|
|
|
Imprinting, upbringing, and genes for child-raising by PF This is a question, open-ended, for your consideration, stemming from debates with liberal friends ... A recurring picture-argument is that of the possibility of a universal Renaissance, conditioned on the possibility that all people everywhere get a middle-class white upbringing. Essentially this scheme would graft onto the private lives of numberless ghetto-dwellers the kind of nurturing, loving, book-reading childhood enjoyed by upwardly-mobile middle class whites. This is justified because the liberal formulating the argument understands that patterns of behavior are given their first impetus by parents when the child is young. That component of non-genetic variation which is formed by imprinting in childhood is the wiggle-room they need to make everyone theoretically conformable to European standards of behavior. A person adept at truth search would have to detect in themselves, were they to find themselves arguing in this way, the existence of a cherished hypothesis beating a hasty retreat into a shadowy corner of plausibility where its premises can evade inspection ... for the moment. Realizing that one cherished a hypothesis, which is a sin in the truth search, one would have to take steps to remedy it. But since our liberal friends might not be tainted by that degree of enthusiasm, we have to encounter this argument on its own terms and not point out how suspiciously it resembles certain things you might have learned to recognize from elsewhere ... Its not clear which entity would ‘reach in’ at the appropriate time to prevent the inappropriate behavior while the non-whites are being upbring-ated. Who would shop for them, and choose healthy groceries? Who would prevent the Dad from drinking? Who would prevent the mother from spending 20+ hours watching television? Who would allocate the spending of money which resulted in enough money being left over for cultural events such as attending art museums? Who would attend to the thousand little details (time allotted? car keys? everyone present? enough gas? directions?) which in the absence of real motivation to go to the art museum, give birth to myriad rationalizations about why it need not happen. In the absence of the DNA-sprung desire to see art, explore and understand the world, who would explain to the children the context of what was being seen, and tie it into a larger narrative emerging from adult experience and knowledge? Who would prompt the natively-uninterested person to bring up the same issues later at the dinner table, sustaining a living interest in what had been experienced? Are government entities going to do this? Individual concerned citizens? As one can see by simple thinking, this kind of ‘civilizing intervention’ would be as demanding for the person doing it - the white ‘Shadow Family’ that I presume is supposed to oversee the upbringing-ing (what about robots?), as it would be denigrating to those ghetto dwellers who would have to submit to it. Actually, it would far exceed historical slavery in terms of the precise unfreedoms that it would have to demand of its participants: because ultimately one human being would be commanding (or furtively suggesting? in accordance with our permissive social models) another one not to eat another sandwich, not to turn on the television, go out to return library books even though you didn’t want to get them in the first place, listen to NPR instead of rap, etc. etc. The implausibility of that may become manifest when you imagine it, but this argument is the hottest thing since sliced bread in any number of liberal minds that I’ve seen. Within a span of two days I heard a liberal argue this in favor of North American blacks, and saw the following comment on a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog, which applied the same argument to the turks of Germany:
How does this really look when it ceases to be imaginative liberal self-consolation and becomes feisty, ideal-frustrating fact? Who is the “one”, who is going to do the prying? Is there a ‘shadow family’? Or is it a school? A bunch of shadow teachers? A shadow university? Are we going to be conscripted en masse into a peace-time army of shadow Upbringers, tasked with looking over dusky shoulders to ensure that Hamlet and Henry V get read? Preventing their summer time fun to explain to them the delights of an abstraction which cannot be called to life within their gear? What are the precise dimensions of these externally imported sociobiological add-on layers? One wonders. Lets ignore the inherently whack incentive structure presumed in this scheme, and instead turn to historical precedent: “hey, this looks familiar! have we been here before?” Here we see the lamentable effects of our historical non-knowledge: 50 years of the Great White Social Worker, and handouts and opportunity initiatives in the wildest plurality of guises, experienced by liberals (theoretically the inheritors of this tradition?) as if all this had never happened. No one keeps a record of liberalism’s failings - no one is allowed to launch the critique that shows that they did and generally (post-1970) always do fail in their intent - so ideas are reintroduced into the conversation with a tone that indicates that they are new ideas. I have listened to Europeans and Canadians, for example, pitch to me America’s affirmative action and post-civil rights policies as unique solutions to the American, European and Canadian racial problems. We said we should encounter this argument on its own terms and this is actually the main idea of this piece. Imagine a nice middle class white kid. His name is Maximillian, with a tuft of red hair and a propensity for role-playing games (trying to be realistic, what these people are really like). His parents raised him with all sorts of culture, constant talk about how business is run, how people are dealt with; classical culture was respected, and the kid was an avid reader. From a young age he was maneuvered into place to competitively achieve various laurels of advancement both in the professional and personal realm. Now from the point of view of liberalism, the particular environment created for this child by his parents in the home represents the effective non-plus ultra of maximized Upbringinatedness. A zombified voice croaks out the obligatory ‘we are all the same’- but hot damn! the Upbringing was superb. Our weapon of choice against our crumbling, bankrupt society’s ills is going to be to rip this island of comfort and shared safety and joy, rip it abstractly, somehow, out of its natural context, and supply it, somehow, to those parts of our society which are spearheading the descent into chaos. Once they, somehow, acquire the table-talk and other accoutrements of this family life, their troubles will be over. Now remember that according to the liberal argument, Max doesn’t especially “deserve” to have this upbringing. He got this upbringing as random chance, and it was something he himself had no say in. He didn’t choose his parents, after all, and it is in this sense that society sees this disparate upbringing as unfair. This is the argument that I would like to construct a counterargument to. Lets see how well I do. Max’s parents must have genes for parental care, just as I imagine all human beings have these genes. But they aren’t known yet so their theoretical insertion into political discourse has to be marked presently by placeholders which can show the political and social implications of a reality which, we have reason to believe, will subsequently be elucidated by science. A, B, C, D, and E control parental care. You can anticipate what I’m going to say already! Its Max’s own genes which are turning the television off and taking him to the art museum. Max’s own genes that scrupulously reads the food labels and steer him towards prestigious universities. Because Max will not have received the full complement of his parent’s child-raising genes, but he will inevitably have received some of them, and all of his child-raising genes will be received from his parents. Conditions permitting, what you experience in early life in your imprinting and upbringing, is an expression of the same parental-care genes you will inevitably have received from your parents. You’re not expressing them, but a condition of your environment is to receive the expression of these genes! So just like having blue eyes is a phenotype, so is getting the best medical care that is available. If Max’s dad strove to get the best job he could, and made sure to get the best medical care for his son, its inevitable that this is gene expression. We are also interested in models of the world with and without different layers of government intervention. We just discussed the Shadow Armies that would make people read Hamlet, and we talked about how Shadow Parents would protect ghetto children from experiencing the violence that springs innately from within their own communities. So what is the Shadow Parent doing? Isn’t the government installed Shadow Parent modifying gene expression, at a level which our current culture finds it - at least in theory - extremely fashionable and above all very possible to alter? These complex, presumably ‘emergent’ higher phenotypes are just exactly what makes the raw material with which our government and intellectual fashionistas find it most tempting to work - exactly that which can be most molded. They see a person’s thinking and lust to get their hands inside it like a potter looks at soft clay, knowing if they shuttle some money around and claim new things to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ - reality will change to meet their wishes…. they did the image-calculations within their own minds, therefore it must be true!! Not being personally invested, no one even cares if they happen to be wrong. It would be absurd, I hear the MR chorus say, to put blue dye into someone’s eyes to make them blue. Society agrees. But there is nothing wrong with adding whole new sociobiological layers on top of ‘dysfunctional’ social units, effectively declaring that the social life of whole peoples and strata of society is ‘wrong’. And moreover, since I’m sure we don’t care about critical commentators holding their value judgments in bounds (since we agree with them), they actually think this is possible, hence this discussion. Perhaps this is a function of the specific thinking they have about agency in upbringing, and the degree to which Max is ‘responsible’ for his own upbringing. Max contains a code which determines the component of his upbringing now imagined to be ‘chosen’ by parents. In normal circumstances (where a person is raised by their parents), Max’s code, in interaction with all manner of other variables and the state of knowledge at the time, decides how often he gets fed and what. Maybe if this idea of the ‘undeservingly privileged baby’ were dealt a blow, all these elaborate cuckolding schemes would lose some plausibility. I’m aware that the above isn’t going to appear in any peer-reviewed journals. However, its important for the Max’s of this world to lose their shame that comes from this idea of the unearned awesome Upbringing, and to proudly own up to the efforts of their parents as reflective of their own quality and deserved by them as their children, recognizing that the same parenting instincts also exist in them. Talk about people trying to steal things from us, its not enough to steal car stereos, inventions, university degrees, but by insinuating false reasoning into the unthinking minds of our own sleepwalking liberals, non-white EGI conspires even to steal from us the blessed nurturing island of love that was our first and most prized possession. Comments:2
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:42 | # The nature / nurture debate as calculated political guilt attack - could be - thing is they always knew / believed there were individual and ethnic differences (goyishe kop) so the ideological basis for that part of the multicult (it’s all nurture) was completely dishonest from the start. Killing the idea that they were smarter on average is / was much more important to the instigators than stopping the idea that non-whites are dumber on average. The idea that high-value nurture was a product of high-value nature would need to go too and be replaced with privilige - which it is either way of course - clever parents make you priviliged even if they’ve got no money.
I disagree with this bit. If you accept left-liberalism at face value then it’s true but i don’t. Left-liberalism is designed to create a culture which provides well-paid jobs for left-liberals which sustain the culture of left-liberalism. The whole thing is a scam. The shadow-parent (good phrase) left-liberal superstructure is a parasite created for the usual reasons (maximum money for minimum physical effort) by the usual suspects. Trouble is creating cushy parasitical left-liberal billets for themselves led other people to want in on the action and now the parasite has grown too big and become a huge weight pulling western economies over the economic cliff. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:36 | # Illuminating the structure of the tangled web is most difficult. Here are some of its threads: <ul><li>Pressure from the social environment to conform to religious beliefs.<li>The religious belief in belief itself—faith.<li>The further religious belief in the power of group faith—“If everyone would just believe it would be so.” and its natural consequence “You non believers are responsible for the bad state of things.”<li>The goal envisioned is axiomatically so valuable that any means or risks may be “tolerated” no matter how intense the up-front costs, nor how long one must “tolerate” uncompensated cost.<li>The germ theory of pathology (memetic or genetic germs/parasites, etc.) exhibiting extended phenotypes including religious belief serving the replicators encoding those EPs.</ul> The tangled web is then presented as a Gordian Knot by the high priests of confusion. When and with what in whose hand is it cut, so that the sticky stuff doesn’t trap the sword? 5
Posted by Bill on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:10 | # Whatever happened to all cultures being of equal merit? It takes a village to raise a child. I thought it was all about cherished diversity which enriches our live so. Imposing? white’s culture on the world is the ultimate no-no. If these discussions are taking place in real liberals lives - then it’s a joke. Liberals are for the chop just the same as the chavs. First they came for the working class. I’m as guilty as anyone in forgetting to remember that it’s nothing to do with tolerance, upbringing, no-discrimination, middle class cultural values or anything else. It’s all about being a weapon to unleash on whites ceaselessly to acquiesce into accepting their own suicide (which at the moment is not clear to me how this will manifest itself.) PF. Do you think liberals (at least the ones you talk to) have any idea what it’s all about? Do they have no conception of what’s in the wind, even now they are being singled out for destruction - well at least economically for the moment. Is it not on their radar that they just might be on the hit list? In fact, have liberals the faintest idea at what is happening in to-days world? Why don’t you ask them next time you are invited to dinner? As an aside… I have heard too much anecdotal evidence that if you gave two new born infants to the wrong parents (which happens) then each child will follows its own gene path as nature intended. Oops! I forgot, there’s no such thing as natural behavior. No matter what the parents endeavour, even giving them all the insights mentioned, the children’s true being will out. 6
Posted by PF on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:27 | # Hi Bill!
It seems and feels to me like each person’s liberalism is a unique structure - but its always woven into that part of themselves that is unshaped by experience, untaught by life, the part of the mind that wants to participate in collective dreaming. What liberalism’s advocates (the one’s that I know) are really interested in is personal fun: video games, university drinking parties, facebook jokes, art movies, and the whole shiny romp of modern white leftist life. They sense that on the outside of their circle, horrendous realities are crowding in to extinguish the fun. Liberalist tropes are quasi-religious (credit: James) incantations, with their putative foundation in reason (i.e. anti-racism is reasoned out on the basis of thought models which are designed to prevent *all* conflict and *all* suffering, *forever*), which are invoked to protect this fun, and prevent the fun from ending. Thats why the liberalism of 30 year olds, I find, is pathetically brittle. The liberalism of 20-somethings is a wonder to behold, very robust, because its very shielded from life. You often meet someone who is pathetic as a person, and after a bit of knocking around on various doors, a little pygmy crusader emerges from within them! He survived because they are pathetic, because they held on longest to this dreaming untaught element in themselves. Anti-racism and worldliness seem to show negative correlation. Have I just said anything new? You can name this beast a thousand times… but maybe if we keep studying them and encountering them, an understanding will emerge. Given that its impossible to find a social melieux that isn’t crawling with these people (apparently), experiments in this vein are likely to continue…
This is a conundrum which would repay someone with the patience to sit down and think through. On the one hand, everyone is equal - on the other hand, we see ‘failure’ in the poor results, crime rates, and decay. What? Somehow a city that has become a war-zone is ‘uncool’ - yet are still universally tolerant? Isn’t the meaning of all this tolerance also that we are cool with barbarism, decay, poverty, drug-use, illiteracy, isn’t that the meaning of any real tolerance? 7
Posted by Bill on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:01 | # PF Just look how they are performing in Afghanistan/Iraq. (is it all true? Liberal thinking rules) Change you can believe in. Whenever I ponder at length on any aspect of their thinking, my (admittedly limited) logical processing, inevitably leads me to such a conclusion. Liberalism is said to be the new-age religion. I’m beginning to wonder. As a 18 year old, someone opined to me out of the blue, that man will one day become God. I was so naive I failed to follow the statement through. I often wonder what became of that individual. Drug usage and its effects is something else. I know little. Until I started my meanderings here, I had no idea how prolific world-wide drug use had become. I now lean toward the belief that wide-spread use of hallucinatory drugs/substances have had a huge influence, not only liberal thinking, but on postmodern philosophy itself, or indeed the culture war itself. (Or are they all one and the same?) I found the description of your liberal friend’ habits and pastimes most interesting. Not for the first time have I been inclined to thinking how juvenile they are - but with high intelligence. A lethal combination if ever there was one. This is the type I imagine who is the young programme producer at the BBC. Our university’s finest brainwashed. Absolute poison. 8
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:25 | #
Someone once said that those who dont take drugs underestimate how widespread drug use is but those who take drugs overestimate how many people take drugs. Sounds plausible. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:46 | # Someone once said that those who dont take drugs underestimate how widespread drug use is but those who take drugs overestimate how many people take drugs. Whatever else they understand, those who do not take drugs will never understand those who do. But then those who do take drugs will never understand anything. 10
Posted by BGD on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:16 | # Reminds me of snappy refutations. We’ll sorry more waffle than snap, but: I think I’d attack this argument coming from one of my acquaintances by the following: “By your reasoning, to keep the positive inputs consistently the overwhelming element, it would be necessary to decrease the negative inputs to almost non-existent level. This would equate to the removal of the child from both their home environment and neighbourhood life. “But children’s homes have more negative than positive inputs and cross-racial adoption has negative effects on the ethnic awareness of the adoptee. “Additionally, considering that the numbers of the disadvantaged are increasing at a much greater rate than the advantaged how is this to be achieved? There aren’t enough Madonnas, Brangelinas and Bullocks voluntarily offering their wealth and diminishing the opportunities of their own kin to go around so.. This was attempted in some measure with the so-called Stolen Generation in Australia, do you sign-off on that? I’d then probably attack the “expectation of failure” culture inherent in politicised school curriculums, before promoting well structured mono-racial environments, coupled with non-politicised, strong institutions of learning. Perhaps, if they’re US based (which in my case they wouldn’t be) I’d point them to Thomas Sowell plus some stats on pre-segregation black literacy and achievement. Underpin the pitch with the idea that mono-racial environments are best at creating those supportive networks where many of the actors in the social structure can step in and out of the in loco parentis role. Then if all was going well I’d discuss the inequalities that are bound to rise in a multi-racial environment, the harm that the politicisation of this does to the whole of wider society as well as to the ‘under-represented groups’ and use it to further underpin the mono-racial argument. Not necessarily in Liberia but just separate neighborhoods away for now.. 11
Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:25 | # The drugs of choice in the West are caffeine and SSRIs, as they make the slaves work harder and accept their miserable lots in life. Drugs and phytochemicals are gifts from the plant and mushroom gods - if you treat them with respect, they will teach you. If you treat them with disrespect, they will kill you or drive you insane. The Christian mass with bread (perhaps representing grain “spoiled” by ergot), wine (with a Bacchic history), frankincense, and myrrh (both having mild narcotic properties) are but placebos for the real sacraments. If you want to witness a rebirth of the Western soul, you best turn to the source(s). 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:04 | # Cladrastis,
Even supposing that while under the influence of a drug one could extract something from “the source” that is interesting, real, objectively true and has some informational quality, could one bring it back into ordinary waking consciousness. Would its meaning survive the journey? 13
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:49 | # That is an excellent question GW; perhaps it should be tested? Perhaps there are reasons beyond the disinformation disseminated by mass mal-education why such substances are illicit and difficult to procure (for anyone of character, at any rate). 14
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:15 | # GW: 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:38 | # Grimoire, Yesterday’s rose endures only in its name - that’s my point. What is there to interrogate but the puffery of false claims to rosehood? 16
Posted by PF on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:01 | #
entheogens are the source of the Western soul? 17
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:54 | # I understand the skepticism, but look closer. Go back to the sources and you will find: Soma, haoma, medu, kykeon, fly agaric (ambrosia), and flying ointments We are a race of fearless explorers; why should our spirit of exploration be confined to the material world? Entheogens, when used properly, are the best known vessels for transporting consciousness to the “otherworld” (short of dying, anyway). Even if there is no otherworld, I think we need some assurances about our place in the cosmos - we need rites and rituals that psychologically prepare us for death. Think of how useful entheogens might be for inducing trance states at important junctures in the life of an individual or nation. Perhaps there are better ways, but I do not know of any. Eastern meditation, perhaps… but that is the low (and imo worthless) path with few if any cognates in the Western historical milieu. Western meditation is quite different - it is more akin to contemplation (and obviously there is room for that in any Western spiritual practice). I’m not saying that everyone should use (or be forced to use) entheogens. However, everyone should be given the opportunity to experience the full range of human consciousness under the supervision of a trained professional. If enough people utilize the same methodology (including set and setting) and return with the same information, then perhaps there is something of substance “there”? In the Western spirit of inquiry, this idea should be tested rather than dismissed as blasphemy by a bunch of pharisees. Christianity is all but dead. Secularism is a segue for something greater. To adopt a religion like Asatru is anachronistic (and intellectually bankrupt). From whence do you expect the new spirituality to emanate? It is already in us; it is our duty to return to the places our ancestors journeyed for insights about the gods, the soul, and eternity, and come back to recontextualize such wisdom within our modern dilemma. Sure, philosophy and aesthetics play important roles too, but they can take us only so far. Perhaps I should state explicitly what seems to be an obvious truth: drugs are a serious problem only in societies comprised of low average IQ populations. If there were regulated, legal psychedelics administered by professionals (say, priests) in a safe space, why would people even seek “hard” drugs? The drug “problem” and the unnecessary energetic costs associated with it would disappear. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:22 | # cladrastis, you are merely bringing up but one aspect self-experimentation implicit in Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society. Some might call this “freedom of religion” if they were serious about “religion” as a source of truth rather than mass dogma. 19
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:37 | # I agree with you 100%, James. Although I did not mention your idea explicitly, I had it (or at least, something you said in an interview way, way back) in mind as I wrote that post. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:42 | # Cladrastis, When I was in my early twenties I read Huxley’s Doors to Perception. Then I discovered that this was not, in fact, his real thinking about this question. He had come to consider the approach he was reporting in D2P flawed and superficial. He moved on and, in fact, arrived eventually at Island, where the mynah birds are trained to squawk “Attention” all day long. What was different about the two approaches, imo, was that Huxley had realised something about permanence and the obliteration of the self. In other words, without permanence there is nothing but the flood, and nowhere the waters can scour out patterns of experience. And without that there has been nothing. Island is the book in which Huxley attempted, just as we are tentatively attempting here, to lay out a form of good living sovereign and free of the totalising power. Post a comment:
Next entry: Will civicism do for Flemish Separatism what ethno-nationalism could not?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:16 | #
Well, the suggestion is to either marry a darkly hued and shiny tribal maiden…or abstain from procreation and adopt a beautiful little Nigerian baby or three. And you PF may foster yet our next Barrack Hussien Obama.