1. Did yet another edit of Vocations and The Better Maker this week, hideous labour so when i absolutely couldn’t take any more i read The Genius Famine by Bruce Charlton and Edward Dutton. It’s an excellent work. Charlton/Dutton observe that we no longer live in an age of geniuses, but rather of minor talents, men and occasionally women who tinker with ideas & inventions of a vanished age.

The authors define genius by: intelligence, intuitive creativity and long-term self-motivation. Real intelligence (correlated with reaction time) is diminishing:

…there has been a large and important decline in the average intelligence of Western populations over the past century and more. In every day terms; the academics of the year 2000 were the school teachers of 1900, the school teachers of the year 2000 would have been the factory workers (the average people) of 1900, the office workers and policemen of 2000 were the farm labourers of 1900, while the low level security guards and shop assistants of 2000 were probably in the workhouse, on the streets or dead in 1900.

The substantial long-term unemployed or unemployable, chronically sick or physically/ psychologically disabled, dependent ‘underclass’ of 2000, simply didn’t exist in 1900.

The obvious cause is mutation accumulation, as reduced infant mortality and sub-normal fertility for high-IQ women results in a dysgenic, Idiocracy-style survival of the dumbest. In addition, there are cultural forces – the genius is characteristed by an endogenous personality type:

The genius must combine the inner orientation of the contemplative – in order to find his own problem, the problem he is destined to work on; with an inner motivation towards action directed to solving this problem. He must desire to translate understanding into engagement; not just to contemplate reality, but to ‘solve’ reality.

So, something deep within the genius – and not the promise of an external reward – makes him want to fully comprehend or improve or express the nature of reality. Because his motivation comes from within, and he is focused upon a problem which also comes from within, the genius is not easily discouraged; his drive will enable him – will indeed compel him – to keep pushing and pushing, even when support is withdrawn or he is met by discouragement and failure.

Our society changed at some point in my early years, so the endogenous, self-motivated personality came to be regarded as freakish and abnormal; the exogenous is the norm and indeed the only acceptable personality type, what Charlton/Dutton call the Head Girl:

The stereotypical Head Girl is an all-rounder: performs extremely well in all school subjects and has a very high ‘Grade Point Average’ as it is termed in the USA. She is excellent at sports, Captaining all the major teams. She is also pretty, popular, sociable and well-behaved.

The Head Girl will probably be a big success in life, in whatever terms being a big success happens to be framed (she will gravitate towards such aspects of life) – so she might in some times and places make a good marriage and do a great job of raising a family; in another time and place she might go to a top-notch college and get a top-notch job – and pursue a glamorous and infertile lifestyle of ‘serial monogamy’; with desirable mates.

But the Head Girl is not, cannot be, a creative genius. The genius is pretty much everything the Head Girl is not. He (or she) is lop-sided in his abilities – truly excellent at some things or maybe just one thing, he is either hopeless or bored by many others. He won’t work hard for long periods at things he does not want to do. He will not gravitate to the prestige areas of life and cannot, or will not, do the networking necessary to get-on.

The Head Girl can never be a creative genius because she does what other people want by the standards they most value. She will work harder and at a higher standard in doing whatever it is that social pressure tells her to do – and she will do this by whatever social standards prevail, only more thoroughly. Meanwhile the creative genius will do what he does because he must.

The reader may impatiently ask, Is not the world a finer place with Head Girls? Is it not better without men like Conrad, Nietzsche, Blake, Joyce, Yeats, Dickens, Milton? – without Einstein, Newton, Faraday, Tesla, Mendel, Pasteur? Charlton/Dutton however argue:

In the face of a potentially fatal social problem an individual with the Endogenous personality offers the possibility (but of course there is no guarantee) of a novel ‘breakthrough’ answer. For instance, in the face of the prospect of annihilation by the environment, or by another group – a situation in which the group is doomed unless there is a breakthrough; perhaps some new technology, some socially-unifying art or form of religion, some way of extracting more resources per unit area, some new weapon or defence. For this kind of creative solution, a genius is needed.

If a whole society was composed of genius-type people, it could not function – indeed it would not be a society. But if it altogether lacked Endogenous personalities, then it would only grow very slowly (perhaps by incremental trial and error – which doesn’t always yield an answer to novel problems) and would be at greater risk of being wiped-out by natural forces or group competition.

The minor talents of today seem to largely tinker and occasionally hit on solutions by trial & error; the genius foresees an otherwise unimaginable solution. In Schopenhauer’s terms:

Das Talent gleicht dem Schützen, der ein Ziel trifft, welches die übrigen nicht erreichen können; das Genie dem, der eins trifft, bis zu welchem sie nicht einmal zu sehen vermögen.

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

And this brings us to the cultural problem, a kind of Baldwin effect: as genius wanes, bureaucracy waxes, and the bureaucrat is always inimical to the unexpected and the excellent:

Modern society is, of course, run by Head Girls, of both sexes (plus a smattering of charming or charismatic psychopaths), hence there is no assigned place for the creative genius. Modern colleges aim at recruiting Head Girls, so do universities, so does science, so do the arts, so does the mass media, so does the legal profession, so does medicine, so does the military. And in doing so, except insofar as they make errors, they filter-out and exclude even the possibility of creative genius.

The more e.g. universities trumpet their century-old alumni and research, the less they would be likely to give such alumni the time of day, the more likely that a 21st-Century Newton wouldn’t even pass his undergraduate degree, let alone get a teaching/research post. That is i think fine for literature or philosophy but it’s hard to imagine a modern scientific genius finding the time or resources to achieve much after working all day at minimum wage data entry, which is all he would be likely to be able to do.

Charlton & Dutton sketch out a framework within which – even if mutation accumulation is unlikely to reverse – geniuses could at least be selected rather than spurned & persecuted:

The framework is that talent-with-potential (typically, high technical ability in a context of the Endogenous personality) is being discovered then developed to a point where the talent can take-over its own development. The apprentice would need to find, and trust, a Master (who would himself need to be an Endogenous personality). The Master would need to want to find, and work with, the best apprentices. And the Masters would be in control of the system (not Head Girls or bureaucrats or committees). Because only the Masters can perceive what is going-on – can perceive the difference between mere high ability and the potential for creative genius. But aside from that, there is no ‘system’. No formal requirements. No standard progression. No accreditation of any significance.

This is more or less how things worked in the past, e.g. Bertrand Russell & Wittgenstein. It was clear to everyone that Russell was highly intelligent & educated, and at least in 1910 a man of genius; and so he had the power to patronise a 22-year-old Austrian aeronautics engineer who was interested in philosophy. Neither Russell nor Wittgenstein would have a chance today. As Charlton/Dutton conclude:

The above may sound all too privileged for the already-privileged, terribly elitist, very esoteric. It is a statement of the need for special treatment for special people. And it sees talent and the potential for genius as essentially innate. If you haven’t got it you can’t do it; and even if you have, you probably won’t. It asks for everything that modern culture despises, and indeed regards as immoral.

Furthermore, this is anti-democratic, anti-popular, and aristocratic. High intellectual ability is itself very rare, but high ability in the context of an Endogenous personality is rarer still. The process of finding Boy Geniuses is about searching for a very few diamonds among great heaps of (useful) coal – but with a distracting and deceptive proportion of gaudy ‘costume jewellery’ (pretend diamonds, pseudo-geniuses) taking the form of un-creative skill and fake creativity.

In conclusion, if modern society was concerned with its own continuation – which very clearly it is not, being instead self-loathing and covertly devoted to its own extinction – then something of this kind would need to occur to locate and empower sufficient numbers of geniuses to maintain the frequent and relevant breakthroughs necessary to enable continued growth in efficiency and capability.

But, overall, it seems that we have to accept that Western civilization will decline. It is, essentially, inevitable. 

2. About ten years ago i noted that as technological civilisation developed, people became more barbarous, more stupid, more degenerate and incurious and primitive. Earlier this week i taught at an engineering company that is experimenting with AI, and we discussed self-driving cars and an automated society. More & more of our civilisation is run by computers, by advanced technologies; and meanwhile fewer & fewer people can maintain, let alone fully understand or develop these technologies. The collapse of the diversity bridge is a good symbol for our times. If the God Emperor indeed sends the US Army Corps of Engineers to shift from Greencastle Indiana and construct the Wall, i imagine it will stand up to a fair bit of burrito barrage & taco tornado.

But i digress. Varg has repeatedly prophesied a total collapse: because so many today are almost wholly reliant on high technologies we are largely incapable of understanding, we will indeed swiftly perish if there is a “reset”. i’m not as gleefully gloomy as Varg, but in truth the situation does not look good: as technologies become more extensive & pervasive & ubiquitous, and increasingly complex, and real intelligence declines, and genius disappears completely, it is not difficult to envisage a situation where almost nobody can maintain our technological systems, but we can’t live without them. Imagine a future where all non-self-driving cars are banned, no one knows how to drive, where you need a Government-approved license to take public transport, and all buses, trains, trams, are operated by a computer – and then something goes wrong because the complexity of the software surpasses the competence of the programmers.

3. In a previous life i was lucky (i suppose) to know several geniuses: they were then more easily located in certain institutions. i was thinking of one of these the other day, a young man when i knew him – he had a (to me) overwhelming sense of being driven, pushed on by a kind of spur; he had a restless energy and commitment to what he was good at. In this life, i’ve met many highly intelligent & talented people but almost no one with that drive. At university i met people i thought could be geniuses, but none have come to anything – they all lacked what Charlton/Dutton call the endogenous personality, the drive i recall from the young man i knew in my last life. All the talented people i’ve known in this life are the kind who pick things up, toy with them for a while, then get bored and forget about it.

i don’t know if that sense of being perpetually spurred on is genetic, or if it is purely cultural. Probably a mixture of both; today, one needs incredible adversity and/or some kind of appalling lengthy breakdown (what Woes calls the Abyss) to persevere on one’s path. This serves as an initiatory ordeal, as in the Grímnismál; there is a certain personality type which results: it can be highly aggressive & sensitive, but has a core of stubborn individuality.

4. If there are geniuses alive today, i can’t think of any. In music, i have liked some individual songs but they seem broadly dispersed so one band will have a couple of good songs then fizzle out (compare with the Rolling Stones, Beatles, or Bob Dylan in the 60s/70s). In literature i still think Blood Meridian and the Border Trilogy are great but the last is now 20 years old; i liked Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient but everything he wrote after that is disappointing. i can’t think of a poet in my lifetime i would hold up to Yeats or TS Eliot. i gather there are some modern philosophers but doubt they could compare with Camus or Wittgenstein or Heidegger. The exception is cinema and TV, for example True Detective (Season 1) struck me not merely for its technical competence but for a quality that distinguished it from even great series like The Sopranos, Deadwood, Twin Peaks: a compression and exactness and sense of utter fusion of form and content, as with The Waste Land – it was hard to imagine it being created by human beings with cameras and a script and sandwiches; it seemed somehow foreordained, to have emerged from the universe, whole & just so.

That is the mark of real creation; the unprecedented, that which one cannot imagine otherwise. In a sense, it is no catastrophe if we have no more great art; we would always have the past – but if things continue on our current path we will have a future where almost no one can even comprehend the past, where almost no one can read, where classical music is perceived as random noise; and then, finally, a “reset” as civilisation collapses and almost the entire human race dies out in racial conflict and famine and disease.

 

Advertisements

1. i suppose that until very recently society was mostly worker drones, some middle class, with a thin slice of aristocracy ruling by “divine right” in Christendom, or just by custom & force elsewhere. Certain bloodlines would protect themselves. Dissent popped up from time to time, but normally i think only when the ruling class were of a different genetic/cultural lineage, as with the Robin Hood mythos (Normans vs Saxons) or when the ordinary oppression became unduly severe.

In our times, in the West, we have no rulers; we have democracy; we are free.

Oh wait.

2. Human societies are inherently hierarchical and as we see with Xi Jingping, those who hold power don’t like to relinquish it, especially if they have made enemies and don’t want to end up detained like Sarkozy, or hanged like Saddam. Cincinattus is of legendary status because such men are exceptionally rare. Any government will tend to protect and enlarge its purview, to dominate and suppress those not within the government – Orwell’s 1984 is not merely a timely treatment of Communism: it is in a sense the end goal of all governments & bureaucrats, everywhere.

In Christendom, the Church no doubt acted as a counterweight to the State, and the State itself was more of a Game of Thrones-style shitshow of competing families and individuals; also, while the rabble lacked the means to spread their opinions, the State also lacked the means to systematically oppress (hence vagrancy laws). In addition, i suppose that for all the corruption of the Church, most people vaguely believed they would be judged after death, and so your average baron might be less likely to savagely oppress the serfs, or he might at least feel a bit guilty afterwards, maybe.

Under democracy the ruling class are bureaucrats, who however are generally manoeuvred into position by globalist financiers. The bureaucrats are largely ignorant, witless showmen like Tony Blair, Obama, etc. – they regard the population as an expendable resource. They will always aim for more power, to expand the reach of the State.

In days of old, the barons said “God has appointed us to rule you” – if they felt it necessary to say anything at all; perhaps they believed it – probably they did, since people like to believe that which justifies their actions. In the last few decades, the rulers say “you have appointed us to represent you” – but as Q puts it:

They think you are STUPID.
They think you will follow the STARS.
They openly call you SHEEP/CATTLE.

The true rulers are the globalist financiers who own most of the world’s wealth. They look like this:

and this:

Look at who and what they fund.

3. The ostensible rulers – the Blairs, the Bushes, Obama, Clinton – are wholly opposed to the peoples they supposedly govern. Their goal is to weaken those who elect them: in America, by erasing the Second Amendment; in Europe, with mass immigration and “hate speech” laws.

On 20 March, The Scottish Youtuber Count Dankula was convicted under the Communications Act (2003), for being “grossly offensive”. He made a humorous video in which he attempted to train his girlfriend’s pug to raise a paw upon certain commands. As best i can judge, he could face up to 6 months in prison. Meanwhile, another Muslim rape scandal has emerged – up to a thousand girls raped by Muslims in Telford since the 1980s, each case covered up by the police. Another load to add to Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle, Bristol.

The police and judiciary have been infiltrated and taken over by the Left, to the point where – as with academia – the decent men are bewildered that they can no longer do their job; child gang rape is apparently fine now, as long as the perpetrators are brown. The organs of the State no longer exist for their ostensible purpose; they exist to destroy the native population, and expand their own powers; thus apropos Count Dankula’s video:

Mr Brown [Dankula’s lawyer] said there was no evidence of a complainer in the case, adding Police Scotland was not contacted by anyone who found the video “grossly offensive or menacing.”

He said: “The complainer would appear to be Police Scotland.”

4. i note that Count Dankula will be sentenced on April 23. So on Shakespeare’s birthday and deathday, on St George’s Day – the patron saint of England – Count Dankula will be punished by the rulers, for making a joke. The rulers are fond of such overt symbolism – it seems a bit childish to me but there it is, i’m not a billionaire. i would add that St George was the dragon slayer and a patron saint of the Order of the Dragon, whose ranks included the father of Count Dankula Dracula:

His name had its origin in the Romanian sobriquet of his father, Vlad Dracul (“Vlad the Dragon”), who received it after he became a member of the Order of the Dragon. Dracula is the Slavonic genitive form of Dracul, meaning “the son of Dracul (or the Dragon)”

The order’s symbol

looks, well, a bit like a

 

 

5.

Mar 10 2018 14:49:25 (EST) Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: ff7ea4 614954
This is not about religions or party affiliation.
EVIL is everywhere.
There are no drawn lines.
No boundaries.
Good vs Evil.
Q

Interesting little elven man. My feeling is, Sessions isn’t explicitly part of the Q-org, he’s rather an honest old-school functionary, a terrier you can unleash on the rats and trust him to sniff them out, and methodically destroy them. Timing is on the patriots’ side, just about – though the Obama administration tried to drive such men out, enough are left.

At my university, i heard that the older generation – the academic version of Sessions – were grumbling about the new breed of ignorami and the increasing & killing influence of the bureaucracy. The academics’ solution was to take early retirement and shake their heads sadly; only a few even said they should have done something about it when there was still time. The truth is, i think, such a last stand could only have worked if it had been a massive concerted rebellion across all departments at the same time – highly unlikely and now too late, as the men and women of principle have mostly left or fallen into silence.

The difference here is that academics are not disposed to action. Intelligence and military officers are, and so i wouldn’t be surprised if, at some point, they began to do more than grumble about the corruption of their service (and the fact that Q is talking about JFK suggests this corruption was already established when Obama took power).

i’m reminded of Charles McCarry’s great novel Old Boys, incidentally the book which introduced me to Laphroaig. America isn’t my country but nonetheless it’s hard not to hope that, e.g.

 Q !UW.yye1fxo 458
How bad is the corruption?
FBI (past/present)
#1
#1
#2
+29 (16)
DOJ (past/present)
#1
#1
#2
+18
STATE (past/present)
#1
#1
+41
Removal is the least of their problems.
Projection.
Russia>D/HRC
Twitter Bots>GOOG operated (not Russia)/Narrative & Political SLANT
BIDEN / CHINA.
BIG DEVELOPMENT.
TRAITORS EVERYWHERE.
AMERICA FOR SALE.
FLYNN.
Targeted.
Why?
Who knows where the bodies are buried?
CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES.
TRUMP ADMIN v2?
Election theft.
Last hope.
Congressional focus.
Impeach.
They think you are STUPID.
They think you will follow the STARS.
They openly call you SHEEP/CATTLE.
THERE WILL COME A TIME NONE OF THEM WILL BE ABLE TO WALK DOWN THE STREET.
BIGGEST FEAR.
PUBLIC AWAKENING.
Q
and
 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: b02328 702000
>>701978
USMC activated.
US (3).
Q
will lead to something worthy of the popcorn (and Laphroaig).

1. Re-reading my Envy post it feels appropriately mean and dessicated, but then i was in a grim and misanthropic mood. i would say, Toddball is prone to envy and violent resentment but he has many complicating virtues; most importantly for me, humour and a reckless generosity. Some people are generous as a substitute for human understanding; that is, because they lack empathy they like to give presents – if you understand nothing of another person, you can always just give them things, as a substitute for genuine human contact; others see weakness as an opportunity for domination by apparent charity, and impose their wrong-headed advice and help, then become enraged when their target baulks – i once called such folk, the Kindly Ones as they present a fair face, with talk of compassion and fairness, until the victim says “i don’t want to do that” or “i already tried that and decided it’s not for me” – then their Medusa face is revealed (for they are always women):

2. Toddball’s generosity is not of this sort. He is a careless man, who loses or breaks everything, lives in a 5-second timeframe – in political terms he is an absolute sheep who believes whatever he’s just seen on CNN; in the last month he has posted the following two gems on Facebook:

and

…without irony, he simply believes whatever is presented to him by any suitably Left-wing source (his other posts are New York Times, CNN, etc. articles about how Trump is literally Hitler).

But he has his virtues: though he is bedecked with grudges they rarely last more than a few weeks, and he has a very old-fashioned feudal sense of generosity and personal loyalty. i don’t know how this jibes with his propensity toward envy but i guess they both proceed from the same crystalline centre. Perhaps i could say, that just as he hates and resents those above him, so he feels a certain protective care for those below, or more or less on his level. Thus, his generosity to me – i have considerably less work and hence less money than him, much much more debt, and his wife has a good job and so they can live in the centre of Munich in a flat several times the size of mine, and go on holidays and so on.

3. i’ve known Toddball for nearly 7 years and so as with Juniper and the Viking (my two closest friends) i perceive his vices, his failings. A twofold key:

i) One’s own failings and vices, as counterweight – all have fallen short;

ii) Vices and failings are often connected to virtues.

Juniper’s vices are quite limited: nagging, Germanity, being a woman, being a race-mixer and a bit of a man-hater.

The Viking’s are endless and complex: deviancy, beard-stroking, frivolity, tendencies towards Calvinism, autism, child-like insanity, uncoordinated spasms, sexual perversion of the highest order, alcoholism, inability to smoke pipes or cigars, fondness for rosé wines, blondness, aversion to black magic and voodoo, shabby trainers, receding hair, giggling, Chemistry, paunchy, middle-aged, enormous and daily consumption of mashed potato, etc.

3. Someone recently expressed amazement at the company i keep. It’s partly that when i talk about people, it is usually to analyse their failings & sin (more interesting than the obverse), partly because i like talking shit about everyone; but in truth most of my friends have little in common with me, and are to boot degenerate criminal Christians, because normal people bore me and nobody is like me, and if i met someone like me, i dare say he wouldn’t like me, nor i him.

To put it another way, i respect self-discipline, learning, thought, civility, courtesy, but i also love music like this:

 

Maybe i’ll get into the habit of posting a banned video every week, since every week there’s something. The latest:

Some amusing moments

1. Some players typically open with something like “anyone from XX here?” in their own language:

2. i got destroyed by an opponent with an amusing name.

3. Discussion of appropriate drinks for tank combat.

4. Inexplicable but amusing abuse from team mates.

5. i destroy two tanks with my KV-1 after two gin tonics.

6. Theological differences

1. i had cause to teach the same word twice this week – both times my students were describing unpleasant colleagues and said “I think it is Neid, what is that?” – and i, “envy”. If narcissism is the human condition, envy is like malaria in the Congo – far from a rarity, and one would not be surprised to find those it has utterly consumed.

It has probably been thus since Ugg came home from the hunt with a particularly splendid buffalo over his shoulder, and the berry-pickers bared their breasts, and Grug thought, “Ugg only get berries because Ugg get buffalo. Ugg only get buffalo because Ugg is bad. Grug kill Ugg and take buffalo and berry-pickers. Grug deserve it because Grug good Grug.” It was, i suppose, commonly understand as a human motivation when Genesis was composed:

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (Genesis 4.  5-8)

My guess is that in the past envy was actively discouraged, and so it was more of a perpetual, weak grumbling that it’s alright for some innit and so on, among the weak & malcontent. It was in Christendom a cardinal sin; Dante devotes a terrace to it in Purgatorio (Cantos 13 and 14):

They appeared to me to be covered with coarse hair-cloth and the one supported the other with his shoulder and all were supported by the bank. Just so the blind who are destitute take their place at pardons to beg for their needs and one sinks his head on another so that the people may be quickly moved to pity not only by the sound of their words but by their looks which plead no less; and as the sun does not profit the blind, so to the shades in the place I speak of heaven’s light denies its bounty, for an iron wire pierces all their eyelids and stitches them up, as is done to an untamed falcon when it will not be still.

Dante converses with one of the penitents, who relates:

Sapient I was not though I was called Sapia, and I rejoiced far more at others’ hurt than at my own good fortune. 

2. In social psychology terms, the envious are obsessed with their status in the hierarchy, and do so by considering those above them with anger and resentment. It would make no difference how high they rise – they would always envy those who have more (the Satanic impulse). It is an increasingly normal attitude today; so for example i accused Toddball of being a thief and he responded: “What the fuck man, there’s all these rich fucks and they got all this fucking money and fuck yeah I’m gonna take it, I’m fucking robbing from the fucking rich ‘cos they’re all fucking douchebags. I don’t steal from fucking people I know, or from mom and pop stores, I fucking steal from the rich, ‘cos they got too much and they don’t fucking deserve it.” He has, in the time i’ve known him, stolen:

i) A book that a colleague unguardedly left in her file in the McLingua teacher room.

ii) An expensive lighter from a drunk guy at a bar.

iii) A bicycle he found unattended outside a shop in Munich (he rode it around then threw it in the river when he was done).

iv) The Sour Elf’s Red Pill cup.

i’m sure there are many more examples. He steals anything he can find and doesn’t care who from. In his view, if anyone except him has anything, they deserve to lose it because they only got it by being fucking douchebags. Envy is like a persistent malady in his psyche, so when he’s feeling jolly it is little more than a background tinge; and when he’s drunk, high, or pissed off it dominates and drives him.

He is a lifelong Democrat and Leftist, with characteristic motivations; for example he used to hang out with California Jesus, till McLingua offered a contract to the latter: at that point, his view of CJ became coloured entirely by invidia and he refused to talk to him. A few years ago one of my groups gave me a bottle of Laphroaig, and he snarled, “What the fuck man, why these fucking Germans always buying you shit?” i know that if (extremely unlikely) i sold The Better Maker for a few thousand euros, he wouldn’t say “well you’ve spent hundreds of hours over the last 16 years writing and editing it so that’s only fair” – no, he would feel hard done by; he should have got that money; i took it from him, somehow.

In Toddball’s world the very worst thing you can be – worse than a child rapist or murderer – is rich.

He’s not a bad person by any means, it’s just that his natural tendency to envy has been encouraged by, for one thing, growing up in Democrat Chicago (his father worked in the public sector); but more importantly, being born in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Envy has been encouraged, given a political platform, weaponised against the West. Because there will always be some who have less than others, and always those susceptible to resentment due to their personal defects, the Left will always have a huge voting block – and the more they try to sweep low IQ groups into Europe, the more strife and hence envy and hatred they can engender. The adolescent sense – that the Man (e.g. parents, teachers) is oppressive & wicked – has become generalised to the population at large, and given rise to varieties of ghetto art, characterised by violent resentment, deliberate ugliness & primitive, bestial aggression – by an embrace of the cardinal sins.

Of course this cannot continue indefinitely.

3. i’ve rarely felt envy; the closest i’ve come is baffled self-pity that despite all my important bits of paper i’ve only ever done minimum wage work and can find nothing better. Years ago, i came to the conclusion that i simply don’t belong in this world and have nothing to offer anyone – that, after all, makes more sense than assuming the world is wrong and i’m right. i can’t envy e.g. a fellow English Lit grad from Durham who i met at an Alumni party in 2006 in Leeds – he got a 2:1, was utterly bland and unexceptional, and had effortlessly drifted into a job making more than twice my highest salary; he belonged in the world, i don’t. Envying him would be like envying the eagle because it can fly.

But then, perhaps nobody really belongs in this world. Earlier this week i got my JobCentre class to read parts of Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction aloud, for pronunciation:

From this the poem springs: that we live in a place
That is not our own and, much more, not ourselves
And hard it is in spite of blazoned days.

i only feel this alienation among people and their cities; perhaps i don’t belong among humans; perhaps i could envy unimaginably strange creatures, in some other, non-human world.

Brittany Pettibone was “detained” for 3 days by the British authorities for trying to conduct this interview with Tommy Robinson.

1. The hideous process of editing The Better Maker and Vocations continues. On average, i have re-read the latter three or four times a month, every month since about last autumn, and made about 30-50 changes upon each edit. It is unspeakably tedious & unrewarding work, especially given i doubt either will be read by anyone (most of my friends being incapable of reading books).

Only dogged, enraged persistence keeps me at it.

2. Two things i read today:

i) The Z Man

on the popularity of older music over the latest composition by some black millionaire shouting about how tough it is in the ghetto:

When I was a teen, your music said something about you because you felt a connection to the band. In the sterile transactional world of today, no one feels an attachment to anything, much less the latest pop group. There’s no sense of obligation to buy or  listen to their latest release. Supporting a type of music or a specific act is no longer a part of kid’s identity. The relationship is now as sterile as society.

That is the funny thing about pop culture in our Progressive paradise. It is a lot like the pop music of totalitarian paradises of the past. The Soviets manufactured their version of Western pop, but it was never popular. Just as we see at the Super Bowl, comrades can be forced marched to an arena and made to cheer, but no one really liked it. There’s a lot of that today, as every pop star has the exact same Progressive politics and uses their act to proselytize on behalf of the faith. That’s not a coincidence. It is by design.

The West does not have a competitor that embraces freedom and liberty, so the past has become the competition.

[…]

Pop music is not art, but like art it does hold a mirror up to society. In the heyday of pop music, the society it reflected was one that was optimistic and happy. Today, the society it reflects is the gray, featureless slurry of multiculturalism and the vinegar drinking scolds who impose it on us. It’s not that it is low quality or offensive. It’s that the music is a lot like the modern parking lot. It is row after row of dreary sameness. Like everything in this age, popular music has the soul of the machine that made it.

ii) Morgoth 

on Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto

The Mayan city is the void writ large, all around it lies destruction and desolation, the city is a spiritual nullity at war with its surroundings. It sucks all resources and peoples into its gaping maw and then spits them back out, bastardized and warped, poisoned and debased or dead. It’s tempting to be a bit cheeky here and suggest that this is Gibson getting an underhanded jab in at Hollywood, but you could also make the same criticism of London or New York or Paris or any other western metropolis. 

3. Re-reading The Better Maker for the six gorillionth time, i feel affection for the characters, am generally pleased with the technical execution, but also feel its almost total irrelevance. It is a book of its origin – the late 90s. i thought about rewriting it to reflect my sense of societal collapse and metaphysical catastrophe (and hopefully rebirth), but it wouldn’t be true to the basic core & world of the story. TBM and also 4.5 (my temp memoir, which comprises half of Vocations) are for the most part innocent of the coming storm – the storm we now inhabit. They are naive and already dated, will stand as little more than historical curios, after the storm.

4. It’s a great time to be alive, if like me you always felt at odds with the world. It is not merely that i am backwards-looking and despise almost every aspect of modernity, and would have been happier in the 1950s, or even in the 19th Century (i haven’t been to a dentist in 19 years and wear my glasses as little as possible, so efficient plumbing is really the only argument left for our rotten age); it isn’t possible to turn the clock back, and in any case it is secular democracy and belly-patting liberalism which has led us to civilisational collapse, so one would have to turn it back quite a way – perhaps even, as Varg would argue, a few millennia. But instead of seeing history as a linear progression from humanity and culture to the machine and degeneracy, i would see it rather as a conflicting weave of ascending and descending impulses and power groups.

i feel a curious optimism and exhilaration. It goes greatly against my nature to expect the future to be anything other than totally shit but in this case i feel things are coming to a head, and there are considerable forces – on a metaphysical level – mobilising behind the scenes for our good (or for mine, anyway).

5. While i do like some popular music (e.g. The National, Taylor Führerin Swift) i was jukeboxing Youtube and realised i don’t remember a really memorable guitar intro in the last 20 years. The 1990s had Metallica’s Enter Sandman, Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit, Manic Street Preachers’ Sleepflower, but at some point in the last 20 years the great guitar intro gave way to overproduced synth-fag. The last good intros i can think of are from the early 2000s, e.g. Yeah Yeah Yeah’s Maps or The White Stripes Seven Nation Army and neither really have the crashing impact of Enter Sandman, let alone the 60s/70s classics. Perhaps, after the storm, i will awake one bright moment and find the birds singing the Grandstand theme in the trees outside, and know that the old rotten order has been justly destroyed overnight and as i open the curtains and wonder to see sunlight again, Roger Scruton, Peter Hitchens, Survive the Jive, Millennial Woes, Oswald Moseley, Enoch Powell, Jonathan Bowden, Evelyn Waugh, Tolkien, and G.K. Chesterton will ride by in a kind of tweed-clad procession, playing the Grandstand theme

and quaffing fine ales and tea, and then Taylor Swift will emerge from my kitchen, where she had been hiding overnight for some reason, and present me with a superb gin tonic and say, “Behold Sir Elberry of the Order of Gin, you have triumphed over your adversaries, they have all been defeated and cast into Huddersfield a dark prison for all eternity to gnash their teeth” and then she will also sing the Grandstand theme, i will say “by Jove, that’s nice” and contemplate the new, glorious world.

Or maybe we will all die in the Race War.

1. i was playing World of Tanks the other day, as artillery. Through spotters i could see an enemy tank on the far side of the map and was trying to zero in on him for a kill; however, he kept zooming forwards and backwards, i presume to throw artillery off. i observed him for a while, wondering at his antics, then realised his evasion pattern was predictable and confined to a quite small area, so i timed my shot exactly for the centre of his pattern guessing i would at least damage him; and by chance it was a direct hit and he was destroyed. On the micro level he was unhittable by artillery (which takes a few seconds to traverse the map and hit, and about thirty seconds to reload); on the macro level it was, in Vader’s words:

On the rare occasions i talk politics with Leftists, i find they dismiss data with e.g. “aren’t you generalising?” or “well not everyone is like that” and so on. Of course they love to generalise, e.g. “all white men are evil” or “Western civilisation is nothing but a history of oppression” or “all men are rapists” but as soon as data is provided against their cause, it’s suddenly “oh well we mustn’t generalise.”

There are many phenomena, e.g. race, which only make sense on the macro, artillery level. Individually one intuits the patterns but there are always exceptions. i would say that Western civilisation was built on respect for the individual, the particular; and on the ability to abstract, to step back from the individual, from the local, and to consider the general.

2. Re-editing The Better Maker for the 60th or 70th or more time. i found another typo and was astounded and mildly wroth. How, i wondered, is it possible for such an obvious mistake to have slipped my gaze on over 60 previous edits? i wrote it entirely on computer, and have edited entirely on either computer or my Kindle; each edit is like skating over the surface of something, with a kind of semi-substantial fog between me and the thing itself. It is an oddly frustrating feeling: i cannot fully grasp that which i have myself written, which is no doubt why i spot different errors on each reading. For a long time i assumed it was because i’m stupid, but i wonder now if it is at least in part because i have written and read entirely on-screen. From an interview with Cormac McCarthy:

He bangs away in his stone house or in motels on an Olivetti manual. “It’s a messy business,” he says about his novel-building. “You wind up with shoe boxes of scrap paper.” He likes computers. “But not to write on.” 

3. i’m looking forward to McCarthy’s new novel, The Passenger, if it ever comes out. i find him a curious fellow: when i come across quotations from even great works like Blood Meridian – even ones i myself copied out – they seem hokey and absurd – to the point where i wonder if he is actually, well, shit. i found myself agreeing with many of the commentators on Vox Day’s blog.

While i have changed my mind about some literature, it’s mostly stuff i read in my late teens, early 20s; and more a modulation than outright revision, e.g. i found George Steiner and Hart Crane overwhelming in my early-20s, but on re-reading found them merely good. i was in my youth overcome & enchanted by their rhetoric – in Steiner’s case it is both the rhetoric of prose and the rhetoric of ideas – his ideas bearing a large, sometimes grotesque & usually striking quality.

Bonehead introduced me to McCarthy in my late 20s and the last time i read him was i think in Kiel (2009), where i found Blood Meridian in the library and read it for the second or third time. If anything, McCarthy improved on re-reading, and yet i find the excerpts i copied down laughably silly & overblown. So – was i wrong in the period 2002-2009?

i’m loathe to buy books i already own again, and i shrink from reading McCarthy on my Kindle (i’m currently reading Jan Morris’s superb Pax Britannica thereon and feel often frustrated, as if my mind cannot fully engage with the words unless they are on paper) and doubt i’ll be able to access my English library ever again, so will probably have to wait till the Race War before i can re-read McCarthy; however i recall someone saying that Emerson’s basic unit of sense was the sentence, which explained (to me) why i found his essays, even his paragraphs, an incomprehensible sequence of isolated sentences – as if an aphorist attempted to write an epic; perhaps McCarthy’s basic unit of sense is the book. That is, in his books he creates a world within which his peculiar style and worldview make perfect sense – but quote him and it seems nonsensical.

4. Much as i love my Kindle – an essential accessory for the grievously-travelling man – i quickly found it impossible to read poetry thereon; and in time i stopped using it to read philosophy or anything with a high level of prose. i can enjoy e.g. Michael Howard or Jan Morris or Evelyn Waugh on my Kindle, but always with a sense of inadequacy; perhaps it is akin to sex with a condom, while clad in latex, and listening to Mariah Carey, smeared in jam, with a dwarf in the corner, watching – yes it’s sex, but wouldn’t wheat fields be better?

Why? i would say that words, while products of the imagination & mind, are also physical. While reading Jan Morris, for example, i’ve noted my fingers tapping the rhythm of her prose on my fascist knee or man bag of death, and perhaps even when skim-reading we play the words through our bodies: how would we say this, how would these words be in the mouth, words like pebbles you suck from thirst. The Logos is both thought and word – it is where the non-physical, with all its (nearly unbounded) possibility and fluidity becomes concrete and of us. Humans, perhaps more than any other creature, are literally intersectional – we are where everything collides, the intellect and the physical, the sentient and the merely-there. On-screen is as minimally physical as possible; it leaves no real traces, it is intangible, without legitimate history, without provenance.

5. At present in the West i take an artillery perspective. The globalists have most of the power at present in Europe – in America, it seems the God Emperor and Q-branch are at work to take the power back, but here the demons and their hosts occupy the highest seats of government. On Friday, Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone were detained at Heathrow Airport. Sellner was apparently planning to talk about free speech at Speaker’s Corner; and Pettibone planned to interview Tommy Robinson. All three have been labelled Far Right; by my standards they are simply moderates, though i press F because they have stood up and taken the heat, even if for very wishy-washy opinions. They were detained for, it seems, two days and then permitted to return whence they came.

i wondered what the point of this is. Don’t the globalists realise patriots will gain strength and notoriety through persecution? Upon reflection, i believe it is an intimidation tactic: the elites are saying, We can lock you up, we can have you killed; comply with your racial extermination, the destruction of your culture, your people, or suffer.

On a small scale level it looks bad for the West. However, consider the case of Millennial Woes, everyone’s favourite vile Scot. He had i think about 10,000 subs when he was doxxed by the Left just over a year ago. He is now at 46,000. The globalists are dissuading the weak of heart from voicing an opinion; they merely think it. Those who speak up are serious men. They will never have a career now: the globalists will see to that; the globalists have as it were burnt their bridges for them, and left them no way out – except to fight. In pharmaceutical terms, the globalists are administering just enough of their antibiotics to breed a fashy superstrain. They would have done better to simply kill us all. Instead, they have created the conditions for their own destruction.

wordpress hit counter
Advertisements