J’accuse:Britain's Paper Of Record
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/HRDYByb.png]

A year, 9 months and 17 days ago a substack was launched of considerable Merit. This thread is to talk about the works published on it. As there was not one before, and the shoutbox I find not fit for purpose for discussing the pieces written by the authors of J'accuse. First a brief overview J'accuse is the creation of one Mikka(Who has gone under many pseudonyms but is known chiefly by that title), avid English death note fan and anti communitarian eugenicist  along with his partner in crime Hooghly and a few pseudo anonymous other figures from fringe British twitter circles that discuss creating rewild tropic jungles on those isles and the need to smash the civil service as patriots. This post acting as a anniversary celebration is a good intro to their style of biting satire and deep writing on current British society wider western civilization and various online trifles.
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/Exz2NKK.png]
J'Accuse Wrote:This is a story about a newspaper which was not like other newspapers.

In the past, newspapers were printed on sheets of paper; they were sold by small children and old men who rode bicycles and read by people on the way to work.

*shot of Harold Macmillan getting out of a car*

Then, a strange and dark figure came up with an idea.

To sell newspapers you could read on a computer.

*shot of Canary Wharf at night*

In 2021, Substack was invented.

*cuttings from a 1960s Open University Science Programme*

They started with An Idea.

*shot of stock exchange numbers going up and down*

What if all the energy that had previously gone into the productive and enlightening world of Blogs.

*shot of scientists working on the Manhatten project*

Was actually about Power.

Tim Chapman, who I believe is a third man who is not Mikka or Hooghly has made this a fine art. 
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/zSmgmdA.png]
Tim Chapman Wrote:Some of life’s setbacks are small wounds. Like bruises, and cuts, they will heal with the passage of time. A missed train, a broken plate or dead grandparent. It may be acute for a moment.

But the skin knits itself together again, and the pain is lost in the grey, shapeless ocean of our pleasantly finite memory.

But other wounds are deeper. Limbs are lost, or are amputated. Skin is burned. Eyes are gouged.

And for all the pain we feel in the moment, the very worst of it comes with the realisation that this scar shall never fade. The crushing prospect of misery; existing, not living, with this disfigurement.

The stain of failure is now on you, concerned parent, as it is on me. And you cannot wash it away. No matter how hard you scrub. Not for all of the perfumes of Arabia.

It starts with a light thud at the door.

As soon as you see the letter, you feel a black pit opening in your stomach.

Why is it so small?

Not even the clever men at Cambridge could fit a proper ‘welcome pack’ in such a tiny slip.

You tear it open with shaking hands, tearful eyes.

‘I regret to tell you…we must inform you that your application has been unsuccessful’

You check the name again. Then a second time. It’s there in plain print.

Xavier Chapman.

Your legs give way. You cover your eyes with your sleeve. You cannot bring yourself to look at the wretched waste of life in front of you.
Some  brilliant literature, this one in particular might be my favorite piece of his. Really under discussed. But J'accuse is more known for the think piece side such as this recent one on IQ (Chapman stories, are the free sample's it seems), many things to discuss here and in their archives which I'll leave to you as I've spoken enough. 
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/dgBqFS1.png]

Mikka Wrote:Richard Hannania and Existential Comics and those like them are not 'IQ fetishists' or 'nerd supremacists'; they barely even pretend to be this. Richard Hannania's silliness was documented here last week; anyone who fanatically duped themselves over COVID clearly has other normative concerns beyond IQ. Steve Sailer and Charles Murray are both proponents of American civic libertarianism; their point is that assortive mating at the top is producing an unequal society and that blacks are betrayed by white liberals who ignore their genetic propensity to crime and low likelihood of reward from social programs. Posts about how, y'know, IQ isn't VIRTUE are very common in the Rationalist and post-Rationalist sphere: the actual message of Yudkowsky's 'Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality' being that Voldemort is an Ayn Rand inspired IQ supremacist while Harry bends the knee to utilitarianism. In Unqualified Reservations, Moldbug also explicitly distances himself from Eugenics and Ayn Rand "nerd supremacism" in the section about V.R prisons. This rejection of pure IQ-maxing is usually justified through a belief that "the libs" are High IQ, so obviously, IQ isn't everything but as even defenders of the idea elites are smart (they aren't) point out; the elites are not necessarily *more* smart than "dissidents", they do not have a monopoly of all the smart people in society and include a great many very stupid people among their ranks.

The main use of IQ for Rationalists is to provide a broad justification for inequalities produced by the free market, which Rationalists believe is the best way to maximise global utility. Hence, Existential Comics ties 'weird little nerds' to inventing things which raise the standard of living and not the mere fact they are weird little nerds. The polemic goal of IQ-bashing is to distance oneself from the banal vision of life proposed by these people but I suggest, from examining their beliefs, it is a poor way of doing so when there already exists a Nietzschean critique of their core value: utilitarianism. Attacking IQ only lets them pretend they are the only people who talk about IQ and to pose as 'dangerous thinkers'.
All hail lord Mikka! Soon the sun will never set on the Meritocracy, but first, before that can happen, we must manifest this glorious reality through our collective action. What collection action am I alluding towards? What small thing done now could send vibrations through the heavenly threads of providence? A simply thing really, but its effect can not be denied. The world is made of money— money is power— and thus by diverting some of your money into Mikka’s wallet will his power grow. What are grand ideals and an abnormally high IQ without the power to assert one’s will upon the world. Without the death note would Light Yagami have become Kira?—no, sadly not. Seeing how the death note isn’t real— or any magic for that matter— Mikka will just have to make do with the power of capital in his ambition towards changing reality. So then that just leaves one last thing to say: subscribe to the J’accuse NOW! 

[Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...h_Note.jpg]
I enjoyed the deep Chapman family lore.

[Image: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_au...12x842.png]

Declassified: On the “workability” of creating explosive devices using Uranium-235

Quote:By 1931, aged 35, he had risen to the position of Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies within the Committee of Imperial Defence, where he pushed for the immediate independence of Iraq on the grounds of ‘Value For Money’. His Treasury experience found expression in other aspects of interwar foreign policy, with Rudolf cautioning against the procurement of ‘experimental and untested’ technologies such as Radar and Aircraft Carriers, in favour of ‘tried and true’ machines of war such as the Hawker Hart light bomber.

Quote:2.1 In 1932, scientists at the University of Cambridge (my Alma Mater) discovered that lithium ions could be split with protons. Since then, there has been some speculation by fringe theorists that these innovation could have some military application.
2.2 One of the most prominent advocates for Nuclear Fission is an Italian man named Enrico Fermi. It is worth remembering, of course, that Italy has recently engaged in an illegal war in Abbysinia. The Italian army has used mustard gas on civilians and fired upon red cross ambulances during this campaign.
2.3 Intelligence reports which suggest that Germany is researching the military application of Nuclear Fission also indicate that the concept may be fascistic in origin. We must consider the possible diplomatic repercussions of being seen by in the international community to engage in ‘alternative science’.
Beware is now paywalled. Even so, I offer a very light and friendly critique that I hope can spur discussion. I read the article a single time the day it was posted, so I can't give it another look or go back and reference specifics. However, I see the growing obsession with the term "IQ" -- much like that of "eugenics" and "degeneration" -- as having done less in advancing a real, tangible Meritocracy than it has in diluting an actual conversation about what a Meritocracy itself is and how it can be achieved. 

"High IQ" no longer means being a uniquely intelligent person. Sure, it's just that typical sort of semantic drift that's all too common in the Online Age. But is that all it is? 

"You can't have an honest discussion of elites or IQ because everyone wants to believe they're a genius" said the user capgras in the shoutbox. So true. 

Conceptually, you wouldn't expect "High IQ" to become something that was susceptible to this kind of fate. Eugenics, degeneration, maybe those are different. But "High IQ" ... that's something you either are or are not. You should be able to tell pretty quickly whether you are or are not. Right? Unfortunately, if you have to think about it all that much, odds are... 

There's a section, if I'm remembering correctly, about how the great powers during the Age of Exploration would have definitely administered IQ tests, if they had them. But they didn't have them, so [most of the time] they would just have to resort to the proven capabilities of a seafarer as a sort of IQ supplement. Thankfully, we do have them. There's just that one small problem in that we're not really allowed to use them for anything that would be meaningful and Meritocratic.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/mcqw3Mk/Griggs2.png]

IQ tests are not, in any way, related to job performance... go figure. 

To give just one example of what I think a more proper representation of Meritocracy is, without the oriental obsessiveness, see some of the selected Marshals of Napoleon's Empire:

Jean Lannes, Duke of Montebello, Prince of Siewierz (son of a farmer)
François Lefebvre, Duke of Danzig (orphan)
André Masséna, Duke of Rivoli, Prince of Essling (son of a tanner)
Édouard Mortier, Duke of Treviso (son of a farmer/merchant)
Joachim Murat, Grand Duke of Berg, King of Naples (son of an innkeeper)
Michel Ney, Duke of Elchingen, Prince of the Moskva (son of a craftsman)
Nicolas Oudinot, Count of France, Duke of Reggio (son of a farmer/brewer)

None of them had any idea what a quotient intellectuel was. Their honours came as rewards for their personal displays of skill that proved useful. In fact, if you know a little bit about some of them, you quickly come to realise that some may not have been all that 'smart' at all. But something was needed, and they knew how to do it better than everyone else. 

There's two main points here. The first is that the rules of the game are so perverted and skewed out of certain peoples' favour that you could be as "High IQ" as your heart desires and it still ends up meaning far less than it should, for now. Have you seen the video of the White kid who was first in his class with a "5.1 GPA" reading his rejection letters from each of the Ivy Leagues? I don't know if that was real or not, but the important thing is that it doesn't even have to be real at this point because (1) school is no longer real, and (2) even some of you reading this probably are that White kid in a lot of ways. The second point is that aside from the obsession with "High IQ" lessening what it really means to be a 'smart' person, it really amounts to nil if all you're ever going to be in life is some faggot in an office that has to make kind chat with your female coworkers because your state has a gun to your head waiting for the second you step out of line. Having said all that, maybe I just don't understand it yet (I am certainly not "High IQ"), but I yield to anyone else who would like to share their thoughts of the subject.
IQ is simply a good approximation of potential, but without a proper personality test, can give you autists (of the bad kind) and teacher's pets types - this is because there is "Normal High IQ" and "Anomalous High IQ" - the difference being that the former is consistent and heritable, and the latter happens due to one-off mutation and, for all intents and purposes, luck. It's also the sort of genius associated with one-trick pony savants. Generally you want to filter those out when selecting for top-level management and governance positions, but they excel at being faceless bureaucrats.

Currently, if you are reasonably intelligent, you are screwed by default, though if you are this latter type, you might have more success as you will be more pliable, and gay nigger communists need reasonably competent jannies.

Btw, I think "Tim Chapman" is just Mikka's satirical alt, a "character" he plays.
Erik Hoel is an up and down kind of guy for me but I check in occasionally. I thought that this was a solid position on the IQ thing, and I agree with him more broadly that cultivation OF THE ALREADY INTELLIGENT is what education is for and what makes the difference. 


Here's your link to that. I've linked his other pieces on education and the "genius drought" before in other threads.

The entire first world is still smart enough to probably get extraordinarily good results if heavy investment were made in the top 20% or so of promising minds over a broad classical education which serves as a pathway into higher education and qualifications for good work and status.

That's not a model I came up with now, I'm talking about British Grammar Schooling. The system their Socialists destroyed in the 60s. British grammar school graduates (18 years old) used to be recognised as being equal to or better than American college graduates in knowledge and practical value to employers. This wasn't accomplished with eugenics. It was accomplished through what every sane society should be doing as a matter of course.

Back to the subject of the thread. I've read most of Peter Htichens book on Grammar Schooling, 'A Revolution Betrayed'. And it's quite good. The history of British Schooling is quite chaotic and disordered, so it would be hard to piece together without this. I think this book is very valuable. Mikka has also shared his thoughts on it, but he paywalled it.


I wonder what's going on here...
So this J'accuse shit is, what?  The international pod jew wrestling with reality, complaining and spinning, spinning and complaining?  It's not me!!!! 

The amount of effort put towards insular fairytales while humanity looks on asking, "What the fuck is wrong with these people?" is something I'll never get.  But I am a good sport.  As Wittgensteinbergblattstein said, as long as you understand what the jew says is for himself, then there is no problem.

Not feeling the IQ piece, tbh.  For starters it's way too jewy. 

And then there's this: "It is not white to reject or accept an idea according to where it came from."

Totally ignoring bergblattstein above. Pure folly.

It is a far more stereotypically 'Chinese' or 'oriental' mindset to believe that we are bound to imitate what our ancestors did as the highest form of the good.

Another Strauss kike struggling with the ineluctable desire to don the white skin suit. Sidenote- Any white guys that wander onto the board: understand that "imitating what our ancestors did as (the highest form of the good)" is an issue that strikes at the heart of kike being. More so because they are NOT doing that. Because their ancestors, when spoken of honestly, are shit. The modern kike is psychologically tied in knots. The strauss kike is appealling to gentile philosophy - white mans philosophy - to wrestle with the issue; we put "the highest form of the good" in parentheses because it's not their syntax. But their neediness on the question deforms philosophy. And they don't even pursue the question honestly - they kike it up in the end, simply search for a new way to re-arrive at their ethnic particularism from which they're theoretically departing, and that which originally places "the highest good" beyond their reach or even conception. So what does this mean for a proper white man? First, don't listen to jew horseshit. Secondly, what should be a lesson to them (which they ignore) is not a lesson to you (though they kick and scream and insist it is). Imitating the forms of YOUR ancestors is close to the highest good, especially in absense of certainty or times of otherwise limited information. This is true for you, white man. And by extension, the world. It is not true for them. Hence, their obsession on the point. Extirpating your ethnic forms is another route to resolving kike resentment - he no longer feels ashamed aping your ineluctable beauty if you or that beauty no longer exists. And this path might be less mentally taxing for him, rather than seeing his shtetl being against the light of "the highest good". Do you understand?

It is literally white to be like, "oh, that's jewish?"
No thanks.

Oh that's negroid? Hm. It is jazzy.
Maybe if you enter and leave through the service entrance, ok. And not after 8pm. And not on sundays.
And if you don't like those terms, we'll get a white boy to do it.  Matter of fact, let's get on that.

And so it's white.

I literally can't hear anything else you're saying, subhumans.

Another few general points, for the benefit of any properly white men that wander onto the board-

What's this obsession with elitism?? That's often asked. Understand the shtetl bug is sublimating his own ridiculous but customary ethnic discourse through alternative expressions, wherever he can find it.  Now comes European right wing thought.

We got guys looking in from the outside, saying what is with the "amarna" extremism? how is that supposed to work actually? It must be intentional poison pill, subversion of what we're trying to do.

Innocent and logical questions at the top, but over-complicated conclusion. Shtetl bugs aren't trying to solve the same problem. Or any problem. The pseudo elitism or claims to elitism are situation normal. There is no mandate to bring the whole together.

That's putting the overriding sentiment in proper context. Moving onto the content- The IQ thing is muddy.

The piece handles IQ from the perspective that it permits access to ..... whatever's out there. Something out there.
You see the assumed realism?

To say it another way, what if there is nothing out there sufficiently stable to "know"? Of what value is "IQ"?

We're just saying this to understand there is an assumed and unexamined realism within the posters perspective.

This gets muddy when he tries to dump on the Rationalists - an affectation of "against utilitarianism" isn't the definitive rebuttal. Rationalism is not possible if there is nothing stable. 
But the poster is already committed to the realism Rationalism must begin with in his handling of IQ.

He gets stuck in the same mud when he tries to dump on burke.

Burke's assertion of "universal natural laws" is the consequence of conceptualizing the world along realist terms, centuries in the making.

It's a small point to say ah, but he put it to use for pajeets.
Simplistic appeal that obscures the more substantial point.

The j'accuse crew should be intimately aware of the peculiarity in the development of white man's thought because it stands in stark contrast to kike thought that persisted well into modernity.

White man is the premiere realist on the globe through all of history. But we don't see this because it's simply normative to us.

If you want to waste time someday reading into kike thought, the shit they insist on writing over and over again, you should note how frequently you run into myth or made up shit, that sits easily into the surrounding text and author's handling.  Seems out of place in a work that assumes some authority. But this is our peculiar perspective, a consequence of our peculiar way of conceptualizing the world in realist terms.

IQ is real. But its value in discerning the "truth of the external world" is only a modern thing. And modernity is what, 500 years?

But IQ has always been around. What it is is the capacity to derive order for man from out of a reality of flux. The necessity of what man has always done.

It was there, possessed and exploited, before we became so relentlessly realist.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)