Post-Autism

The female brain engages reality; the male brain builds a model of it and engages that.  As societies grow increasingly complex, the male brain is increasingly privileged by its unique ability to comprehend abstraction and complexity.  It thrives in the absence of social reality, and any imposition by social reality diminishes the abstract mind.  The mother is her son’s link to the social and emotional world; societies with weaker women are more emotionally negligent of their sons and thus produce more abstract thinkers.  This is an asset in a complex world, but that world is shrinking.  It’s down to 1% and its last great hope died in November. 

Soon there will be no world but the real world.  There will be no communication but emotional communication.  Frame, not objectivity, will determine truth.  Status will determine right from wrong.  Then the possibility of real power will be restored to whichever men have the insight to claim it and human consciousness will be returned to its biological level. 

Game is the ideology of the new world, and the time has already arrived:  You need it to achieve power and status.  There is no check list.  There is no schedule.  There is no time card.  There is no path. There is only the ability to extract respect and deference from the living beings around you, and the current paradigm of game will not teach you to do that.  You must become the fount of all social value, the ocean of peace, the World Father.  An iron pillar of friendly strength.  A loving king.  A man delivered by generations of high-status, k-selected upbringing.

All this can be internalized by anyone with a powerful enough mind and I’ll begin posting about it later this week.

Advertisements

3 comments on “Post-Autism

  1. NoveltyVotary says:

    My mother died when I was in middle school and I wasn’t exactly the pinnacle of popularity before that anyways. Compared to my siblings I’m quite introverted, which tells me it’s just my winnings in the genetic lottery. I can be funny and charming at small peer gatherings and of course I find it satisfying to be that guy. But naturally I’m drawn to the abstract, and if I can suck someone into a conversation about philosophy where they can keep up I’ll do it every time.

    When I think of upcoming opportunities for socializing I have to convince myself that there is value in it. When I think of attempting to become some sort of social facilitator by applying game principles, I get pretty nervous. It just doesn’t make sense for me, like crossing a desert to get a drink of water— there has to be a better way. But that arena doesn’t feel like a desert to everyone, I understand.

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the term “social value” and it doesn’t just mean the gregarious party-goer that has the ability to inspire the group. Perhaps that’s just the feeling I get from your posts because you feel that is your path or you’ve written about it before?

    Basically, I’m wondering if you think introverted tendencies are challenges to be overcome, or can they be a different method at achieving the same goal. Surely there is a reserved, shrewd and kind type of father/man/leader that doesn’t win his status through jokes, gregariousness and flattery but through his wisdom, actions and keen ability to see the world for what it is?

    Also, is the advisor to a great leader more a beta by his relative position? Do the outspoken, “alpha” males always take the cake? It seems to me leaders need lieutenants and that it makes sense some of those would be complementary in their personalities. So what do you call a lieutenant that is actually more in control of the ostensible leader than the leader the lieutenant? This relationship doesn’t have to be subversive either, it can be cooperative. So who is the alpha? Who is higher status? Who *really* get’s what they want? Sometimes the alpha/beta dichotomy blurs for me in examples like this and I wonder if there are more than a few ways to do it.

    • Arred Wade says:

      I took some time to think about this. It’s is a difficult thing for me to give an opinion on because it is outside of my experience. There have many been times in my life when I avoided social activity, but this was always because I had fears and anxieties about it that outweighed the possible benefits. I always found that once I unlearned these fears, I relished the opportunity to socialize. I always loved the emotional benefits of interacting with others once I silenced my anxiety about it.

      With that said, I know some extremely introverted people and I know that they are not just extroverts struggling to be freed. That’s just who they are and it would be insensitive to assume otherwise. In my case, introversion has always been something to overcome, but in theirs (and possibly yours), it may just be who they are, and fighting it could be unproductive.

      I think that gregariousness is not a mandatory quality for success, but comfort with others is. You don’t have to tell jokes. You don’t have to be the life of the party. But when people look over at you, what’s your gut reaction? Looking away quickly? Avoiding contact? Or engaging them? You don’t have to be a loud person or command the attention of an entire room, but I think you do need to be immersed enough in the social environment that it’s not an abrupt shock when someone engages you. I know that hasn’t always been the case for me in the past.

      How do you get to that point (which absolutely anyone can get to, because it is what we are biologically designed for)? I can only tell you what’s worked for me, and that’s engaging others in a non-intellectual way more often, particularly females. I recommend having platonic female friends very highly, against the opinions of pretty much everyone in the manosphere. I don’t think most men know how to drop their pretensions and and interact openly with women, without trying to hide anything about themselves, and with positive emotions being the only real goal. Once you figure that out everything else is a walk in the park, in my experience.

  2. AAB says:

    ‘societies with weaker women are more emotionally negligent of their sons and thus produce more abstract thinkers.’

    I recall Otto Weininger writing something similar: he said that countries which had masochistic men produced undeveloped women (masochistic men are more likely to be abstract thinkers, mystics etc).

    (http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/aphlett.pdf)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s