Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Vae Victus is a Disease you truly understand how bad [vae victus] is as philosophy and as civilization? Let's fully sharpen the point.

Scene: you have punched a baby as hard as you can. "Vae Victus!" The baby deserved it for being too weak to defend itself. You can do whatever you want to that baby and it's not only okay, but "may even be right and proper."

As a general principle, folk make mistakes and say stupid things sometimes. Everyone has brain farts; it happens. Unfortunately everyone else immediately went groupthink on the baby-punching ideology. "Spot on, punch those babies bro." That's not a mistake. That's a disease. Plague-like.

Simplified: vae victus doesn't apply to traitors. Certainly if you have a open, honourable conflict between two full groups lead by adults etc, I hold little sympathy for the defeated. If you're all like, "Yeah I'ma punch an outgroup baby, it's better if outgroup doesn't get to be fruitful," and the parents fail to fight you off, my crib values say it's still sketchy but logically those parents deserved to have their baby punched.

If instead you're an SJW and are all like, "Anyone who punches babies is a Literal Nazi Concentration Camp Guard," as a way to get close to the baby you're punching, then you deserve to be kept alive as long as possible...given the circumstances. Keep blood transfusions handy and that sort of thing. If they believed you, it means they considered you trusted or an authority, which means symbolically you're attacking your own family. Fratricide.

Further, this disease is a lame, loser disease. The sovereign says you shouldn't believe [vae victus]. The sovereign's dad can unquestionably beat up your dad. Why aren't you surrendering? You deserve to believe whatever you're told to believe, cuck. Take it up the ass already. Vae victus.

I was sharpening the point fully, wasn't I? Vae victus is a pedophile idea.
The revolutionary government is always the same as the old government, isn't it? The West's old government is a bunch of satanic pedophiles, and the so-called dissidents' core commitments are fully on board. In retrospect, not surprising. Fascists gonna Fasc. 

But, yes, at some point endemic treachery also reflects on the betrayed. Did you see what she was wearing? Sympathy for the victim itself becomes a disease. "Have you considered not being a complete dumbass?" This doesn't make the rape a not-crime, though. The rapist should still be tied up by his dangly bits.
Responsibility is only half conserved. It has a minimum at 100% but 200% or 300% is not only possible, but easy. Blaming the victim doesn't mean the perpetrator loses any blame.

This is why proggies don't talk explicitly about their ideology, incidentally. They try to strictly adhere to hints, insinuations, guilt by association, and painting with a broad brush. If you write down your ideas then your ideas can be attacked. Progressive ideas are composed of duct tape, gum, and security holes. Writing them down is not a winning strategy.

Also incidentally: when the SJW manages to successfully punch a baby they are at least following their own depraved desires. What do you suppose is a meet judgment for someone who rhetorically defends the SJW even though they didn't get to punch a baby or even want babies punched?

Further incidentally, think about the cognitive horizon angle. The Yud likes to say logic is weak because it gets less reliable the more layers you stack. Although hardly false, it's also hardly impossible to git gud enough to stack as many layers as anyone could want. Proggies, the Yud, and fellow travellers instead like to argue for the weakness of logic to limit how gud you git so they don't have to submit to silly things like Truth or Reality. They want you to have a nice properly limited cognitive horizon so they can look where the horizon is and choose the argument that happens to prove whatever they want to prove just before it goes over your horizon.
Secondarily, it's egalitarianism again. Some folk (peasants) are too stupid to master logic. Therefore, nobody can master logic. Makes perfect sense, right?

Cendi intally, the revolution reproducing the government this way has already happened. The satanic pedophile proggies, seeing the satanic pedophile aristocrats, thought oppressing the peasants was just fine and dandy but was done too openly. Have to oppress the peasants but make it think it was their own idea. You Are Here. The next stage is apparently being a satanic pedophile but, you know, in a decentralized way. "What if we had satanism look like Christianity?" "Genius dood." Make [buggered children] traditional and irrefutable. It's been going on for at least 300 years, so it's already halfway there.

Maybe this sort of thing is why you believe in free will if you can't grok the galaxy-brain [wrong question] angle. If libertarianism is true then you don't have to merely accept whatever has already happened. It is true that you don't have to accept whatever has already happened, so it's always better to discard any ideology that says you do, even if you don't properly understand the converse ideas. 

If you want to be super charitable, vae victus is an empty idea. The baby deserved to have to her digestive tract mutilated by that pedophile, but also the pedophile deserved to understand woodchippers first-hand. Or first-feet, as it were. At best the principle offers no guidance. It says to do whatever you were already going to do. You could say the point of endorsing [vae victus] is to get moral nihilism snuck in, but as per the cognitive horizon considerations, this only demonstrates one should endorse moral nihilism directly, and thus still condemns what was in fact endorsed.


parisian said...

I guess I've read it about 8 times now, including one time backwards Oriental-style, maybe just because I wanted to hate some mere Chinese some more. Other readers well within your group will understand, or do you all just accept, the way Nick accepts Rod Dreher as a fool when he reveals Metaxas and other stupid fucking far-right idiots. But you don't go along with Moldbug, and talk about being disappointed with him. I do notice that Nick and Spandrell don't, but the 'gross one', dearly departed, didn't like him for namefagging.

All this talk of pedophilia. I don't know anything about it except as a literal phenomenon, and have never known a pedophile that I was aware of. Everybody (else?) is a Satanic Pedophile, unless I could get a hold of your fierce, furious post. Do you think everyone has to be a part of some political group or that means you're nobody? Cannot they be parts of several groups without wanting to be particularly important in any of them? (I at least know that I'm not important in any of them.)

No, only proggies are Satanic Paedophiles, but my favourite, whom I call 'Possum', has had to 'give it up', as they say, and go into hiding, because he is so 'in danger', and definitely has written all about underage girls wanting to get fucked. 'Viking' told him off in no uncertain terms about this a couple of years ago, and Viking is no prude--if anything, he's sort of sexually immoral like me (or you'd think so, I gather.) When you first search for 'Jim's Blog', Google brings up that article about him (he used to namefag as 'James Donald'), and that says "he may have killed his wife" ( would have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised at any vile thing he did.) I was still reading him when he said "she died recently" in this oddly offhand way. In any case, good riddance to that creep. He's got all sorts of punishments carefully lined up, and the SJW's do all the things you say they do. 'Showing no mercy', well that's nothing new.

Since I've done all this reading about the Romans, I don't know how to get that upset by things which are shocking primarily because history really does repeat itself, just in different forms of killing and the rest.

Is this totally metaphorical? I don't believe in letting off baby-punchers, or maybe you meant child rape, I can't tell. I don't disagree with any of what you said in this could I? I read it over and over and can't follow the line from paragraph to paragraph, sometimes even sentence to sentence, but don't expect you to make it even more 'simplified', since you said you did.

I guess there's no reason I should understand everything you write. I don't NOT take it seriously, but I suppose at this point, I should understand it better if I'm going to follow you so closely. I'm not a proggie (or I don't think I am, this is all too confusing), but I guess I'll always be outgroup of every group. Nick's condemnation and mockery of Dreher probably is less offensive to you than someone who likes smart people but isn't an 'entryist' into NRx, most likely, because I can see why that would feel compromising. You are just more interesting and original, that's all, come up with singularly original formulations. But maybe I'm not so much to you (which is okay, why should you be? It wasn't your idea to strike a conversation, and my fields of expertise are minor to you--it was, however, very funny, looking back, that video of smelly N-words with a siren sound you gave me a link to.)

parisian said...

This post is very good, but thoroughly uncalled-for, impossible, violent. It is like giving an order. But to whom? The sovereign or your dad or the sovereign's dad? Who is the sovereign's dad? Definitely unnecessarily vulgar--much like Moldbug's using 'balls' and 'fuckery' every few sentences. What the fuck is the matter with you?

And this is what comes out in 'peak condition'?

Everyone has brain farts; it happens. Unfortunately everyone else immediately went groupthink on the baby-punching ideology. "Spot on, punch those babies bro." That's not a mistake. That's a disease. Plague-like.

Yeah, and that could be an example of NRx Groupthink: That is precisely NRx Groupthink, doesn't matter it's totally hypocritical to enclose and embalm oneself with NRx Groupthink just as with the other varieties of *GROUPTHINK*; it's just a matter of Trump-style winning, which still has to be cultivated from time to time, his peons think. Groupthink's as much NRx as it is *asshole wokester Leftists*. I noticed Nick doesn't think groupthink is bad as long as it's NRx and death-adoring. You don't seem 'death-adoring', but your NRx Groupthink Anthem is merely subtler, not quite as long-term-thuggish as his (some of his former students now talk of him as a 'thug' and think 'it's important not to read him'. Not Robin Mackay (too passive), some of the others. It's easy enough to find them using the references in his wiki, Guardian articles, etc.) He's always loved blood and he never has any other theme, just fucking Dracula. And you sound as if you don't mind this Groupthink-adoring Screed either, and don't mind being stuck in it. Left and right are the same when it comes to extremists: It's all Groupthink, whether Deplorable or Lesbian.

If there's some point to this, then, in fact, you should say it in comprehensible terms. This isn't for anybody else but you, is it? It's certainly not for me, but it's like Soviet Military Parade Music or maybe a new score for The Triumph of the Will So maybe you'll have to take it up the ass yourself if you can't get anybody else to.

You probably believe in the literality of Pizzagate. Possum does or says he does. Right. Hillary and Podesta have a Baby Blood Sauce Meal on Pancreas just like Erzbeth Bathory. And Trump's Birtherism is the Truth.

But you cannot really do any kind of Groupthink any more than I can. You're not like other people--you should realize this and be glad of it. Rarefaction is just that. But that it means you can't have it both ways. Nick is wrong to say NRx is 'not a movement'. It's a movement, and it's your movement for some time now. NRx is The Philosopher's Movement?

So Fascists gonna Fasc. Some good thoroughly nasty style writing, though. A little closer to the passive-aggressive line for Barbara in marketing than directly descended from the Big Sky Country. As you said, it would be impossible to be looking at the sky and write THIS, even if it was the 'hard German blue-glare', very different form the Montana Sky, you know.

parisian said...

I think I see what you're doing and should have before--or maybe it was all right for awhile, since you didn't object. I can't explain why I've been interested, as I was with others of your group but perhaps less so.

You just want to do philosophy and write it up on a blog.

This is what is confusing to me. In the 00s, there was a kind of social media sensation on blogs. I'm sure I was trying to do that to some degree, but I was always interested in what you wrote, or I'm fine without net-talk. But it always leads not just to the right but to the 'no enemies to the right', and I am not there. I also don't find Twitter and Facebook attractive or necessary, so I probably just seem like another 'socialite' (your inclusive definition) when I comment.

I just looked at my comments from the past 2 months, and they are often or largely frustrated and repetitious, one to the other. They would necessarily be because I can't do anything but pick out choice details, and these are for the wrong reasons (meaning not your reasons--I am not capable of getting the whole things, because I'm not in this movement, or any other movement--no liberal or leftist ones either, whether or not you believe that), but do explain why I have such a hard time breaking the habit now of commenting here: You always seem to have some thing in each post that teases, even though inadvertently, and I always swear I won't respond to it, and at best can save it overnight.

parisian said...

But to do your huge collection of philosophy writings, you don't need such 'socialites', and not only don't respond usually (they must not seem worth responding to--has to be it, or just doesn't need a response), but on the rare occasions I actually have a strong reaction against something, you just don't publish it, even though it was not without merit and with reasonable desire for you to clarify (and not even that angry. I should specify that between the above one and the one you didn't pubish I did not have a drink, but I think I want one in a few minutes.) For instance, the 'baby punching' I first thought meant 'socking in the baby's nose with a fist', then you got into 'baby girl buggery' with 'digestive tract mutilated by that pedophile', and it's that 'zipped prose' as The Dividualist put it, that may be getting even more zipped (and that may be required) that makes it seem like you don't need anyone at all--I don't mean just me, I am definitely mostly useless, but even your 'fraternity guys'. After Nick abandoned his blog, most of you dispersed and found no other center. You say 90% is writing for Truth and Reality to prove you wrong, but you are not usually finding any that does, at least going by your reactions, and few commenters say anything (although you may have a lot of readers who are intimidated--I don't worry about embarrassment, that's how I learn too, but many do.) I should just force myself now to resist that 'morsel' (which can be a word, a phrase, a sentence or a paragraph), and control my excitement at your careful, but rather wild writing. You have written a lot more posts since I've been commenting regularly, but I'm sure that's not the reason. Anyway, I am just not advanced in some of these area to be of any use, although I'm sure, as I said in discouragement before, that I'll continue to read, and have enjoyed it. Sad for me, though, the Dividualist probably has a lot of Twitter and blogs he reads in your network. I only read you, but that doesn't mean anything. If something doesn't work, it just doesn't. I did change some, and tried very hard to, but can't change that much. Why would I? I like myself most of the time. Sorry if I sounded a bit thuggish myself in that one you didn't publish, but I read the post so many times (including today), and the density wouldn't give enough for me to take it in. But you've often written in a very cryptic, esoteric way.

parisian said...

I told Ned the other day, when telling him of your *SKY*, that you were the only person I'd 'gone nuts over' because of 'your brain', but didn't say so to you (and might never have anyway), because it would sound too homosexual for you, since I thought no, I probably wouldn't have reacted that way to a woman's brain. Of course, you've got charm, too, which can also come through the net, but this is very 'pure' for me for a change.

But there is one, and so I don't know where my head was, and she has inspired me for 35 years. And it's that same thing, the exceptional woman who has always made it in the world of men. I even have met her at several occasions, till I imagined she thought I was stalking her, and her husband gave me this terrifying red-faced fury-look when I talked to her too long--so I stopped going to her things. But she's literary--fiction and non-fiction, I've read all her books, and I never thought to pay any attention to a physicist-philosopher (how many of them are there?). So I didn't put two and two together. I still love her, but not the way I swoon at that Broadway dancer I showed you. They almost always have to be dancers for me to find them sexy, and the two women with whom I've had long-term affairs have both been dancers. Some short-term dancers too. They don't need to be hard like men, but firm. Too many of them aren't.

Thanks for letting me stay. I'll write much less, I promise, I've been getting carried away too much. I was going to try your ghee, but it's *very* expensive! I'm sure it's really good, though. Happy Christmas to you!

Alrenous said...

What's wrong with me? Softball question. 14 years of torture in a row. Public school reigns as permanent champion of rank 10 pain on my personal scale. Little things like having both my parents die in a six month interval don't even rate by comparison. (A 4, maybe?) This tends to have effects. E.g. America Delenda Est.

parisian said...

I don't necessarily disagree with you on America Delenda Est, although it's hard for me to give a fuck about Chinese prosperity, if that's what you think replaces it. Han Hegemony sounds *the most ghastly! I even agree with Paul Theroux that most of their food tastes the same; it's never as good as Italian or French--although you can get 'high' on some of it. My problem with the post is not what you are advocating but that it was like trying to get into somebody's fugue state, and I kept trying and trying, and just kept failing (I often don't 'get' a lot, but it won't usually make me develop a parallel fugue state for myself.) You know, you talk about *Envy as base*, but my attraction to your intelligence strangely has no envy that I can identify: I fuckin LOVE it that you're a different kind of brightness than I've ever run into. I don't mind feeling stupid about some of the things, because I'm very proud of myself too, I've accomplished a lot, which is probably why you seem to be one of the ultimate rewards I deserve--just reading you and watching you work things out--it's incredible when you know how to tell Dividualist what to do with the 'hobby robot club'. I couldn't believe it: If your property is hard to distribute you've already screwed up. Though I think a few exit cycles would sort that out.

Have a club owner, who personally buys the stuff. Have the new club buy the equipment from them, if they succeed.
Totally Greek to me, and child's play for you.

I also liked this very much from a conversation with D.: Whigs were not wrong 100% of the time. To be wrong that reliably is just as difficult as being right that reliably. Being a philosopher/logiomancer is about accepting truth even if a Whig said it first.

I think this is part of the appeal. You are really trying to be rigorous with this. I don't think a lot of them are. Last night I learned that Analytic philosophy [requires all these things that it has been told it must require to be 'honest'] and that Laliberte thinks that if all continental philosophy disappeared [including yours, Nick, he said], nothing would be lost. Laliberte also tweeted that 1) analytic philosophy is heavily influenced by science and that 2) continentals defended pedophilia. I don't know how that fits in with what you've been saying here, but I think his avatar I remember as showing someone nice-looking enough, but now has this horrible overly-wondrous beard, including neckbeard (a term, by the way, that you taught me, although that doesn't mean anything, I just had never heard of it, and my own reclusiveness--a comfortable way of being in a huge city--has made me devoid of much common knowledge, maybe like sensory deprivation in some ways.

parisian said...

Don't I know what torture public school is, even if the forms were different from yours. Almost everything about it ugly and rather dingy. My defense was my pianistic talent, which made the torture less even in the worst years (junior high always is the worst), and then I started turning on my foes and was as snobbish as possible--refusing graduation ceremonies, yearbooks, rings, etc., zero extracurricular activities--after I'd been expected to be football stars like my 2 brothers; somehow I got away with it. But until I started flying to NYC all the time, which impressed these small-minded bores, I wasn't fully authoritative, so I imagine yours may have been worse.

It so happens I lost both parents very close together, although maybe 1 1/3 years apart. My father never recovered and my sister had to take care of him, which was horrible, and he'd call me with the craziest things 'that I should do' with the music. He became a baby and cried all the time, it was ghastly--especially since he'd always been tough--an engineer, built roads, had a construction company.

You have your "Techno-Amish" lifestyle, which I sometimes imagine as a result of the shooting skills you told me about. It sounds very impressive, frankly, and you like to be very self-reliant.

But he does say ridiculous things, someone quoted last night "These is nothing more absurd than a philosopher who wants to be liked". It's ridiculous, because he does want to be liked, demands it, in fact, and then tells (recently) his following how 'lame' they are. And it's not "wanting to be liked", it's just "if you're liked or not" as with anything or anybody else. The tone had seemed to be that it was a pre-requisite notto be liked if you were worth anything. You do not have to be 'collegial' at the sacrifice of truth, but truth doesn't mean you ought to be impolite--it's been a pleasure that you've a lot of patience. You get fierce, but not sour, and I have not been liking some of that I've been seeing--the 'Hillary tears of 2016' in reverse now, like that one breaking down at Possum just before he split.

I know this is a pain, but you just might like it visually, this B'way dame I keep going on about. Here's the YouTube link, I don't know how to embed on a comment. Song is worthless, but that body is like this sharp-pointed thing, perfectly under control--that's happened before, but not also this gorgeous . This is from the film All That Jazz back in the late 70s, Annie was playing herself to some degree in this movie about Bob Fosse's driven, unhealthy lifestyle as the major choreographer on Broadway, and she'd been his lover until a few years before making this: I looked back at the comments on the NYT obit, there was another guy who couldn't quite accept her relatively early passing, it seemed shocking. Otherwise, I would have commented fulsomely, but didn't think to. Then they were closed. Most B'way people, including stars, are mediocre, but she was altogether rare, all potential realized.

Alrenous said...

I never watch videos on embed anyway. I'm resolutely a desktop person so copy/pasting links is trivial.

I have no dog in the continental/analytic fight. Philosophers gonna philosoph? I'm a logiomancer now, and as per the name, it's about prediction. Getting the future right. Dogmatic about goals, not methods. Logiomancy is the successor to natural philosophy, as opposed to being a successor to science.

Both Nick and Bryce are wrong. Although it's true that, especially on Twitter, the more accurate you are the fewer followers you'll have. Actively trying to be more disliked isn't a bad first-pass algorithm.
Technically Descartes was a continental, and while he is certainly no flawless angel, he produced useful, true work. You can't say that about Hegel or Hobbes.
I'd also much like to be a fan of the existentialists, and I'll happily cop to the label. Only I think they screwed up. Asking the right questions is cool and all but I don't find it's too much to demand they get right answers as well, from time to time.
Meanwhile Kripke is an analytic but you can safely ignore his entire body of work. Easier to reproduce the good bits yourself than to refine that ore. When analytics are being good, largely they're laboriously finding that Aristotle was right, rather than doing anything new.
Truth, like Tezcatlipoca, is the enemy of both sides. She's a jealous bitch who demands totalitarian loyalty (and isn't that cute!). She has no patience for whatever monkey bullshit you might want to be flinging, which is why Truth plays so poorly on Twitter et al.

Alrenous said...

I suppose if we're doing the dance thing, I'ma have to fire back.

First, this:

Especially: "Only then do you see it: He is the one who is real. They are the ghosts." (Vintage 2007 NPCs!)

Dude shows off what a glorious gift it is to have a physical body. Purely at play - the opposite of politics. I have to admit the choreography is a bit amateurish, The choice of locations also factors into it, though I won't go into that.
It's so disappointing that Barnatt is a leftist. Eurgh. Go full antipolitics! Don't stop halfway!


"Bullish for Han supremacy," is kind of a joke. Obviously Nick's soul-blindness makes him like the Chinaman but it's mainly a stock market thing. If you can go long China, then you'll probably make money.
I find the Han spent too long in the Malthusian oven and boiled it all off. Born dead inside. Who wants to conquer the world? Are you an idiot? Everyone has something better to do than that.

parisian said...

I had thought I'd heard about Bell playing in the subway, but much more recently--and he had. I heard about it on TV, and this tells you about it (I haven't read it just yet, but will later today)

The long article from 2007 had interesting things in it, was kind of a 'feature' with the 'experiment', and the 2014 one is similar. I heard him play with the L.A. Philharmonic conducted by David Zinman a couple of months after 9/11. It was fine playing, Leonard Bernstein's Serenade, but I would have rather heard him play one of the big violin concertos. To catch you up, he's straight, but no longer single, married an opera singer a year ago. Immediately following this D.C. subway performance, he and his ex-gf. began having 3 sons, twins in 2010. He had a long-time accompanist (maybe 7 years) whom I know. He is dressier (bespoke suits from Jermyn Street, London) and handsomer, but doesn't have the huge musical talent Bell has, and is more a 'piano player' than a 'pianist', even does Billy Joel (he's not above playing that godawful 'Piano Man' either) on a pickup truck through Manhattan, although does do real concerts too--and Bell does have quite a presence onstage. I've got an old friend from my Juilliard days who is a true subway violinist, and he is doing it to this day. I used to do concerts with him. About a year.

Bell talks about not wanting to call performers 'genius', I think this is wrong, but I used to agree with it--probably just because Pierre Boulez said "Performers are not superhuman", meaning he was, of course (that's all right, he was pretty fabulous.) This would mean actors, dancers, opera singers, some pop singers cannot be geniuses--that's ridiculous, because not all the composers can also play, though they often play the piano, as Bernstein and Boulez. But Glenn Gould, the Bach wizard, was definitely and resolutely a genius. No way to argue that, although some asshole at Steve Sailer's called me a 'poseur' for preferring his Bach to anyone else's. The Russian ballerina Alla Sizova was a genius--just because she was born with the perfect body and developed the most virtuoso technique for it doesn't mean anything: Genius is not a matter of work-ethic (not only that, in any case), and everything grew out of something else anyway, no matter genius or lowlife or what.

parisian said...

What is beauty? Is it a measurable fact (Gottfried Leibniz), or merely an opinion (David Hume), or is it a little of each, colored by the immediate state of mind of the observer (Immanuel Kant)?


Kant said the same thing. He took beauty seriously: In his Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Kant argued that one’s ability to appreciate beauty is related to one’s ability to make moral judgments. But there was a caveat. Paul Guyer of the University of Pennsylvania, one of America’s most prominent Kantian scholars, says the 18th-century German philosopher felt that to properly appreciate beauty, the viewing conditions must be optimal.

I also read from one of Laliberte's threads (which I could not find right now) that Kant had 'never had sex' and thought 'sexual pleasure is immoral'. I have heard this time and time again when people start talking about 'what is beauty', and know that they are simply wrong. I didn't know that about Kant. Mortimer Adler once explained it by saying a man could appreciate 'a woman's beautiful face', but that if he lusted after her, that was not beauty. That is such a crock. I know that pleasure is beauty at its best, that people want it, and then they want to lock it away as if it didn't exist...till the next time they become libidinous, and 'gotta have it', because nothing is better when it's good. This Tweeter was a smart professor (I think and wish I could find it), and the one that was championing Bentham about some distinguishing characteristic said that "Kant was too pure for this fallen world". Of course, it's a huge luxury to be able to find this is not true, so that "I just know it", so these hadn't had that. So I'm in an odd position knowing that Kant is wrong about that--but I took those judgments seriously until I had tunnel vision enough to simply find out that it's wrong. It's too dangerous for most to do this, I know--and it's usually just a matter of low-lifes who have no 'project'. It was dangerous for me. I actually think trying to define beauty is ludicrous, and even some tenets in Aristotle's Poetics don't need to be paid attention to, or many great works would have never been made.

But both Boulez and Bell are wrong about genius. There are genius performers, there's no question, and I'll put a couple after sending this.

You're so lavish today! I haven't even got very far into the Moldbug yet, but will later.

parisian said...

It's so disappointing that Barnatt is a leftist. Eurgh. Go full antipolitics! Don't stop halfway!

Yesterday there was this crow at Sailer's talking about how he only used black jazz if it had not been produced by Jews. Unbelievable, and I wasn't nice about it either, because the Arts are one of the few loci where something at least akin to a reasonable 'multiculturalism' is okay, and also it's not important. Jews have always produced music, film (there is no Hollywood in London, Paris, Rome, or New York, even though films have been made in all of them, often better than much Hollywood--it's like a city within a city, all those studios), and to determine quality of jazz by what the Jewish producers' presence meant is putrescent. The black jazz players would not have known whether they were Jewish or not anyway LOL (even if they were great players and some of them were). I was horrible and told him that, for purity, he should stick to Soviet Military Parade Music, Third Reich anthems (I believe I rudely said something to you like that the other day, but I see you've got a lot of flexibility, more than I knew), or just get out his little Baptist Hymnal. Listen to Christian Pop, that's always so enlightening.

You're guy was definitely good with his movements. Of course the choreography and the music weren't supposed to be exactly supernal, but I think that, although it was impressive he could be so exacting in that costume, one that was at least slightly more form-fitting would have been better and could have been equally folksy--but maybe it was more effective because of the surprise of his super-slim, lean form when he took it off. Still, I think I liked the girl's dress better, although they were both charming.

Joshua talked about Bach's Chaconne he was playing. Actually, the person who alluded to 'light classics' (common among subway violinists, including my friend Jimmy) was not entirely off: Ave Maria in the subway was a bit much. Jimmy always played that Chaconne too, and I remembered Suzanne Farrell and Peter Martins in Chaconne but my desires were thwarted, as well they should when it is impossible--their Chaconne is by Gluck, a composer I've found usually banal. But Farrell's Diamonds was made on her in the original Jewels, and did it ever take a long time to find a youtube of decent quality; one even had no sound to it. She was George Balanchine's 'more divine' Muse, and Martins came to partner her later. (He then ran the company after Balanchine's death for almost 30 years, and was eased out during the #MeToo Movement, although he they could not even pretend to pin rape on him; he had just slept around with the dancers he liked, and didn't have to do much more than indicate that they ought to, and also had been a fine Artistic Director, but dullish choreographer--the Danes go for precision at the expense of explosive energy sometimes. The ones accusing him of sexual harassment had never slept with him, and the ones who had only got better onstage! That's how it works. They were fucking jealous, and got together to throw him out, which was one of the most disgraceful episodes in that shit moment of 2017.

parisian said...

Anyway, here, I have seem this many times, and they are the best, but also several times in public with other dancers. What interested me to tell you was, that after all these years of agreeing with other Farrell fans that she was so unearthly, etc., and that oozing lady critic Arlene Croce said "She becomes the freest woman in the world". Imagine you've got the job at The New Yorker and write such embarassing things. The Tchaikowsky music is beautiful, part of his 3rd Symphony:

No, what I wondered if you'd pick up is that, with all her sublime movement, I think HE is the one who does the best dancing. A much more ultimate prince that Rudolph Nureyev usually was(although he was great when very young, I saw him once in Sleeping Beauty), he adheres perfectly to Balanchine's edict that "Ballet is woman", and it is usually true that to see the real danseurs nobles, NYCBallet is not the place for it--the great male virtuosos are elsewhere. But while doing just as he is told he must, his strong presence comes through as being more profound than her much more elaborate movements. Once I watched it and even thought she had a paltry moment here and there. In any case, this particular ballet is explicitly about her 'queenly superiority' to his princeliness, and I just think he is better, and that's quite a Danish sculpture to have been born with. He was from a ballet family in Copenhagen.

Was fascinated as well about what you said about the analytic and continental philosophers, it's clear enough why I listen to you about these things. Laliberte tweeted maybe 30 tweets this morning, I didn't read them, was looking for the Kant thing. Yeah, I thought that the 'Han Hegemony' desire was mostly about stocks, which is why, with Biden as likely going to be less friendly to China, was part of the reason he lost the ironic twist he's so good at sometimes. This was serious to him personally.

Now I'm going to indulge in you and Moldbug, of whom Laliberte is 'one of the world's foremost scholars'.