GENIUS FORUMS

A little essay I wrote recently. Just wondering what people think.



What a child learns should be relevant to his desires and questions. His desires and questions will be the result of how he is exposed to the adult world, as well as his genetic/endocrinological predisposition.

The adult world is driven by various forms of acquired power: the power to grow food, the power to engineer, invent, the power to adventure in the wild, the power to discover, the power seduce the opposite sex, the power to have children, the power to increase one's physical and mental strength, etc, etc.

When the child wants power, he will be eager to learn the things needed to gain that power. This is perfectly natural and should be encouraged. Power should never be given to him or deprived from him: he must earn it for himself when he comes to want it.

However, too often power is merely handed over to him before he understands how to generate it for himself. Just as often, his will to work for that power is often deprived or neglected because it frightens the parents.

When power is merely given instead of earned, or when the child's inquiries are discouraged and swept under the carpet, it is always because the natural desires of the child are threatening to the parents, who, because they are disturbed by life, proceed to censure reality from the child, thus censuring and oppressing the potential of the child.

A common way of such censure is by feminizing the child's upbringing, spoiling the child, and in effect depriving him of his natural interests and wishes. Parents do terrible damage to the child when they make life easy for him. Such parents do this for reasons to do with their own deficits in confidence, self esteem and courage. Such parents have a difficult time facing up to the world as it truly is, honestly. Thus, their child is a precious possession that functions as a comforter. Such parents do everything they can to make the child a comforting thing, rather than a disturbing one. They don't want the child to know reality, because if a child grows to know reality, then he becomes reality. Reality is disturbing.

Unfortunately, this means that if the child is to be comforting, it's personality must be relatively fake, shallow, stupid and silly. If the child is to be real, intelligent and truthful, then it is a disturbance to the parents.

The child's natural desire to want power is thwarted by the parents who shame the child for being too perceptive, for being too disturbing. The child learns to feel guilt and shame for making natural observations, and thus learns to distrust his own intelligence, and out of a desire to please his foolish parents, particularly his mother (the son takes after his obsequious father), he submits to their(her) wishes.....at least until mid puberty.

It is in mid puberty that the child's desire for individuality, authenticity and power can no longer be contained; however, at this point, the child's intelligence and emotions have been so distorted that he is likely not satisfactorily intelligent, and proceeds to further damage himself in attempts to feel pleasure and/or ingratiate himself into the favor of others, often masochistically, given that by now his inferiority complex is quite acute.

Unfortunately, the demands of public schooling may be encouraging the child to absorb adult material (albeit very ineffectively), whereas, in the meantime, the child's family is encouraging childishness, amorality, cowardice and stupidity. The child is pulled in opposite directions, making him hate both his family as well as his schooling.

A more natural upbringing encourages the child to see the world as it is, and from there, the child will come in direct contact with the threat of death and corruption, it will perceive opportunities for gaining intelligent forms of power, and will be interested in attaining the abilities to achieve such power.

It will be interesting to evaluate children at the end of the year by hearing about their likes and dislikes about what they are learning. Upon hearing their opinions about life, about what is worth doing, what they want to be - one should try matching up the child's personality with archetype's using what we learn from him in interviews, as well as from blood samples, physiognomy, anatomical features, etc. The approximate archetype of the child should give the parents an idea of what sort of future the child has and what sort of children to group him with.

Firstly.. you shouldn't keep relating to a child as 'he', and say 'feminising' otherwise you should change child to boy.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Firstly.. you shouldn't keep relating to a child as 'he', and say 'feminising' otherwise you should change child to boy.

I say child because I don't want to necessarily exclude girls. I say 'he' simply because it's convenient, assuming that readers will be able to extrapolate a bit.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Firstly.. you shouldn't keep relating to a child as 'he', and say 'feminising' otherwise you should change child to boy.

I say child because I don't want to necessarily exclude girls. I say 'he' simply because it's convenient, assuming that readers will be able to extrapolate a bit.

So you think it is OK to feminise a girl?

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Firstly.. you shouldn't keep relating to a child as 'he', and say 'feminising' otherwise you should change child to boy.

I say child because I don't want to necessarily exclude girls. I say 'he' simply because it's convenient, assuming that readers will be able to extrapolate a bit.

So you think it is OK to feminise a girl?

I'm not quite sure how my original post implies that - but no, the emphasis is to discourage feminization altogether.

A common way of such censure is by feminizing the child's upbringing, spoiling the child, and in effect depriving him of his natural interests and wishes.

Well this line does not seem to work with a girl. I don't see how it would fit.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

A common way of such censure is by feminizing the child's upbringing, spoiling the child, and in effect depriving him of his natural interests and wishes.

Well this line does not seem to work with a girl. I don't see how it would fit.

Most girls have a bit of latent masculinity, and I think caretakers should make the most of it.

It's true that a little girl is generally going to have interests and wishes that are naturally feminine, and these shouldn't be suppressed; however, parents love to dress their little girl in clothes that really are quite ridiculous and even sexual - this is before she even hits puberty. They also love to get their girl accustomed to the egotism of birthdays and extravagant amount of gifts at Christmas, usually to do with fashion and make up. Filling up the girl's mind with superstition is also 'feminization'. Providing a diet of junk food and candy is also feminizing. I don't believe any of this is necessary. If the girl expresses a genuine desire to start dressing sexually, getting makeup, etc, then she should not be made to feel guilty or ashamed about it, instead she should only have to work to earn the money to do it. A girl, as much as possible, should be encouraged to work for what she wants - dogma and religious belief should not be imposed, skepticism should be encouraged, and she should always be encouraged to think - even if her disposition is to not want to. Usually a woman wants to please the men in her life that she admires, her father for one, so a girl raised with strong role models usually behaves well, even if ultimately she isn't very conscious.

Also, something I said at the end of my original post is particularly relevant here:

It will be interesting to evaluate children at the end of the year by hearing about their likes and dislikes about what they are learning. Upon hearing their opinions about life, about what is worth doing, what they want to be - one should try matching up the child's personality with archetype's using what we learn from him in interviews, as well as from blood samples, physiognomy, anatomical features, etc. The approximate archetype of the child should give the parents an idea of what sort of future the child has and what sort of children to group him (her) with.

Cory,

You make many good points, and I’d like to comment on the main two challenges to providing children with a healthy environment in western civilization -

There are two problems I noticed in both the uneducated populations and the educated populations. In the uneducated populations with parents of fairly low intelligence, children are being raised with one parent only, which is usually the mother. And she is usually fairly ignorant, poor, and lacking resources, thus she provides the child with a fairly toxic environment. The number of children raised by single mothers is very high in western countries due to the amount of sexual freedom and carefree hedonism attitudes. These children usually have higher rates of obesity, drug addiction, poorly developed conscience, mental problems, and teenage pregnancy.

And on the opposite spectrum, higher intelligent families with career orientated women are creating problems for the genepool as well because they are choosing to have children later in life when they are financially secure in their careers, which results in offspring that have many more genetic diseases because her eggs are so old. And then there is the tendency for educated parents with financial success to spoil their child, which is an egotistical act of ignorance, as you say.

So actually at this stage of our evolution, the continual education of women would highly benefit the health of the genepool because women tend to be the sex that has the most access to children and the most power as far as raising children is concerned.

So on a more relative level, shows like ‘Oprah’ and ‘Dr Phil’ do provide some benefit to mothers, and I also see technology as the growing masculine force in children’s lives, to substitute for the absent role of ‘father’. For instance: sites such as google and wikipedia have become invaluable resources for children to have their questions answered.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:There are two problems I noticed in both the uneducated populations and the educated populations. In the uneducated populations with parents of fairly low intelligence, children are being raised with one parent only, which is usually the mother. And she is usually fairly ignorant, poor, and lacking resources, thus she provides the child with a fairly toxic environment.

I think society should focus on two things: keeping the boys seperate from the girls, especially during late teens, and offer some sort of incentives for birth control and abortion.

The number of children raised by single mothers is very high in western countries due to the amount of sexual freedom and carefree hedonism attitudes.

I think the luxury of the middle to upper classes frustrates the self esteem of the lower classes - the father self destructs and becomes unstable because he is conscious of the class differences and feels like he has no value as a worker.

Check out this video by 50cent ft. the game

Fast forward to the 2:55min mark and watch all the guys posing, staring at the camera. What we're seeing is a lust for self-esteem, pride. Pathetically, middle class kids actually admire these rags to riches celebrities, and so we have the lower and upper middle classes wanting the same thing - and this thing is really quite ridiculous.

People get so excited by the glamor, that they don't have the attention span for doing more intelligent work. People get bored really easy these days because their minds lack subtlety about the finer, more difficult to appreciate things. I mean, to me, learning about the science of the soil, minerology, endocrinology, the atom, smelting metal, great literature, films, psychology, philosophy - these things are aesthetically pleasing for me, I find that I'm pulled along by positive emotions when I'm looking into these things. But to a kid raised in an environment of flashy entertainment and glamor: he has no attention span. Flopping from one entertainment to another, doing drugs, chasing women. Animals.

These children usually have higher rates of obesity, drug addiction, poorly developed conscience, mental problems, and teenage pregnancy. And on the opposite spectrum, higher intelligent families with career orientated women are creating problems for the genepool as well because they are choosing to have children later in life when they are financially secure in their careers, which results in offspring that have many more genetic diseases because her eggs are so old.

I don't think a man should consider himself ready to be a father until he is 30 and successful. When he wants to settle down with a wife and kids, he should aim for a 18 - 20 year old woman.

Prevention measures I think should involve raising genders apart from eachother, especially when they get really sexual. And they should be told why they are being kept apart! The guys would probably find it funny.

Sometimes I think that if a potential mother doesn't meet requirements for being a parent (requirements such as: is young, has a man or men in her life who want the kid) then she should be given incentives to adopt and if she gets pregnant, to have an abortion. And of course, increase awareness of birth control is an obvious one.

So actually at this stage of our evolution, the continual education of women would highly benefit the health of the genepool because women tend to be the sex that has the most access to children and the most power as far as raising children is concerned.

Of course, I think she has a little too much influence. Again, I think this can be solved by encouraging men to wait until they are successful enough and old enough to spend time with their kid. Too many men get their woman pregnant when they are young and then struggle frantically to bring in the money. Abortion and birth control I think should be maximized using some sort of incentives.

So on a more relative level, shows like ‘Oprah’ and ‘Dr Phil’ do provide some benefit to mothers, and I also see technology as the growing masculine force in children’s lives, to substitute for the absent role of ‘father’. For instance: sites such as google and wikipedia have become invaluable resources for children to have their questions answered.

True. I also think a major problem now a days is too much celebrity/glamor worship. There's an unprecedented amount of it. I can remember channel surfing the music stations as a kid, and although it was corrupting, I seen nothing like what the kids are seeing today.

But then again, there are also unprecedented opportunities to become educated through the internet.

When it all comes down to it, perhaps the extreme conditions of the present age are ultimately working to our advantage in the sense that present day western society is like a greenhouse bringing out the most exotic spectrum of behavior all at once, and in the end, we are getting a lot of data and insight into human psychology and social dynamics.

Getting the population more comfortable with abortion and euthanasia I think is a positive step, as is raising girls differently from boys. The fact that sex is so embarrassing for most parents is really a big impediment to consciousness as well. If it was more out in the open and if children were encourage to see sex as some crude thing we inherited from the apes, there might not be such a romantic obsession with it, and thus less single mothers.

Cory,

I mean, to me, learning about the science of the soil, minerology, endocrinology, the atom, smelting metal, great literature, films, psychology, philosophy - these things are aesthetically pleasing for me, I find that I'm pulled along by positive emotions when I'm looking into these things. But to a kid raised in an environment of flashy entertainment and glamor: he has no attention span. Flopping from one entertainment to another, doing drugs, chasing women. Animals.

That sort of curiosity is rare I think. Most humans push themselves through school work, with no real interest in the subject matter at all, and they are only pulled along by the energy derived through imagining some reward/fantasy at the end such as respectful job, a big house, hot ass wife, you know the drill…

When he wants to settle down with a wife and kids, he should aim for a 18 - 20 year old woman.

But then he’d have to live with her… ; )

The fact that sex is so embarrassing for most parents is really a big impediment to consciousness as well. If it was more out in the open and if children were encourage to see sex as some crude thing we inherited from the apes, there might not be such a romantic obsession with it, and thus less single mothers.

There is also the human tendency to become spellbound by beauty in another, this is a major downfall that allows humans to fall into the traps of attachment, possession and romantic love.

Fast forward to the 2:55min mark and watch all the guys posing, staring at the camera. What we're seeing is a lust for self-esteem, pride. Pathetically, middle class kids actually admire these rags to riches celebrities, and so we have the lower and upper middle classes wanting the same thing - and this thing is really quite ridiculous.

I recently watched a debate on BET, where some black intellectuals were debating with rappers trying to convince them to stop glorifying violence, hedonism, drugs, and so on, and hearing their responses was quite funny.

they usually referred to the US constitution stating how they have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want, and how they are merely journalists and reporters of the ghetto. However, the black intellectuals always pointed to the fact that they were glorifying these behaviors, and expressing them in a positive light, which drastically affects the psychology of young impressionable children.

I suspect that vulgar music becomes like a sort of conditioning agent that changes the very endocrinology system itself.

For instance: Look at the angry music of Eminem, those emotions cause the listeners to feel the same way, usually more in males that are predisposed to have angry issues anyway, but nevertheless they get used to it, they get addicted to it, and before you know it, they repeat the same sort of vulgarity with their friends, their girlfriends, not realizing that their body has merely become accustomed to the emotional reward of getting angry over hating women, hating police or whatever the object of contempt may be.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I recently watched a debate on BET, where some black intellectuals were debating with rappers trying to convince them to stop glorifying violence, hedonism, drugs, and so on, and hearing their responses was quite funny.

they usually referred to the US constitution stating how they have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want, and how they are merely journalists and reporters of the ghetto. However, the black intellectuals always pointed to the fact that they were glorifying these behaviors, and expressing them in a positive light, which drastically affects the psychology of young impressionable children.

I suspect that vulgar music becomes like a sort of conditioning agent that changes the very endocrinology system itself.

For instance: Look at the angry music of Eminem, those emotions cause the listeners to feel the same way, usually more in males that are predisposed to have angry issues anyway, but nevertheless they get used to it, they get addicted to it, and before you know it, they repeat the same sort of vulgarity with their friends, their girlfriends, not realizing that their body has merely become accustomed to the emotional reward of getting angry over hating women, hating police or whatever the object of contempt may be.

The more these things are expressed, the more opportunities there are to understand, accept, and appreciate them. Objectivity is essential for moving smoothly through any experience.

Back in 1995, I came across two studies on minorities done by German and Swedish researchers. I was eager to see what they had to say, which I thot would be less biased. But I saw all the same familiar statistics. High rates of crime, drug, alcohol and domestic abuse, and divorce, with low rates of education, job skills, and income.

They also mentioned how the males have a curious walking gait (barrio swagger), ostenatious male wardrobes, and trouble with authority figures. Only problem was, they were talking about the Saami and Gypsies, who are just as white as I am. What is going on here?

The diff is that these two are the only European tribes were not Yeoman farmers over the course of the last 10,000 years, but nomads. They dont innately respect personal property cause they are limited to what they can carry. The big deal with them are their social relationships within the group, and everyone outside the group is just a prey animal. Europeans have tried education with these people, who dont look any different in their academic institutions, and they are not getting very far.

Ergo, this is not an effect of 'racism' as we understand it; they are all *white* people. But it is an effect of genetic endowment, or the lack thereof.

It's an effect of cultural "endowment," or "lack" thereof.