The Kurganing of Johann - Part II

Because the ghosts of dead horses need atomising

The idiotic, fake “nobleman” and ineffective wanna-be “warrior-philosopher” with the cowardly fake name of Johann Kurtz has ejected from his pasty, weak, cowardly body, another effluent of regurgitated strawman arguments, sophistry, lies and seething rage at his not being one of the “elite” he so desperately aspires to suck off for recognition.

This ambulatory piece of human exrement irks me because he is one of the ten thousand voices of the liars, deceivers, fake wise-men, fake religious, fake everything that is infecting especially young en with false and untenable nonsense ideologies. These parasites prey on the dissatisfaction of young men primarily and feed it lies upon falsehoods, wrapped in deception, self-aggrandisement and a wish to appear knowledgeable or important or, even more laughably, effective.

Before we start the vivisection of his latest blog post, which will be autistically complete, let me remind you that this “paragon” among men, who wants to “become noble” is a shrinking violet too scared and hemmed in by his ACTUAL life, where he is at best a middle manager in some software firm, to even use his real name.

He clearly has always kissed and licked the right assholes to climb the corporate ladder like the soulless little mommy’s boy he is and he tells other young men this is the only way to achieve… suck-cess, his specialty.¹ In other words, he is precisely the opposite of what he pretends to present himself as, a rugged, manly man, of man-like virtue.

And his series of meritocracy is absolute dogshit and he deserves to be exposed for the utter fraud he is, hence, is second Kurganing. The first being here.

But let me now commence the total demolishing of his latest post, sentence by sentence. My comments in bold.

***

The tragedy of elite human capital

Meritocracy IV: The corruption of the elite

Our critical series on meritocracy now comes to a head.

Who is this “we” Kurtzy-boy? You made it all up and literally no one who can read English and owns a dictionary can agree with you on any of it. As I clearly demonstrated in the first Kurganing, you literally don’t even understand the meaning or definition of the wort meritocracy.

We have found that configuring society around an impoverished political philosophy which fails to live up to its name - meritocracy - has various deleterious effects, including the destruction of childhood and the impairment of family formation. Perhaps it is no surprise that it has corrupted our elite, too.

“WE” did no such thing. Notice the sophistic method used here, by using the royal “we” he pretends you are in agreement with his absurd definitions, false narratives and endless strawman “arguments”.

To briefly recap: we first discovered that ‘meritocracy’ is a far more dubious concept than the term, on its face, would imply:

No, again, “we” did no such thing. YOU invented an absurd definition for meritocracy, (who puts in the most effort has “merit” according to you) that no one else has, (Meritocracy means rule by those most effective at producing results, not rule by those making the most (or pretending to do) “effort”. Effort means nothing. Results do.) then tried to pretend it was the actual definition and then “shot it down”. Classic strawman argument.

“What we discovered is that the new concept of meritocracy is… reductive and exclusionary. It represents an attempt to expel a whole range of human richness from traditional understandings of ‘merit’.

No. It does no such thing. In fact meritocracy is how societies largely functioned in Catholic Europe until a bunch of soft-bellied and soft-handed bureaucrats like yourself managed to reproduce by remaining safe in the village, as the local village idiot, while men conquered the world.

Meritocracy is the notion that it is illegitimate to reward a person based on criteria other than a specific and artificial definition of merit, typically characterized by formal examinations and structured evaluations of narrowly-defined performance. Meritocracy adopts tests, reviews, qualifications, credentials, and the quantification of performance and ability. The meritocrat is the ‘Spreadsheet Man’.

I demolished this nonsense in detail in my first Kurganing of this effeminate poseur.

Under meritocracy, it is illegitimate to elevate an individual based on broader criteria, such as whether they are a friend, relative, local, particular sex, member of a known family, member of your faith, member of your class…

In other words, meritocracy is the antithesis of the concept of birthright. It is an attack on the integrity of sovereignty, undermining the ability of the steward of an asset to entirely determine to whom that asset is apportioned according to their own values.”

In Meritocracy is not a good thing, we began an exploration of the logic that inevitably leads to morally diminished elites within ‘meritocratic’ systems:

“Unfortunately, making ‘merit’ synonymous with ‘maximally economically productive’ also makes merit synonymous with a range of less desirable factors: a lack of inconvenient moral values, a lack of desire for a distracting family life, and an absence of ties to a particular locality.

Merit as economic productivity preferences a bias towards tolerance for inhuman working hours, a subservient and predictable personality type, and compliance over criticism or revolt.

Meritocratic institutions embrace those subjects who are transparent rather than complex; those whose achievements are easily summarized on a paper resume, and those who are willing to devote their lives to filling that paper in…

The quality naively implied by the term ‘merit’ and the qualities which are selected for in practice thus diverge widely. In fact, precisely because it subjects elites to Darwinian pressures while not selecting for virtue, meritocracy has the consistent effect of corrupting elites. Careerism is a poor teacher of morality.”

Here we see the whole house of cards of his ideology collapse in flames and ashes. Not only is he so stupid to say he thinks meritocracy is based on effort (instead of results) but he also equates any results to being solely equivalent to the amount of money a person produces (notice he unconsciously implies for others, not even for oneself, which would already be bad enough!) If this is not retardation at levels only seen by generations of inbreeding, I don’t know what is.

Money, especially fiat money, as we have on this fake, gay, and satanic world, is hardly ever a representation of any merit beyond the ability to play the rigged game in such a way that permits you to have a certain level of the fake Monopoly money we unfortunately all need currently to have a semi-decent standard of living.

It is no measure of you being meritorious of anything other than that, which as it is a rigged game, generally means the more money you “have” the more morally compromised you are likely to be. Just ask Elon (Musk), or Jeff (Bezos).

So once again, Kurtzy-boy gets it spectacularly wrong. A man has real merit in the world if he is effective. At what? At being a decent and honourable man. Merit inherently means it is something that has been achieved and demonstrated by results. And if you are broadly speaking, considering a moral society, then its citizens must be a moral people. Meaning any meritocracy that is likely to build such a civilisation, necessarily will be composed of meritorious (i.e. broadly speaking, Good, or Honourable) men.

Many readers, however, will doubtless remain unpersuaded by the notion that meritocracy corrupts - rather than refines - an elite.

Many readers will also remain unconvinced that 2+2 = Purple. Which is analogous to what you are doing in this post.

My view is that the corrupting effects are, in fact, obvious: elected officials, heads of companies, and expert organizations have never been less trusted. There are other explanations for this, of course, like DEI and its predecessor ideologies. But the perverse logic of ‘meritocratic’ processes plays a central role in the decline, as we shall demonstrate.

No it does not. In fact the very opposite thing is true. The overwhelming REASON why those elected officials and so on are not trusted is precisely because they are a bunch of ineffective cretins with egomaniacal delusions of mere competence. See for example ALL the legacy media and ALL the bought and paid for politicians that assured us Russia was out of weapons, ammunition and manpower within two weeks of March 2022. A blind newt could have predicted a better outcome for the War but corruption, endemic and even genetic incompetence prevails in all those spheres of influence, precisely because a bunch of inbred tribalist have got a stranglehold on the financial mechanisms of the planet as well as the mass media, entertainment and general zeitgeist creation on Planet Earth, as dictated by the puppet-masters behind Hollywood, the Bank of International Settlement and the Davos meet-ups and the World Economic Forum. These Vampiric Pedophiles are not even mildly competent, they are literally retarded in many cases, and yet, they hold the levers of power precisely through the “mechanisms” this faker with the fake name says we should use, which is basically nepotism for the inbred genetic misfits he represents.

---

“A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers… More math tutoring, fewer sleepovers.”

— Vivek Ramaswamy (2024)

Wherein the supposedly Anglo-Saxon manly man, quotes a foreigner in a foreign land to make his point.

As elites have transitioned from focusing on the management of hereditary estates to maintaining status through personal labor, the intense demands of their narrowly-focused professional careers have left less and less room for broader interests, knowledge, and passions.

The people he considers “Elites” are nothing of the sort. They might be the foot soldiers (or more often footstools) of the Elite. And yes I do know. I worked for, and have personal acquaintance with more than one Billionaire.

Keir Starmer - Britain’s premier - has professed to having no favorite books, no favorite poems, no dreams, and no fears. When asked what single book he would take before being stranded on a desert island, he replied ‘an atlas’ (a truly midwit answer - as if it would help).

He is the right man leading for a people such as yourself. Talkers and whiners and the envious losers that do not have the testicular fortitude to even protect their own children from Pakistani Rape Gangs.

Under meritocracy, it is the elite who gravitate most intensely to hyper-specialization and a life dominated by professional labor. We saw illustrative statistics and a causal explanation in the last essay:

No, “we” did no such thing. You made some shit up based on your utterly preposterous and nonsensical strawman argument.

“The economic logic causing elites to work harder than ever before is straightforward: a digitized and financialized economy allows a highly capable individual to be more ‘productive’ than ever before. In such an economy, the greater the individual’s capacity, the more marginally productive they are than the next best worker.

In many sectors, there’s an exponential financial return on an individual’s additional capability. This is why you see power law distributions of earnings, exaggerated in sectors which are particularly digitized, financialized, and scaled.

The incredible financial returns on high-performing individuals’ efforts are seductive, causing them to work harder and harder. As these working patterns solidify into institutional and sectoral norms, they move from being optional to required. These industries then recruit from colleges which have selected for students who have demonstrated an incredible capacity for work. This becomes an accelerating feedback loop.”

I’ve heard that senior managers at Elon’s companies who wish to secure an hour with him must value the decision to be made at over $20m. That is what every hour of his professional attention is worth. $180m a nine-hour day.

Again, you retard, it is YOU who is the spreadsheet man, believing such nonsense, and also to stupid to realise that Elon is simply an actor playing a role, and never has created much of anything except the Elon Musk myth.

There is literally nothing an hour of time with Elon Musk would get you or anyone else unless it forwarded whatever demons he is serving today. The calculation is an abstract piece of art signifying nothing.

This same logic aggressively punishes dissenters. The more elite one becomes within a meritocracy, the less secure one’s position is, as smaller differences in performance produce exponentially greater differences in rewards.

Again, this is literally the inverse of the truth. And we can take me and Kurtzy-boy here as perfect parallel examples. While I have no doubt Kurtzy-boy is probably financial more well off than I am today, certainly from a monthly/daily/yearly “money coming in vs. money going out” perspective, the truth is he has to hide like a rat and do as he is told. I can say and do what I want in my own name. I am free. He is a drone.

The measure of the effectiveness of a man, is when he is perfectly willing to stand against the tide, secure in the knowledge it is upon us, but also secure in the knowledge that he is in the right an he will overcome or die trying. I am a dissenter according to Kurtzy-boy, and yet, I am more free as a human being than he is likely to ever be.

In other words, at the top of the meritocratic scale, by working slightly less hard on one’s narrow professional focus, massive financial opportunity costs can be incurred.

A portrait of Kurtzy-boy, saddened by his not being an “elite” and being snubbed by them. Seriously, he posted this image a promos of nothing.

All of the world’s wealthiest men are now-self made, and yet most continue to work long hours in their professional fields. This makes sense; figures like Zuckerberg and Musk are essentially tasteless and unlike previous elites are ill-prepared to be generative figures in the spaces of culture, faith, aesthetics, architecture, manners, and art. They are ‘merchant class’ through-and-through; they are not elite in any sense except their professional capacity.

Wrong. They are puppets put in place for being obedient servants of the ones that actually rule entire continents with structures like the IMF, the BIS, and so on. And you are fucking stupid, for not knowing this, because it is obvious!

We could categorize the various eras of transition into a modern meritocracy as follows:

1. Early and pre-20th century: Elites - then known as the ‘leisure classes’ -did relatively few hours of professional labor, focusing on managing estates, politics, hobbies, and culture. Their wives did no professional work, and focused on family, socializing, and charity.

2. Mid 20th century: Elites worked a moderate amount in white collar professions like law and finance. Culture - as expressed by elements like fine tailoring and refined manners - remained important. Their wives still did not have professional careers, and continued to focus on family, socializing, and charity.

3. Late 20th century: Elites worked a lot, and their wives, seeking status and increasing financial returns on elite labor, increasingly worked too. Focus on family formation, high culture, and service declined.

4. Early 21st century: Both men and women work long hours. Other interests are relegated to lower-order concerns.

What absolute nonsense. Seriously, how can anyone take this guy even half-seriously?

In other words, meritocracy takes the most gifted in society and instrumentalizes them into workers, more akin to office drones than previous generations of the elite. This has the effect of making these individuals exponentially more economically productive than the middle classes, increasing societal inequality and angst, while also locking elites into crushing work hours and a myopic focus.

You really have no concept of what Elite means, nor of how it is used in today’s social context. An impressive level of blithering ignorance!

We can thus see why our elites naturally gravitate towards the bureaucracies favored by the ‘professional managerial class’. As Strauss foresaw, without a broad, indulgent, noble education they have become “specialists without spirit or vision and voluptuaries without heart.” They are more technical instrumentsthan human aristocrats. Markovits describes:

What part of “Technical Instruments” did you not understand?

“Traditional wealth, held as physical and financial capital, does not just free its owner from the need to work; it also enables him to become more fully himself. Human capital works in almost exactly the opposite way… Meritocracy, moreover, applies this idea most intensively to the elite. It makes the elite worker’s talents, skills, and training—her own self, her very person—into her greatest economic asset, the overwhelmingly dominant source of her wealth and caste… To secure her eliteness, the superordinate worker must ruthlessly manage her education and labor—training to develop skills that others value, and then working intensively in jobs and at tasks again set by others…

See that sentence? “To secure her eliteness, the superordinate worker must…” That proves you are a complete idiot Kurtzy. If you are a “worker” the one thing you can be certain of is that you are NOT elite. You blithering moron.

A person whose wealth and status depend almost entirely on her human capital simply cannot afford to consult her own interests or passions in choosing her job…

Aaand again. You see here that Kurtzy-boy, not only is not elite, but he never, ever, ever, will be. He is literally genetically unviable for anything related to actual nobility. The old saying in my language that nobility is in the blood referred far more to the intrinsic nature of character that men who come from a long line of actually philosophical noble men have than any nepotistic generational privilege. Kurtzy here literally cannot even imagine a human being that puts other things and interests above their “economic capital” i.e. money. But the very NATURE of a noble man is that he cannot be bought. He will die or kill over a principle, regardless of consequence, and he is a literal force of nature because of it. Kurtzy here tells us so often and in so many ways that he is merely a lapdog of whoever holds a purse.

Moreover, as wages become increasingly concentrated among the very highest-paid workers, a smaller and smaller share of jobs and job types support top incomes. Someone who wants an elite income—or, critically, even just an income sufficient to buy his children the schooling on which their own eliteness depends—must do one of a narrowly restricted class of jobs, heavily concentrated in finance, management, law, and medicine.”

Ah yes, I see Johannie, the mark of an “elite” in your mind is to get on that hamster wheel as soon as possible and stay on it all your life, running ever faster, in the hope you ever graduate to being one of the rarefied “elites” you are so desperate to belong to, but to which you never will, ever. Because Kurtzy… you and your progeny… are fucking hamsters!

— Daniel Markovits, The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite

It is not clear that these hyper-specialized individuals are even particularly skilled. Under meritocracy, we have seen the increasing incentivization of credentialism and gamification over authentic development.

NOOOOO. Under Credentialism and gamification, nepotism, tribalism and using high-trust cultures to infiltrate them with low-trust values, you have seen the collapse of ability, efficiency, and authentic skill. As usual, Kurtzy has it precisely backward.

Acquiring a job is no longer just about becoming proficient in the relevant skills; it is equally about posturing, developing one’s LinkedIn presence, and perfectly formatting one’s CV for AI processing.

For YOU it is. For people like me, who can and have produced bundles of cash for their employers at pretty much anything they were tasked with, no, I don’t need any of that crap.

This is because meritocracy attacks traditional divisions which exclude applicants on principle.

Again, no. You have it completely reversed as usual. CREDENTIALISM does that. Meritocracy couldn’t care less what your origins are, only results. And this is why I said I have the utter certainty that Kurtzy here has never entered a boxing ring, had a dojo kumite, or ever faced off with fisticuffs to anyone. Because if he ever had, he would know that credentialism matters for NOTHING once things get serious. As the entirety of NATO and the US military is finding out thanks to Russia.

Now, anyone of any origin is free to apply for a job. Massive, unmanageable numbers of applications from unknown candidates result, and reductive comparative measurements become necessary to mitigate the challenge of volume. Gaming the system by exploiting the weaknesses of these measurements becomes first an opportunity, then - as more people do so, a necessity.

---

John Glanton of Social Matter illustrates the intellectual poverty of this ‘meritocracy at scale’ with the example of a spelling bee:

“…if you were to administer a spelling bee to a given middle-school classroom, there would be a fairly significant correlation between success at the bee and overall writing ability… if you foisted an impromptu spelling contest on some group of unsuspecting eighth-graders, it’d be likely to shake out that the ones who did well in it know their way around a book. And that they could on the whole write sentences with more clarity and grace than their lower-scoring counterparts. But the national spelling bee is a different animal altogether. Success at that level doesn’t mean you’re an “avid reader” or the kind of student who writes little short stories and poems in her spare time… It means you’re willing to forego in large measure normal childhood entertainments. It means you’re willing to grind out hour after hour of tedious rote learning, inscribing obscure etymologies and variant spellings and all manner of curious linguistic fauna in careful runes upon your young heart…

And that is what you are PRETENDING is meritocracy, which as I stated already plenty of times, is retarded.

But you can observe the same sort of phenomenon all over the place. Once a basic tool of training or assessment becomes incentivized heavily enough, it tends to lose all relationship to the qualities it was originally meant to train or assess… Just a bizarre arms race of ever-specializing techniques… once something becomes worth gaming, it will be gamed. And it will lose almost all of its former virtue in the gaming process.”

Meritocracy - and its brutal requirements for self-improvement - necessitates an inwards turn, rather than outwards beneficence. It leaves little room for authentic charity or public service.

I find it interesting, if not at all surprising, that Kurtzy here sees self-improvement as being “brutal”; instead of how I and anyone who actually owns a dictionary and knows what meritocracy actually means, perceive it; which is a good and fun thing to go after your entire life.

Aristocrats used to view military service as a right of passage, but this kind of service cannot be incentivized under meritocracy. Now, military service for the meritocratic elite would be just an awkward interruption to explain on their CVs.

No you moron. The time of aristocrats being also warriors and soldiers began to end with the rebellion against God and truth led by the Protestants, godless creatures more concerned with money than truth.

Channelling José Ortega y Gasset, Christopher Lasch writes:

…the value of cultural elites lay in their willingness to assume responsibility for the exacting standards without which civilization is impossible. They lived in the service of demanding ideals. “Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us—by obligations, not by rights.” The mass man, on the other hand, had no use for obligations and no understanding of what they implied, “no feeling for [the] great historical duties.” Instead he asserted the “rights of the commonplace.”…

Lacking any comprehension of the fragility of civilization or the tragic character of history, he lived unthinkingly in the “assurance that tomorrow [the world] will be still richer, ampler, more perfect, as if it enjoyed a spontaneous, inexhaustible power of increase.” He was concerned only with his own well-being and looked forward to a future of “limitless possibilities” and “complete freedom.”

— Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy

There can be no ‘noblesse oblige’ in a system in which there is no ‘noblesse’ (noble birth).

Damn but this retard gets everything wrong. Noblesse Oblige as I explained before is NOT in specific reference to anything related to bloodline, but to CHARACTER. A man of noble heart feels obliged to do or not do certain things. For example, putting pedophiles to death regardless of the “laws” any given freemasons-controlled government might have on the books. Defend the innocent (as Catholic Dogma demands). Tell the truth when it is hard but necessary, and so on. But what does Kurtzy know? He’s just angry he wasn’t born in a wealthy family and he still feels like he’s not got enough to become part of the circle of those who are. And he is right, he will never be one of them, but even more laughably, wealthy people are no indication of nobility at all, yet Kurtzy here can’t help himself.

The moral logic which underpinned the duties of the aristocracy to the lower classes was that their privilege could only be justified with commensurate beneficence (an echo of Luke 12:48: "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.")

In a system in which the elites believe that they have ‘earned’ their privilege, it is less clear that they owe anything to others. Indeed, quite the opposite: in a ‘meritocracy’ in which people receive what they merit, the lower classes merit their low status, having been ‘given every opportunity and failed to make much of it’. There is no such thing as the less fortunate, only the less deserving.

Thank you for yet again, demonstrating to all, for all time, the true nature of your inner character. Or rather, I should say, the chasm in it that can never be filled, where other people actually have that sense of duty that makes them noble.

As Michael Young describes, “For the first time in human history the inferior man has no ready buttress for his self-regard”, and they thus become, in the words of Daniel Markovits, “victims without a language of victimhood.”

The morality of this situation is of course highly dubious, given the advantages many of the elite have had from the circumstances of their birth, like natural gifts and diligent parents. Indeed, the effects of this delusion inevitably result in great cruelty:

“…meritocracy inclines elites to chauvinistic contempt or even cruelty regarding inequalities that cannot be cast in terms of identity politics. Political correctness does not denounce calling rural communities ‘backward,’ southerners ‘rednecks,’ Appalachians ‘white trash,’ and the bulk of the United States ‘flyover country.’ Indeed, considered elite opinion as commonly rationalizes as condemns these slurs: a widely read essay in the National Review, for example, recently attacked white working-class communities as “economically … negative assets,” as “morally … indefensible,” and as “in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles,” before concluding that “they deserve to die”; and a columnist for the New York Times, after observing that immigrants outperform native-born Americans in meritocratic competitions, called native-born citizens “the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning” and proposed (now tongue-in-cheek) that only mass deportations of the native-born could save America.”

— Markovits

Quoting a jew on a publication that is a known gatekeeper for at least a decade or two as your “evidence” for the correctness of your “position” is probably NOT going to convince anyone with am IQ above room temperature. In Alaska.

Lasch notes that escaping from the common lot - this white trash milieu - becomes the “very definition of meritocratic success” and the logical ambition of the meritocrat. Success is synonymous with active alienation from the middle and lower classes.

This alienation also expresses itself geographically, as detailed in works like Charles Murray’s ‘Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010’. While the old aristocracy of the land, which had to manage immovable rural estates, was necessarily dispersed throughout the country, meritocratic human capital is the opposite; it not only can move but must concentrate in the quest for maximum economic productivity.

Meritocrats must go where the ‘best’ schools are, and then where the best jobs are, often moving frequently throughout a career. There is a compound effect on the colocation of human capital, attracting the preponderance of elite human capital to specific geographic centers while leaving the rest of the population - and their own families - behind.

No, this is not the behaviour of the actual elite. It is the behaviour of parasites. Or cancer cells.

This breaks relations between both the classes and the generations. The new centers are:

“Populated by transients, they lack the continuity that derives from a sense of place and from standards of conduct self-consciously cultivated and handed down from generation to generation.”

— Lasch

The meritocrat has no sense of the special value of a ‘family business’, and under meritocracy a family business has no moral logic to privilege the next generation of their own family. This logic also means elite families have little motivation to generate heirs - for what good is an heir without an estate to pass down?

Ok Kurtzy, we get it, you too had boomer parents, and they gambled it all away on horse-racing, cocaine and hookers. Get over it boy. You’re not the only one. But you ARE whining a hell of a lot!

---

This concludes my essay series criticizing meritocracy. I hope you have enjoyed it! But this series will only have value if I am able to identify a superior system and some mechanism by which to transition to that system. Stay tuned.

Yes, the superior system is called….drumroll… MERITOCRACY! Buy a dictionary, read it and start again. -5/10 Johann must not just try harder, but he must try harder than all the other children, it may not help much but it’s better than him infecting the other children with retarded nonsense.

This series will ultimately inform my forthcoming book, Leaving a Legacy, which charts a course for the patriarch who wishes to guide his own family out of this destructive practice and into greatness. Stay tuned.

Anyone taking advice from you on how to lead a family is already a casualty as far as I’m concerned.

If you found value in this piece, please consider liking it using the button below, and upgrading to become a paid subscriber. All revenue goes towards supporting my family and goes a long way in helping me to continue to write.

But, aren’t you a techie manly man, that works for an employer in middle management work and who is “leaving England” because a strong white man can’t make it there any longer? Or something along those lines you spoke on?

You will unlock the full archive of over one hundred similar essays and podcasts, and a guide on where to start. All support is hugely appreciated.

I’ll get right on that as soon as I manage to sell second-hand toilet paper to India. I know it’s a long-shot, but if any country in the world might go for it…

Sic transit imperium,

Shhh… Don’t try to use the language of your better. You never were an Empire. Nothing has passed, because nothing was ever built. And if you are referring to the ex British empire, well, that didn’t last anywhere near the 800 years of the Roman one whose language you are trying to use, did it.

Yopu’re a peasant Kurtzy. And always will be.

1. He first posited this “way” here, and the title is oh so telling: Jobs for sensitive young men, and then defended it here. So we also know Johann is/was/sees himself as/ will never grow out of, the idea that he (is) was a sensitive young man. Oh so sensitive.