit, I would answer in the positive. I am currently in a suboptimal psychological and physical condition, and don't want to elaborate on what a higher spirit is, for fear of missing the mark on a crucial topic in which I am less well versed than the above. But others may have clearer visions that I'd be interested in reading.
I think if conventional schooling can not be avoided altogether, it should at least be supplemented by tutoring by the parents, capable friends or relatives. The argument that one can not be as proficient in the various subjects as full time teachers is a lazy excuse, considering the average quality of teachers in public schools today. In the same category falls the time-argument: If the average normgroid has time to watch 4 hours of Netflix or Youtube per day, he has also the time to tutor his children. Tutoring for me does also entail practical activities such as building something or doing playful experiments together.

More rural-like upringing in a house is obviously vastly superior to urban upbringing, at least in today's context and if the parents are not multimillionaires. The city is polluted, crowded and expensive and leaves the child with barely any possibility to explore his own territory, as every inch is owned by some entity. The average citizen has to dwell in a crowded apartment, which leaves little space for personal development and the ability to experience many formative activities. No interaction with lifestock in the garden of your grandpa, no workshop in the backyard to build a tool with your father, no basement with space for a small library, lab or hobby room, etc. .


(02-13-2023, 02:04 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: Re: Genius, and the lack thereof:

This seems to be mostly a discussion about what makes a genius, and thus not extremely important for our discussion. What I would add is that Hoel (like others) prematurely dismisses the low-hanging fruit explanation for the ebb in scientific breakthrough. This is not our topic here, but I think it is truly underappreciated how different the landscape of knowledge has become over the last hundred years. It's not that there is nothing left to discover. Rather, what can be discovered now (often at high expenses) rarely brings about a new understanding of the field. This is means most discoveries now expand owned space, rather than conquer unowned space. This changes the nature of a scientist from that of an explorer to that of a labourer. Is somebody like that ever considered a "genius"?
I know this thread is not about this topic, but I have to respond to this, because it is a question I think about quite often.
In my opinion, the low-hanging fruit explanation is mainly used as an excuse by those, who don't want to admit that something might be wrong in our times and that we are in decline. Why did it take over a millennium for the Renaissance to occur, if the fruits were hanging so low? Why does it just so happen, that this ebb in scientific breakthrough coincides with our biological and cultural degeneration? I don't buy it. But more to this maybe in a dedicated thread.


(02-13-2023, 02:04 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: Further, I think Hoel (like others) doesn't calculate how important reverence is to the status of genius. One reason why we don't have a Mozart right now is that there is no way for him to attain a comparable status by achievement. He can't be court composer of a beloved or feared king, and any way to achieve success is routed through economic institutions that make a commodity out of fame, such that the achievement is forever diminished.
I don't necessarily agree that reverence is essential to the existance of genius since there are far to many examples to the contrary. One might even argue, that it is the watermark of true genius, to be so obsessed and consumed by the felt importance of his work, that he does not care about the admiration and encouragement of others.
I do agree however, that in todays world, artistic works of high quality seem to not be marketable as they were in the past, because there is no aristocratic audience. Or maybe they are not produced in the first place, because the individuals who would normally produce them, can not reach maturity and flourish in todays culture?
(02-13-2023, 02:04 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: Re: Tutoring

On one hand, I don't think Hoel in any way demonstrates that this is the mechanism that brings about geniuses. Actually, he unwittingly seems to argue that intelligent and wealthy parents are the biggest predictor of genius (I agree with this), and that tutoring is mostly the way children were taught before we had modern conceptions of school. I do, however, agree that some form of tutoring would be the ideal way to educate your children, if you can afford it. At this point I want to distance the discussion from "genius", and maybe even from excellence. As I alluded to in my previous post, I don't think you need to (or should) set this goal for your children. Making your children excellent in ZOGworld is not admirable. You should want to your children to develop their potential. At least, you should want your children not to be miserable (which many of us were in public school, and blame that institution largely for it).

I think one underdiscussed aspect of home schooling is that parents are not in the best position to be teachers to their offspring. As the one who most likely coached the child in every aspect of life, like how to sit still at the table or how to use a toilet, you are in a way too familiar with each other to build the optimal atmosphere for learning. Instead, a tutor, somebody who can become a friend, but is decidedly from outside of the (inner) family, is foreign enough to be both interesting and respected, and on his side, doesn't connect the childs behaviour to a long history of previous experiences. 

If it could be arranged, I think every intelligent and curious child would profit immensely from having a tutor or counsil in many different fields of interest. Such a person can be both a figure of authority as well as a peer. He can be a peer because he is subordinate to the parents. A public school teacher can never come into that realm, as he is always an extension of state authority. If anything, I would say that sport coaches and private music teachers are in a comparable role today as such a tutor: A somewhat controlled environment, where the child can experience confrontation with the real world under supervision, but outside of the direct control of the parents. Immensely valuable for development. 

Re: Aristocratic tutoring

If you arrange tutors for your child (not just for piano lessons, but for the whole education), how would you do that in an aristocratic fashion? Materially, it is aristocratic by merit of being expensive, exclusive and excentric. Does it need to be aristocratic on a metaphysical level as well? If we understand that question to mean a certain telos to the education, that is, the cultivation of a higher spirit, I would answer in the positive. I am currently in a suboptimal psychological and physical condition, and don't want to elaborate on what a higher spirit is, for fear of missing the mark on a crucial topic in which I am less well versed than the above. But others may have clearer visions that I'd be interested in reading.

I agree that wealthy and intelligent parents are almost essential. And a significant factor he doesn't really touch is that unequal wealth distribution is GREAT for the finer organs of humanity. It's almost a rule now that intelligent parents will be working 70+ hours a week between them and for that effort being significantly poorer relative to intelligent parents in the first world in the past. The knock-on effects of this are enormous and bad. Can afford less for the children, will have fewer children, will be there less, life is generally less comfortable and interesting, relative loss of social status. Disaster. A significant amount of this comes back to money.

(02-13-2023, 07:15 PM)Eckart Wrote: I think if conventional schooling can not be avoided altogether, it should at least be supplemented by tutoring by the parents, capable friends or relatives. The argument that one can not be as proficient in the various subjects as full time teachers is a lazy excuse, considering the average quality of teachers in public schools today. In the same category falls the time-argument: If the average normgroid has time to watch 4 hours of Netflix or Youtube per day, he has also the time to tutor his children. Tutoring for me does also entail practical activities such as building something or doing playful experiments together.

I don't really like this "time for self improvement" line of thinking. Netflix is basically plugging yourself into an anaesthetic. If you're on that you do not have mental energy. Asking an exhausted person why they aren't working more over and over again is not useful. Time is not the only cost of worthwhile activity.
figure out how you're going to breed a woman first then we'll talk
Since we've been bumped why not post more?

[Image: mojo-cover-marapr23.jpg]

I could have children. I could also take someone else's.
The key to this approach lies within the wording. Heil Jawn.
King Charles Cavalier prone to degenerative mitral valve disease DMVD Dachshund prone to DMVD Miniature and Toy Poodle prone to DMVD Doberman Pinscher, especially males prone to dilated cardiomyopathy DCM Boxers prone to arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy ARVC Golden Retrievers prone to aortic stenosis from improper formation of the aortic valve Miniature Schnauzers, especially females prone to sick sinus syndrome SSS <a href=https://dapoxetine.buzz>buy priligy 30mg</a> I am currently pregnant again for a 3rd time
(04-24-2023, 07:27 PM)Duetraw Wrote: King Charles Cavalier prone to degenerative mitral valve disease DMVD Dachshund prone to DMVD Miniature and Toy Poodle prone to DMVD Doberman Pinscher, especially males prone to dilated cardiomyopathy DCM Boxers prone to arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy ARVC Golden Retrievers prone to aortic stenosis from improper formation of the aortic valve Miniature Schnauzers, especially females prone to sick sinus syndrome SSS <a href=https://dapoxetine.buzz>buy priligy 30mg</a> I am currently pregnant again for a 3rd time

I am disturbed.
What does the esoterica say about influencing the likelihood of producing male offspring? Anecdotally, I see most young families with more girls than boys, and I believe there is even some evidence which suggests a causal link between hormonal imbalances brought about by the toxicity of the modern world and a higher ratio of female:male births (see: Dr. Shanna Swan).

As a parent, you are typically grateful regardless of what you have, but I think most of us are more inclined toward raising males than females. I certainly don't see myself being as invested in raising young women, especially considering it is young boys that need special treatment. Something to think about.
ZOG says you can't do anything to influence the sex of your child, so we know that's certainly not true. However, empirical evidence of any method is scarce. The best I can do is this:

- Y-chromosome carrying sperm are faster but have shorter lifespan, than X-chromosome carriers. This suggest that breeding your wife as close on her ovulation as possible would be more likely to yield a boy, and I think I saw some evidence that this is true.

- Carrying a boy is more stressful on your wife than are girls, so making life easier for her should decrease chances of an early abort (often mistaken for a late period).

- Many cultural traditions have secret methods to produce boys, none of which have been proven to work. I think the most noteworthy thing is that there is a recurring theme of cooling your testes. This is often the only component of the magical procedure that has any direct interaction with your reproductive capabilities. We also know that high-level athletes, who have higher average body temperature, tend to have more girls than boys. I would give some cautious weight to this idea that cooling your balls, or keeping them cooler than usual, could increase chances for a boy.
The ratio of male:female births changes with the seasons of conception in a 11:12 ratio and vice versa, reinforcing the heat-killing-male-sperm theory. I thought this was from a mainstream source but I'm not going to bother to check.

I just came here to mention that you shouldn't name your sons Napoleon von Hitlerson. You should name them something like John Miller in the legal system because it makes them more anonymous in matters of bureaucracy/cancelling. Go ahead and give them a traditional (non edgy) real name they can use when introducing themselves to people.

Has anyone screwed around with getting birth citizenship for their kids somewhere else? People talk about it like it gives you more rights in unstable times but it kind of depends on the nations being strong/honorable even if the current world order fails. Not like there aren't advantages outside of unstable times but those are the main ones I would care about. Seems like if you can get citizenship for two stable countries like USA or some European country through parentage maybe it is worth it to have your kids born somewhere else for soil citizenship.

I wonder how people can abuse bloodline American citizenship rules. Like, if I (american) don't legally claim to be the father is that a crime? If I don't tell USA feds "hey I think I was the only guy fucking her it's probably mine" is that a crime? Not like it is hard to avoid the gene stealers at birth so I could imagine letting my kids having the citizenship option ("Just take a gene test and prove to them that you're my son if you ever want it") without setting themselves up for enforceable tax/debt burdens by default. Might set them up in a bad position to join the intelligence agencies or politics even post-revelation because those may function on magic soil theory in some places and they may consider them to be in the same category as naturalized citizens.
What does everyone think about surrogacy for your favorite wives? Get a few flip gals and pay them to carry wifey's quality eggs to term.

low estimate for # eggs wifey has ~= 300k - (12k * years since puberty)
high estimate for # eggs wifey has ~= 400k - (12k * years since puberty)
Either way, your wifey could have hundreds of thousands of sons and daughters. (These equations seem to imply the puberty speeds up the rate of egg loss- this is not the case. Egg-loss pre-puberty is over ten times larger, eating away at a 1 to 2 million stockpile from birth)
IVF has 41-43% success rate for women under 35. That is pretty old, and implies using the original wife instead of a surrogate. A surrogate may be selected for characteristics like lordotic insertions or waist to hip ratio that increase birth safety against IVF risks like multiple birth. Not sure how rare these traits are in cheap 3rd world women who are easy to recruit as surrogates.

The biggest downside to this is just that having a lot of kids means you need to either have them raise themselves to a large degree or recruit women caretakers. (I think the surrogates are optimal caretakers as they may have hormonal attachment to the kids) I would prefer the former as much as possible but I don't want my kids dying in avoidable accidents as toddlers.

If you don't intend to have hundreds of thousands of descendants with a given wife, it might be worthwhile to focus on grooming a small number of less-valuable women as surrogate-concubines. Screw them to keep them unstressed while they are gestating your children, maybe let them have a kid or two with you from their own egg supply as a finale so they have clannish buy-in with your offspring. (This may be a total fail because it differentiates the kid coming out of their womb with their TRUE offspring coming out of their womb. Better to pretend that the 7 foot tall aryan is definitely their little boy all grown up forever.) Half-white descendants of sex tourists in 3rd world countries might fit well, slavic ladies would fit even better but I don't know if they are poor enough. Optimally their biology tricks them into thinking the kids are there own. The greatest danger of the surrogate-to-caretaker pipeline strategy is that the rates of domestic abuse of kids always increases when you have more genetically unrelated adults in the household, and this may hold even if there is the simulation of the child being of their own body and blood.

(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: wifey
"..."
(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: wifey
"..."
[/quote]

"Your honor, I have no idea what you mean by 'mare tal rape' it was just a bit of wifey rapey"
(06-05-2023, 05:27 PM)Guest Wrote:
(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: wifey
"..."

"Your honor, I have no idea what you mean by 'mare tal rape' it was just a bit of wifey rapey"
[/quote]

"Martial rape" is a misnomer, you cannot rape your wife, the point of marriage is essentially to have a socially apporoved method of saying that you alone get to have sex with a particular woman, with this in mind, rape would be just having sex with a woman that is not your wife albeit with violent and forcefull methods.
(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: Get a few flip gals and pay them to carry wifey's quality eggs to term.

I think that you ought to prefer regular white women. Money will not be an obstacle to fertility if you deserve it. Not like 3rdies are going to have significantly lower cost of living if they live with you.

(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: Screw them to keep them unstressed while they are gestating your children, maybe let them have a kid or two with you from their own egg supply as a finale so they have clannish buy-in with your offspring.

The original motivation here is clearly to bottleneck 3rdie fertility by making them give birth to white babies. That doesn't work if you have regular kids with them anyway. Using white lesbians as surrogates won't suppress white fertility much on the margin. Proof: there are still white lesbians who are not pregnant with white kids.

It seems much healthier to only use surrogacy as an expression of intra-harem hierarchy. Some have the best genes. Some have the most transferable fertility. Get the most of both you can. Best wives get a couple surrogate pregnancies from the mid lesbian broad you picked up because you had a good feeling and she has big tits. Middling wives don't get any because it is a whole procedure for little benefit. Gestating stock get one natural pregnancy right away and more later according to their quality.
(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: The biggest downside to this is just that having a lot of kids means you need to either have them raise themselves to a large degree or recruit women caretakers. (I think the surrogates are optimal caretakers as they may have hormonal attachment to the kids) I would prefer the former as much as possible but I don't want my kids dying in avoidable accidents as toddlers.

(06-05-2023, 11:05 AM)Guest Wrote: The greatest danger of the surrogate-to-caretaker pipeline strategy is that the rates of domestic abuse of kids always increases when you have more genetically unrelated adults in the household, and this may hold even if there is the simulation of the child being of their own body and blood.

Get cameras? Responsibility for actions provided, wives will naturally handle the rest by internal harem politics. (provided sufficient intelligence and stable personality)

Do not use amazon ring.

Preferably don't use any sort of off-the-shelf easy-setup bullshit. Highest level of security, check RF emissions yourself and assemble your own system from simple components like single board computers (like RasPIs) and other modular hardware. Optimally pin cameras in all sorts of surfaces to negate any presumed blind-spots. Encrypt footage as soon as possible- long before it reaches the final destination. Destination should not be held on your property as you do not want to be forced to decrypt under 5th amendment exemptions. Bulletproof hosted in a geopolitically distinct jurisdiction and accessed only by tor/i2p. Whereas there is precedent for forcing you to decrypt a drive that you have in your residence there is no such precedent yet for the revelation of your operations with some unknown 3rd party. They could try, it would be a real stretch.

I am more interested in questions like: does it matter if the mother has wide hips, or if just the surrogate has wide hips will that allow the kid to have a larger cranium?

https://surrogate.com/surrogates/pregnan...uirements/



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)