https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2021-01-17/hbo-documentary-tiger-woods-life-public-eye
Richard Spencer says Trump brought out worst in him (1-17-21)
https://www.tmswiki.org/ppd/How_do_I_journal%3F
https://www.tmswiki.org/ppd/Structured_Educational_Program
https://www.tmswiki.org/ppd/TMS_Recovery_Program
00:00 The rules of genre
02:00 Comedy, tragedy, heroic genres, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=136557
04:00 Richard Spencer vs Nick Fuentes, https://trad-news.blogspot.com/2021/01/richard-spencers-obsession-with-fuentes.html
09:00 Nick Fuentes || There’s A SILVER LINING To Big Tech Censorship
29:00 Babylonian Hebrew joins
32:00 Post-Left vs Chapo Traphouse
35:00 The Capitol Hill riots – far right? conservative? QANON?
1:00:00 Big Tech censorship
1:20:00 Nancy Pelosi compares Capitol Hill riots to the Holocaust
1:22:00 MIKE ENOCH PREDICTS TRUMP VOTERS WILL BE CALLED TERRORISTS NOV 2ND
1:27:20 NWG RESPONDING TO CLAIMS THAT ENOCH / TRS IS MOCKING HIM
1:40:00 NWG COMMENTS ON DIFFERING AIMS BETWEEN THE ‘WHITE-POSITIVE’ & ‘WHITE NATIONALIST’ SPHERES
1:47:30 NWG ANSWERING A QUESTION ON OLIGARCHS “TRYING TO PREVENT CIVIL WAR”
2:00:00 PWR ADDRESS THE ‘Q-TARD’ PROBLEM!
2:16:00 Matt Heimbach’s journey to and from the Alt Right, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCiAfD2EDvY
2:20:00 Attorney Roberta Kaplan’s plan to bankrupt the Alt Right, https://youtu.be/HNmGdYxzj7I?t=996
2:23:30 The far-right pay-off in bitcoin, what does it mean?
2:27:30 Luke on Big Tech Bans Alex Jones from Aug. 6, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHlOonDNic
2:31:50 Trump Loses Compilation ft. Tim Pool, Sargon, Keemstar on copium…
2:41:20 JF and Keith Woods discuss optics concerning Nick Fuentes and the “America First” movement
2:44:30 Mersh: Baked Alaska’s Last Stand, Nick Fuentes
2:47:20 Mama J. F. is lashing out at J. F. guest (feat. No White Guilt)
2:57:00 Redbar: BEN SHAPIRO AND JOE ROGAN TALK BLOOD AND RELIGION
* In comedy and tragedy, the main characters are eventually forced by the action of the plot to conform to the big rules of their story world. But in heroic scripts, the opposite happens: The main characters change the world.
* A god’s-eye narrator has the properties of a divine eye, all seeing and all knowing. It’s above the things it describes. It sees into their essence and has dominion over them.
* The ironic narrator goes back thousands of years to ancient Greek and Roman satire. The ironic narrator gently deflates and undercuts the things he or she describes. The ironic narrator wryly suggests that things are less important than we tend to think.
* The comic narrator is sometimes confused with the ironic because it can contain lightly satiric elements. But unlike the ironic, the primary purpose of the comic is not to tear down. Instead, it’s to lift up and celebrate the little curiosities of life… Almost every sitcom or romantic comedy uses a comic narrator. You can find one fantastic model in the script for Little Miss Sunshine, which begins with a happy catalogue of grungy characters.
* Historically, the sentimental narrator is the most common kind of narrator in screenwriting. The aim of the sentimental narrator is to speak the language of the heart, and since different hearts feel different things in different intensities and degrees, there’s a huge variety in sentimental narrators.
* The most obvious difference between film and TV is quantity. An average movie is two hours. An average TV series is designed to run for 100 hours or more. Generating all those hours of content presents a challenge, which writers answer by developing an engine to power the show for season after season.
* There are different ways to build a TV engine, but the most straightforward is by establishing a deep conflict in the story world. Conflict pushes the plot. The deeper and more substantial the conflict, the more story you can get out of it.
By rooting conflict in the story world, TV writers allow for two key things needed to please audiences for hundreds of hours. First, they keep the plot going, and second, they keep the viewing experience consistent. For example, no matter what episode of Law & Order you watch, the show’s engine always generates the same cognitive mixture of intrigue and suspense.
* Films have a one-off conflict between story world and character. TV requires an engine of ongoing conflict within the story world that keeps the plot going and the viewing experience constant.
* Unlike in the film [Mash], the conflict here in the TV series isn’t a straightforward conflict against the war, because there are things about the war that the doctors will miss… the TV conflict is a conflict within the world of the war. In this TV world, war isn’t a single bad thing. It’s two opposites, good and bad. There are the pointless deaths, the heartbreak, the human cruelty, and the futility. But there are also the friendships and the daily triumphs. Whereas the doctors of MASH the film are in conflict with the world of war, the characters of M*A*S*H the TV show are windows into the deeper conflict of the world. Though they all bring unique viewpoints, the fact that all of the characters of a TV series offer windows into the same deep conflict means they can always be swapped out and exchanged. The role of TV characters as windows into the more enduring conflict in the story world also means that antagonists work very differently in TV than in film. In film, the antagonist is the human face of the world that the hero fights against. In TV, the antagonist is instead an expression of the same world conflict that beats inside the heroes’ hearts. And so rather than simply encouraging negative feelings in the audience, most antagonists will, as the series progresses, inspire increasing amounts of sympathy… In film, the antagonist is opposed by the main characters. In TV, the antagonist is one of the main characters, a window into the same conflict as everyone else. In TV, instead of hating the antagonists, the audience eventually comes to identify with them, too.
* The sitcom engine is the conflict between the individual and the society. Individual is a literal term when it comes to sitcoms: Every character is a one-of-a-kind individual, filled with rogue desires and dreams. Sitcoms generate enormous variety by tweaking the specific characteristics of the individual and the social aspects of the show. In Frasier, the tweak is that the individuals are highly neurotic psychiatrists. In Cheers, the tweak is that the society is a bar where everyone is trying to escape the other society outside. In other words, there are two basic ways to invent your own original sitcom. The first is to focus on a unique subculture of individuals, like Broad City does with female college grads in New York City. The second is to focus on a unique kind of social togetherness, like Modern Family does with post-divorce American families, or Seinfeld does with the special bond between misanthropes.
* Since the engine of sitcoms is the running conflict between the individual and the society, sitcoms never imply that one is absolutely better than the other. If they did, that would kill the engine. Instead, sitcom episodes go back and forth between mocking the individual from the perspective of the society and mocking the society from the perspective of the individual.
* In the world of sitcoms, a clown is any character locked within their own private worldview—that is, any character who mistakes their dreams for reality. There are many different ways to create a sitcom clown. One is to give the clown an uncontrollably strong emotion or passion… : Make your clowns harmlessly eccentric, their oddness a danger only to themselves. The comedy in a sitcom comes from harmlessly eccentric clown characters. It doesn’t come from writing jokes. Instead of writing jokes, create a character with a slightly offbeat mind. Then imagine what that atypical character would typically do. Whatever it is will automatically be funny, unless it mortally threatens your audience. In that case, dial it back.
* Sitcom plots are set in motion by a problem that characters create for themselves. And clowns are always creating problems for themselves… The key here is that in both plots, the clowns’ normal psychological drives lead them to create a problem that then puts them in conflict with another character. That conflict with another character then leads to an escalation.
* At the end, the important thing is that the characters finally stop making their self-inflicted problem worse. Maybe they give up. Maybe the world crushes them. Maybe the other characters rescue them. It’s up to you and what you want your audience to feel.
* Every sitcom begins with a problem that the main character creates. That problem gets worse and worse, leading to more disasters and complications, until at the end, the character capitulates and things go back to normal. In the procedural genre, it’s the inverse. Every episode begins with a problem that the main character sets out to solve. That problem is unraveled piece by piece through a series of breakthroughs and discoveries, until at the end, the character triumphs and things go back to normal… The engine of every procedural is broadly the same: The conflict is between the forces that generate the problem and the procedures that solve it.
* Every plot line [in Grey’s Anatomy] is about a character striving to fit in with some group but, in the end, failing to make it completely. One of the most spectacular instances of these plotlines is George’s interaction with a worried family
whose father is going to have heart surgery. George bonds with the family by promising that their father will make it through surgery alive. With this beat, the script establishes that George finally feels like he belongs. Then, the plot rips this feeling of belonging away by showing the father flatlining in surgery. This forces George to inform the family that he’s dead. Their response: “Thank you. Please … go away.” George is back on the outside; he was part of the family, and now he isn’t anymore. The point here is that the purpose of a soap is to keep returning to the same emotional conflict over and over. To reverse engineer those returns, take each of your characters and create little challenges for them that hold out the promise of resolving the conflict. Then, interrupt your characters’ moments of triumph with a sharp plot twist that plunges them back into their original dilemma so that the show’s engine goes on…
* the purpose of a soap is to keep returning to the same emotional conflict over and over. To reverse engineer those returns, take each of your characters and create little challenges for them that hold out the promise of resolving the conflict. Then, interrupt your characters’ moments of triumph with a sharp plot twist that plunges them back
into their original dilemma so that the show’s engine goes on.
* The tone of soap operas is always sentimental. Everything in the world is portrayed from the perspective of how the characters feel about it.
Find the Place You Love. Then Move There. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/01/what-moving-house-can-do-your-happiness/617667/
The German Historicist Tradition: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=136517
The Other God That Failed: Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservation,
From the Financial Times Jan. 15, 2021:
“Trump brought out the worst aspects in me — that’s not what I want to be remembered for,” Spencer said. “I recognised the toxicity of rightwing populism and didn’t want America to go further down that road.”
Saying that somebody brought out the worst in you is not escaping personal responsibility. There are people, places, and contexts that encourage the best or the worst in us. Noting the volatility of one’s own responses exposes a painful vulnerability. I don’t think Richard Spencer is proud of his instability. He knows that a solid person does not get triggered like he has been.
One way you can tell whether or not you have dealt with something is your ability to talk about it without your voice cracking. If you can discuss painful things without distorting or strangling your voice, you’ve processed it and it no longer has power over you. On the other hand, if you repeatedly tell a certain defensive story, your voice will take on a tired quality to match your tired thinking. Your voice gives away your state. Use what language and timber you will, you can never say anything but what you are.
Much of my life, I was so thirsty for attention that this led me to being very different around different people. I’d go to synagogue in the morning to pray and I would act like a good Orthodox Jew and then I would go to a porn set in the afternoon and act like a porn reporter and then I’d go to an LA Press Club party in the evening and act like an Aussie larrikin. Adaptability is beautiful, but when one part of your life is at war with others parts of your life, you’ve stretched too far. An integrated life means you are not saying and doing things in the morning that destroy everything you tried to build the night before. A psychiatrist in Brisbane, Australia, gave my family (with my permission) the following diagnosis in 2000:
Luke is very dependent upon other people for his identity as a person.
He has poor identity integration and poor self esteem. Accordingly, Luke is always looking for mirroring – it’s called “narcissistic supply.” That is to say that Luke is always looking for external validation of himself as a person (i.e., he needs other people to tell him who he is). However, because it is not possible for people to mirror him all the time, he gets disappointed and this can turn to envy. Luke may not be conscious of the fact that he is very envious of his family as they seem to have things he would like to have but does not have. This leads to him fluctuating between, on the one hand, devaluing people such as the family (putting them down) and on the other, idealisation of people – such as Dennis Prager.
Luke tends to make unreasonable demands of people who are eventually driven to setting limits on him. Luke takes this very badly.
Luke needs five to ten years of insight orientation psychotherapy. It was the falling out with Dennis Prager which caused him to go to therapy. While Luke has a lot of therapy ‘speak’, he may not really understand the concepts involved. Luke’s therapist did well to keep him in therapy for 15 months – that is unusual for someone with Luke’s condition as such people often leave off therapy when it becomes too confronting. Luke will not continue therapy that is confrontational, particularly in the early stages.
Luke will continue to do what he is doing to satisfy his needs until such times as the rewards (reinforcement) are outweighed by the negative effects of same (punishment). Then he may do something about getting his life on track and getting therapy or going back to finish his degree (which would give him some self-esteem).
The negative effects of his current behavior are that no one will have a long term relationship with him as no matter how sane they are, people cannot live without getting something back – and Luke is always taking in without giving anything back. Second, any decent woman who looked at his website would be immediately repulsed.
Luke has a complicated personality. He has mood instability – perhaps mild cyclothymia. His personality type is prone to this.
Luke become very focused on one thing then, when he is not getting the desired rewards, he drops it and moves on.
Luke may have had some post viral illness but then the illness took on a life of its own. It is common for people to retreat into the sick role because it is a way of failing in a face-saving way. Luke was failing because of the lack of significant relationships in his life.
Through 12 step work and therapy, I think I’ve largely overcome the above tendencies. For example, I’ve done thousands of hours of Youtube livestreams and never once had to take something down because I was ashamed of what I said. Even under the stress of argument and confrontation, I did not lose my self.
Richard Spencer is sometimes honest to a fault, even if it makes him or his movement look bad. When Antifa was beating up on the Alt Right and ending his college speaking tour, he publicly admitted that Antifa won.
Every political and religious orientation comes with potential downsides. The potential downsides to right-wing populism for unstable people include:
* Conspiracy thinking such as Stop the Steal, QAnon, the elites hate us and want us dead, etc…
* A disregard for the humanity and expertise of the elites.
* A narrowing of the information you will take in, for example, many populists think that any news that comes from the New York Times or CNN is going to be bogus. A healthy person welcomes truth from any source.
* The development of a victimhood complex which then frees one from moral responsibility.
* Trolling as a way of life and other downsides of the e-personality. You might start saying things online that rewire your brain making you less effective and more offensive offline.
* A disregard for work. Godward Podcast tweeted Jan. 16: “It’s only legal to have a job in America if you’re a complete idiot or a phony. And being a phony takes a serious psychological toll.” Without an overdose of dissident right thought, nobody would ever say such a thing. Honest work is about the healthiest thing a person can do.
* Delusions of becoming a thought leader so that one neglects one’s real responsibilities.
* Lack of regard for the consequences of your words and behavior on others. I remember in August of 1988, I hung out on a concrete outcrop at UCLA to try to watch for free this tennis tournament going on below. When campus police came up to remove us, one officer almost tripped and fell off the ledge. Some of the people I was with started verbally abusing the enforcers. I quickly realized I was in a bad place, that my behavior could have contributed to somebody suffering a significant injury, that my presence was giving others encouragement to speak badly, and so I removed myself after telling everyone around me that we should leave, and I never forgot the lesson. Cheating to see something for free can rapidly go bad for those around me and it is not a good development for my own character.
If there is an emptiness in your life that love or hate of Donald Trump fills, or some politics or religion fills, it will likely distort your personality. Some people become worse when they get religion because they are trying to use religion to fill a hole that religion cannot fill (such as addiction).
Spencer’s comments remind me of an insight from Dennis Prager: We all exude a force field. For example, when I walk into a room, people often feel more free to share inappropriate jokes. When Dennis Prager walks into a room, people tend to behave better and to speak more politely. We can’t escape our responsibility for affecting others. Even if we don’t want to be a hero, we usually are a hero to someone at some time. The way people habitually respond to us gives us a mirror to our soul. Some people see me and instinctively smile. Others see me and instinctively get riled up. I get annoyed with one bloke I know because, even though we’re about the same age, he usually treats me like I’m a child. His response to me is not totally random. He is reacting to those aspects of my life and personality that are childish.
I am sure that Donald Trump’s behavior has inspired some people to become better and some people to become worse. We can’t control others, we don’t turn them into zombies with our podcasts and blog posts, but we can incentivize their behavior.
Everybody has a track record. As my shrink said, “Luke become very focused on one thing then, when he is not getting the desired rewards, he drops it and moves on.” Richard Spencer has a track record too. Everything he touches tends to go to hell. Donald Trump also has a track record. It seems like a disproportionate number of people who’ve followed him have come acropper. Trump, for example, demands his employees are loyal to him but he seems to have little loyalty to them.
I have a lot of people in my life who I keep at a remove. When they get too close, I get wounded and unhappy. When I introduce them to friends, their disagreeable tendencies make me regret it. But at a certain distance, I can just enjoy them. One Jewish intellectual noted, “The people I pray with, I can’t talk to, and the people I talk to, I can’t pray with.”
I love the idea of situating people in their correct genre. The great accountant is not likely to be a good shock jock. The talk radio host is not going to be a scholar. The funny receptionist is not likely to be precise with numbers. The fiery courtroom lawyer off the clock may want to argue way too much for my comfort.
