Thanks William, it's an honor to interact with so many men I respect such as you and John Carter. This digital swamp creates an aspirational brotherhood.
Thanks for the share John. Based on the response to that article, it's obviously a touchy subject. Perhaps I could have worded things better but I stand by my point
John Carter is smart and he seems to do it in small bits and pieces while he is reading his normal weekly intake of Redpills and Dopamine. I've been collecting examples of various rhetorical techniques for Substack and I've been doing the same thing... in the middle of reading, I spot a great example, set it aside and type it up. Otherwise the workload would be unmanageable.
I have something like 60 Substacks in various stages of development, tons of half-finished literary tutorials... I just try to work on 2 simultaneous workflows. I pick one project to work steady and consistent every day. No matter how slow or small. Then I allow myself to work on whatever "inspires" me — you can write 4x as fast and as long about something that just randomly occurs to you.
But the downsides is 1.) often you aren't sure about the ending, 2.) most of the time you can't finish a project in a single session, so now you have another unfinished project to work on. But 3.) I've found I create much more by allowing myself to be spontaneous and "strike while the iron is hot". This just means that 4.) I keep a notebook to track which projects to prioritize next, and order of importance or difficulty, and what each remaining project is missing. Plus 5.) After a couple months, if I return to something, it's very confusing, I'm like "wtf was I trying to say?" So I have to reread the existing content, create an outline of what points I made, and then scribble down some ideas where it can go next.
We have very similar writing styles it seems. Sometimes I finish something the same day I start ... Those tend to be the more inspired pieces. Other times it sits half done for months, which usually end up more polished, but more analytical.
The alternative to this would be to just work on one project, finish it, then another, finish it. Etc. So I try to do that with at least one small project all the time, from start to finish. The downside here is that... sometimes you need time to let ideas germinate, marinate, and if you publish something, you want to know more than the audience, in order to add actual value and clarity, which means considering a topic from all the obvious angles — plus a few creative viewpoints.
I joined Substack only a few months ago, and was lost in a sea of writing, both good and ill. Your weekly roundup is the compass and sextant by which to navigate these waters. Great job, as always.
uhm you're wrong about how it's "rather ironic that the Goddess Feminism of the 70s ultimately led to the spectacle of the Insane Troons Who Keep Trying to Erase Women". This fight has been going on since then and the 2nd wave tried to warn all of you.
That review of the Northman is so weird. Imperium thinks the point of life is be a spiteful, sadistic marauder wandering around attacking any nonrelatives for existing? There's a reason that people like that historically tended to get their asses kicked by larger coalitions of peoples who could actually trust each other.
That's not a particularly accurate characterization of the morality depicted in the Northman, and that very inaccuracy is the point of Imperium's review - you're regarding it from the viewpoint of Christian or Christian-derived morality, rather than on its own terms.
He advocates for killing one's own half brother out of nothing but spite (but it's okay because your mother's relatives aren't your relatives) and later he approves of literally hunting outsiders for sport, on the grounds that they possess no moral status whatsoever. How is my characterization of the morality Imperium is advocating for inaccurate? It may or may not be what's in the Northman, but it is what's in his writing.
As I said but will say again, it's inaccurate because you're projecting your own, Christian-inflected morality onto an entirely different and fundamentally incompatible moral system, and therefore judging it as immoral and moreover getting butthurt about it. IP is quite explicit that Amleth's actions must be judged in the context of the morality of his culture.
Yeah, and he also advocates for taking up that morality as the moral system for ourselves. That is what I take issue with. Why should that idea be beyond critique?
BP absolutely deserves the prize this week. What a piece.
It was superlative.
Thanks bro
You earned it. Did you see your piece got shared on American Sun?
Haha thanks for telling me, I didn't know that at all, that's a huge honor, I love that site. Some extremely Based content.
https://theamericansun.com/2023/07/14/winners-losers-and-links-98/
I didn't realize until a couple hours ago. And yes, it is quite the achievement.
That article was a beast, BP.
Thanks William, it's an honor to interact with so many men I respect such as you and John Carter. This digital swamp creates an aspirational brotherhood.
Thank-you once again for your sterling efforts, for various mentions, & for your "from the secret stash" art selection.
I've been meaning to break out the Yintion J for a while. Still got quite a bit in that particular folder.
Thank you for the mentions; it’s an honor.
You deserve it.
Thanks for the share John. Based on the response to that article, it's obviously a touchy subject. Perhaps I could have worded things better but I stand by my point
The article was great. You made your point clearly. The mongs trying to beat you up in the comments section are just buttmad that you touched a nerve.
Thanks for the shout out John. Lots of gold here as usual.
Any time!
Great stuff—I salute you, Warlord of Mars! And thanks for the shout out.
You're welcome. Sorry it wasn't a more thorough treatment, was running a bit behind today....
Don’t worry about it, man—it’s an honor to be mentioned at all. I don’t know how you find the time to do it, but we all appreciate it!
John Carter is smart and he seems to do it in small bits and pieces while he is reading his normal weekly intake of Redpills and Dopamine. I've been collecting examples of various rhetorical techniques for Substack and I've been doing the same thing... in the middle of reading, I spot a great example, set it aside and type it up. Otherwise the workload would be unmanageable.
That is exactly what I do.
I have something like 60 Substacks in various stages of development, tons of half-finished literary tutorials... I just try to work on 2 simultaneous workflows. I pick one project to work steady and consistent every day. No matter how slow or small. Then I allow myself to work on whatever "inspires" me — you can write 4x as fast and as long about something that just randomly occurs to you.
But the downsides is 1.) often you aren't sure about the ending, 2.) most of the time you can't finish a project in a single session, so now you have another unfinished project to work on. But 3.) I've found I create much more by allowing myself to be spontaneous and "strike while the iron is hot". This just means that 4.) I keep a notebook to track which projects to prioritize next, and order of importance or difficulty, and what each remaining project is missing. Plus 5.) After a couple months, if I return to something, it's very confusing, I'm like "wtf was I trying to say?" So I have to reread the existing content, create an outline of what points I made, and then scribble down some ideas where it can go next.
We have very similar writing styles it seems. Sometimes I finish something the same day I start ... Those tend to be the more inspired pieces. Other times it sits half done for months, which usually end up more polished, but more analytical.
The alternative to this would be to just work on one project, finish it, then another, finish it. Etc. So I try to do that with at least one small project all the time, from start to finish. The downside here is that... sometimes you need time to let ideas germinate, marinate, and if you publish something, you want to know more than the audience, in order to add actual value and clarity, which means considering a topic from all the obvious angles — plus a few creative viewpoints.
Thanks so much for these compilations. I look forward to these every week!
Thank you for letting me know!
I figure these days you could use all the positive reinforcement you can get! Hang in there John. The best is yet to come.
🌝
Appreciate the mentions and digging into some of the craziness on offer here! Thanks!
My pleasure!
I joined Substack only a few months ago, and was lost in a sea of writing, both good and ill. Your weekly roundup is the compass and sextant by which to navigate these waters. Great job, as always.
uhm you're wrong about how it's "rather ironic that the Goddess Feminism of the 70s ultimately led to the spectacle of the Insane Troons Who Keep Trying to Erase Women". This fight has been going on since then and the 2nd wave tried to warn all of you.
Thank you for such a helpful rundown and for the shout out!
That review of the Northman is so weird. Imperium thinks the point of life is be a spiteful, sadistic marauder wandering around attacking any nonrelatives for existing? There's a reason that people like that historically tended to get their asses kicked by larger coalitions of peoples who could actually trust each other.
That's not a particularly accurate characterization of the morality depicted in the Northman, and that very inaccuracy is the point of Imperium's review - you're regarding it from the viewpoint of Christian or Christian-derived morality, rather than on its own terms.
He advocates for killing one's own half brother out of nothing but spite (but it's okay because your mother's relatives aren't your relatives) and later he approves of literally hunting outsiders for sport, on the grounds that they possess no moral status whatsoever. How is my characterization of the morality Imperium is advocating for inaccurate? It may or may not be what's in the Northman, but it is what's in his writing.
As I said but will say again, it's inaccurate because you're projecting your own, Christian-inflected morality onto an entirely different and fundamentally incompatible moral system, and therefore judging it as immoral and moreover getting butthurt about it. IP is quite explicit that Amleth's actions must be judged in the context of the morality of his culture.
Yeah, and he also advocates for taking up that morality as the moral system for ourselves. That is what I take issue with. Why should that idea be beyond critique?