About Me. An Introduction.

About me. An introduction.
A Writer I am but what kind of writer?

An essayist, someone with an opinion. There was a time I believed I could be a writer of fiction but I am not patient enough for that.

There are only rationalizations and this is another one but not as good as any other. I want to feel self-important and for that I needed a goal, a great goal, so that I could suffer trying to achieve it and in enduring the pain prove my strenght

Unfortunately the only goal that I could find that was full of suffering but not too boring is to write about myself. Sure I will write about many other things but in the end it is just an excuse to write about myself
What do I love?

Good anime, good books. I love good writing, fiction, music - in one word culture. I will write about what I think these things are for me later.
Who do I love?

Myself first of all and for the moment I have not yet met anyone I feel strongly enough to say that I loved them.
Who do I hate?

Myself. Although I am do not think much of most people it isn't hatred I feel towards them, mostly pity, of course that pity is unwarranted - because my pity has a tendency to degenerate into self-pity because after all I share some of their fate too- and not just in death, in life too.
What do I want to love?

Everything! Amor fati! Love of fate. I do not want to judge and yet... and yet... It is inevitable that when I write I will voice my disapprovement of many things perhaps more vehemently than I would when I am not writing and so not writing about it. I lie, I lie like hell in my day to day life - but when I write I can't lie but I can overstate my convictions - work my emotions up and up until I can point to the the logical end of an idea without any emotions. I want to see what is ugly as beautiful so that I will make it beautiful - and yet I must fall to my old ways and condemn and accuse first. It is inevitable and I must love what is inevitable.

I have sometimes been accused of not writing clearly. I disagree, rather I feel that has been a culling of the English language recently. As Orwell put it the scientists have stolen the thunder from the poets.

Writing itself has its origins in accounting, in mathematics but with the rise of mechanisation there has been a regression to associating numeracy with genius rather over the ability to think. Academia in particular seems to have degenerated down a route of hyper specialisation where the right hand does not know what the left hand does. I think Nietzche in TSZ caricatured as a midget with a huge ear.

I cannot write without trying to make a point but I also find it stifling, very stifling when I am forced to distance myself from the material in my writing - which is why I can't stand academic writing. Of course, worse than academic writing is journalistic writing in newspapers where both objectivity and style are abandoned for a sort of pretense of objectivity and bad puns. Just like academics write for each other in their little journals so too I feel journalists write for each other. Journalists are too connected to each other and too distanced from their subject material to be able to be honest. Academics are too very limited. I think I hate the saying 'a jack of all trades as if competency could be compartmentalised to one or two subjects. Of course, this feeds into the fantasies of those who are not too good at anything and know superficially about one thing and declare that thing to be the most important thing so that some of that importance rubs off on them. I think an advantage that clear language has over purple passages is that it is easier to avoid ending up repeating the same point through so many metaphors that it isn't clear what the initial meaning was. Most of today's prominent intellectuals are not good writers and so not good thinkers either. Sure, there may some internet personality who can write and think and some obscure intellectual writing for a small journal no one reads - or rather that no one can read, because it is full of scientific hocus pocus. The problem is that the format of scientific papers and newspapers are both inferior to books in popular appeal. I understand that the reason journals are used is because frankly no one has got the time to read books. I know... And yet I don't see this ending well.

In both fascist and communist empires, the academics were far more willing to co-operate than the writers. Sure, as a whole the writers always side with the state but it is even worse with academia because academia is funded by the state. The lack of self-awareness when academics accuse the new media (ordinary people on the internet who have not gone through academia and so have a mind of their own) of bias and lack of objectivity because they were limited by their financial source. That is that since most internet intellectuals are essentially entertainers depending on the patronage of ordinary people, they could not be objective unlike the intellectuals who were guaranteed funding by the state. What the intellectuals are accusing the internet is essentially that it has to bow to the revealed preferences of the ordinary masses through the free market whereas academia could remain objective because its own funding was guaranteed and not dependent on the whims and wishes of the unwashed masses. I think they are right, every intellectual on the internet that makes a living off of his audience is some sort of entertainer. Of course, what these academics cannot see is that their objectivity is compromised not only by the state who sustains their existence through extortion (I.e. taxation) - this is more or less obvious in regimes like China - but that they also beholden to each other. That is that there is more space for diverging opinions on the free market where an intellectual would have to capture a small audience of patrons - a few thousand. Whereas in academia there is strict consensus on almost all important issues maintained through a more or less bureaucratic system (technocratic I suppose, but it really doesn't matter if it is technocrats as long they incentives are the same) and if this strict consensus is broken by an intellectual there may be some glacial change but more likely he will be excommunicated as an heretic. What I fear now is not what the old intellectuals will do but rather the young acolytes who naturally want to be shielded from all thought - for if there is a tendency, a thought, a virtue, it is inevitable that new generation will want to take it further.
Trouble with Girls

The MGTOWs like Thinking-Ape and Colltaine (On youtube.com) are right about the last few centuries although I still haven't made up my mind on evolutionary psychology. For example, the fact that we have as conservative estimate, twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors could be either be mainly because of hypergamy (the female tendency to marry-up) or it could be mainly because these women were coerced by stronger men. I do not know. What I do know about ancient societies - both the hunter gatherer societies and agricultural societies suggest that MGTOWs are correct and the general historical view of MGTOWs may be right but to be honest I don't think that we know enough about this part of our history, and yet even if we did know sometimes I wonder whether knowing it would necessarily be enough and if so whether it would be a good thing or not.