Strivers Are Retards

[Guest]

Hitler was the last prophet. Post-1945 state-woo-myn are all strivers:
From Aristocracy to Meritocracy:

„Two related social forces, meritocracy and democratization, enabled and institutionalized the rise of middle-class leaders. One of the French Revolution’s rallying cries had been ‘careers open to talents’. From the middle of the nineteenth century, the adoption of meritocratic principles and institutions in the West – such as entrance examinations, selective secondary schools and universities, and recruitment and promotion policies based on professional standards – created new opportunities for talented individuals from middle-class backgrounds to enter politics. Simultaneously, the expansion of the franchise shifted both the social and the political center of gravity toward the middle class as well." (Leadership, Henry Kissinger, p. 764)

„Hence Lee’s recurring references to the junzi, or Confucian gentleman, and de Gaulle’s striving to become ‘a man of character’. Education was not merely a credential to be obtained in one’s youth and set aside: it was an unending effort with both intellectual and moral dimensions.“ (Leadership, Henry Kissinger, p.768)

Uni, especially law skrewl or technical uni, is just glorified trade school. The Yokels there are mainly animated by a desire for prestige. The intellectual discourse is highly performative, nobody is interested in ideas. They are just better AI and thats fine in some sense as someone in this thread pointed out.

It also is a form of other-directedness. Especially interesting is the Harvard example Thiel gives where whole cohorts of oversocialized buisness skrewlers systematically go into parts of the economy that bust shortly thereafter. Thiel talks about this in the context of Tech leaders having aspergers and therefore having less of an awareness to follow the Longhouse.

Hitler instituted meritocratic standards and disliked aristocracy.

[NuclearAbsolutist]

„Two related social forces, meritocracy and democratization, enabled and institutionalized the rise of middle-class leaders. One of the French Revolution’s rallying cries had been ‘careers open to talents’. From the middle of the nineteenth century, the adoption of meritocratic principles and institutions in the West – such as entrance examinations, selective secondary schools and universities, and recruitment and promotion policies based on professional standards – created new opportunities for talented individuals from middle-class backgrounds to enter politics. Simultaneously, the expansion of the franchise shifted both the social and the political center of gravity toward the middle class as well." (Leadership, Henry Kissinger, p. 764)

„Hence Lee’s recurring references to the junzi, or Confucian gentleman, and de Gaulle’s striving to become ‘a man of character’. Education was not merely a credential to be obtained in one’s youth and set aside: it was an unending effort with both intellectual and moral dimensions.“ (Leadership, Henry Kissinger, p.768)

Now I have not read Mr Kissinger's works so I don't know if he later covers it but a important asterisk has to be placed next to that analysis that being the actual realities of how positions  strivers fight  for are filled. 

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-a...on-regime/

"It is also important to keep in mind the actual Harvard admissions data at issue in this case. Table 5.3 of the expert report submitted by Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono showed that, if Harvard admitted students according to a purely academic index (as we would expect an academic institution to do without racial diversity pressures), Harvard would be only 0.76% black (assuming that a selective institution like Harvard would not need to go beyond the top 10% of applicants). But with Harvard’s racial preferences, more than 15% of the admitted class was black.

In other words, the challengers to Harvard’s affirmative action program were willing to deviate so far from merit that, under their preferred admissions formula, the college could produce more than ten times the number of black admissions warranted under strictly academic standards. The real fight, then, between the challengers and defenders of affirmative action was whether Harvard would have a 10% or 15% black quota. With challenges like this, affirmative action isn’t in much danger."

I highlight this because outside this forum there's a growing call to question "American meritocracy" as the cause of people bending themselves out of shape in the name of exams which is to put it lightly missing the forest for the trees.

[GraalChud]

Hitler was the last prophet. Post-1945 state-woo-myn are all strivers:
From Aristocracy to Meritocracy:

„Two related social forces, meritocracy and democratization, enabled and institutionalized the rise of middle-class leaders. One of the French Revolution’s rallying cries had been ‘careers open to talents’. From the middle of the nineteenth century, the adoption of meritocratic principles and institutions in the West – such as entrance examinations, selective secondary schools and universities, and recruitment and promotion policies based on professional standards – created new opportunities for talented individuals from middle-class backgrounds to enter politics. Simultaneously, the expansion of the franchise shifted both the social and the political center of gravity toward the middle class as well." (Leadership, Henry Kissinger, p. 764)

„Hence Lee’s recurring references to the junzi, or Confucian gentleman, and de Gaulle’s striving to become ‘a man of character’. Education was not merely a credential to be obtained in one’s youth and set aside: it was an unending effort with both intellectual and moral dimensions.“ (Leadership, Henry Kissinger, p.768)

Uni, especially law skrewl or technical uni, is just glorified trade school. The Yokels there are mainly animated by a desire for prestige. The intellectual discourse is highly performative, nobody is interested in ideas. They are just better AI and thats fine in some sense as someone in this thread pointed out.

It also is a form of other-directedness. Especially interesting is the Harvard example Thiel gives where whole cohorts of oversocialized buisness skrewlers systematically go into parts of the economy that bust shortly thereafter. Thiel talks about this in the context of Tech leaders having aspergers and therefore having less of an awareness to follow the Longhouse.

It is tragic that neither a genuine meritocracy nor a genuine aristocracy exists today. 

W.r.t. the former in the context of schooling and employment, we have a pseudo-meritocracy that emphasizes quantity over quality: it`s all about how many things you have on your resume, how many boxes you check, how high your GPA is (without regard for the quality of one`s work, as the persons involved in the selection of admittees/hirees assumes that a high GPA translates to the hired/admitted individual`s work having been of high quality, which is a bad assumption in an era where testing measures the amount of things you can memorize and spew onto a page rather than analytical skills, reasoning, etc.), etc. Gone are the days where employers or admissions office employees are more concerned with the things that actually measure one`s capacity to perform in an academic environment or the workplace, and the drop in the quality of peoples` work that has resulted from hiring "better AI" (as you put it) shows in academia and the workforce alike.

As for the latter, as I`d assume everyone here knows, we essentially have a ruling class that is a gross inversion of a true aristocracy - it remains true that the "aristocracy" of today is of a different stock than your average white person as was true of European society in the past, however, the genetic makeup of that stock is (niggers, kikes, faggots, libtard strivers, troons, latrinos, poos) is the opposite of an aristocratic ethnos that lords over their inferiors to the benefit of both themselves and said inferiors (as was the case in England, ancient Greece, and France). Unfortunately for us, they`ve retained the "form" of an aristocracy, too, meaning that there is a ridiculously high barrier to entry into said aristocracy that is designed to prevent competent white men of good character (racial and mental) from entering AND there are safety nets that stop incompetent people born into this aristocracy from downward socio-economic mobility. This barrier is selectively impermeable, meaning that it can exclude us, but is permeable for niggers, kikes, faggots, strivers, latrinos, poos, etc. 

What this amounts to is a sort of synthesis between these two things (pseudo-meritocracy and a gross inversion of a true aristocracy), basically a Frankenstein`s monster that combines the worse features of an "aristocracy" (such as selective impermeability and preference based on the "class" into which one has been born, control over societal institutions, and disdain for the "masses" - in this case is white men of good character rather than some unwashed peasant horde) with the worst features of a "meritocracy" (namely, the ability to choose what constitutes "merit" or "achievement" in such a way that it favors certain groups while excluding others altogether). 

We truly live in a judeo-nigger-faggot hellscape.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

The difference between the striver and the genius: The goal of the striver is creating better things than others create, while the goal of the genius is creating something good on its own merits.

A culture of striving in a nation stifles genius because strivers cause the basic social demands of relative status to escalate (now Ching Lee needs to study 4 hours every night instead of 3, because every other kid is already studying 3 hours, so he has less time to grow in more unique ways).

Women/Girls: Remember the "Girls' brains mature faster than boys' brains" meme? Obvious answer is that a dog's brain also matures faster. I know I'm hung up on the schooling question but the world is becoming a giant school so it's very important. Girls are naturally excellent at schooling because the whole thing is a giant selection for loyalty and patience with authority, with very short general competence to clear along the way. The strength of girls isn't intellectual, or even any positive character traits. The power of girls in schooling is negative. An absence of character to get in the way of toil. A lack of integrity and good sense to clash with the idiocy all around them. A consistent them across the striver class. A lack of friction. Sometimes caused by a lack of self to clash, other times enabled by the fact they personally do not give a shit about things others will. We'll get more specific on that point as we go.

One particularly good example of how women love to strive is makeup. Makeup is an entirely unproductive competition over a limited supply of attention, yet great quantities of their money and effort are expended on it. At least bodybuilding can help to lift objects and improve health, makeup creates no value at all. The standard of what is considered beautiful has been artificially raised by their neurotic, mindless striving. Women would be happier and more tolerable if makeup was never invented.

[anthony]

One particularly good example of how women love to strive is makeup. Makeup is an entirely unproductive competition over a limited supply of attention, yet great quantities of their money and effort are expended on it. At least bodybuilding can help to lift objects and improve health, makeup creates no value at all. The standard of what is considered beautiful has been artificially raised by their neurotic, mindless striving. Women would be happier and more tolerable if makeup was never invented.

More generally makeup has a levelling effect in which nature is neutralised (as far as possible) so that plastic and self-determined factors override base judgements as far as possible.

This is also what schooling is. Women don't want you to just look at their face as it is. They also don't want you to just observe their minds in action. You can't really make yourself smarter. You can get better at thinking, but not smarter. Naturally this upsets a lot of people, so like with facial appearance they prefer if we can create a contrived proxy in which the one who is most neurotically driven wins. With makeup you're still working on the frame of the actual face, I would argue educational results are far less bound to the skeleton of nature, creating a more gross disparity between natural order and the results of the system.

And as I've said before elsewhere I think the "practical" arguments on bodybuilding are all rationalisations and that in line with the principle I've outlined above it's male makeup. The only place I see it invoked online is as a challenge to superior innate nature.

[anthony]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colum...mogul-myth

Over time, Hsieh’s interest in junk psychology extended beyond happiness and into even stupider realms. He became obsessed with Neil Strauss’s “The Game,” the infamous guide for so-called pickup artists which taught men how to manipulate women via techniques like “negging” and “peacocking.” When Hsieh ultimately embarked on an ambitious project to revitalize downtown Las Vegas and turn it into a new tech hub, he boasted to a reporter about how he had used methods from “The Game” in selling his vision for the city to potential investors.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Pain & Gain is an anti-striver movie based on a true story which I found hilarious. Although if you watch it, keep in mind that the 1 White-casted guy of the trio was actually hispanic in real life.

[anthony]

Pain & Gain is an anti-striver movie based on a true story which I found hilarious. Although if you watch it, keep in mind that the 1 White-casted guy of the trio was actually hispanic in real life.

Pain & Gain is one of my favourite American films made this century. It read the past and present so hard it predicted the future and becomes more relevant and funny as more time passes since its release. I think a big part of why it's fun is that it's not really an "anti" movie. It's not really negative or taking a position. It's about these people, the individuals and the type. And it's a depiction they'd probably find at least a bit flattering. As a very sharp writer told me, satire is not about sides. Saying one thing when you actually mean the other. Satire is about superiority to the subject. I think the movie works because Bay is a rich successful guy who can do what he wants so he has no reason to care either way about the Sun Gym Gang beyond them being a funny crazy thing that happened. We are not mad at capitalism, narcissism, stupidity, greed, weakness, or anything. We're just enjoying the human animal in its cage.

And yes lots of fun striverism stuff is on display in the film. And if it seems anti-striver I think that's just because Bay, from his superior position, was able to capture the innate absurdity of these people. "Anti" suggests an agenda against them. Bay's agenda is to have fun with them.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Yeah, you're right. The film was somewhat sympathetic towards the characters (and actually, this made me think I was going to dislike it after seeing the introduction of the characters at the beginning). That view on satire is interesting, I think part of why I enjoyed it was because I had a preconceived hatred of this type of person and the film allowed me to laugh at the situation and even enjoy the positive traits of the characters.

[Crackromybatto]

*social media algorithm-fueled apophenia that essentially amounts to just cheap dollar-store bitching about aesthetics*

Yeah yeah we've heard it all before

[A chud that is not the chud]

*social media algorithm-fueled apophenia that essentially amounts to just cheap dollar-store bitching about aesthetics*

Yeah yeah we've heard it all before

The fact that you claim someone else is suffering apophenia is ironic.