#TwitterCultural
#WednesdayWagner Hoiho! Missing your weekly thread on Wagner's leitmotifs and composing strategies? Here I am! This week, we start talking on a leitmotif that appears in every Wagner's opera:
ONE LEITMOTIF TO RULE THEM ALL (part 1 out of 3)
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
https://t.co/WflBj3xVwB
https://t.co/UDDVcPN7Zi
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
https://t.co/4EiSho02Y2
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
https://t.co/onKzHRBJ06
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
https://t.co/o9oHReDQpq
#TwitterCultural
#TwitterCultural
https://t.co/sAXENCJKJC
#TwitterCultural
https://t.co/TuLwbLglUw
More from Culture
That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.
In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.
https://t.co/TdaAECu35a
There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.
Here’s the summary overview:
First Sullivan: agent provocateur who is no more antifa/BLM than he is Proud Boy, with suspicious family ties to the security state (allegedly), who helps instigate and document the Jan 6 events leading to IC officials immediately demanding the removal of the incumbent regime...
The guy’s social media profile is all over the map. From Civil Liberties gun guy to Antifa activist. And who planned the Utah BLM event that ended in the bizarre car shooting. His feed since Jan has all led to the Cap Hill events, including the first of the Parlor call outs.
Okay so maybe the guy is just a confused burn-it-all-down nihilist. Possible, but then we might do a big think about how an unhinged political schizo gets hooked up with a filmmaker with a long-history of doing activist/journalism on behalf of Woke Imperialism...
If John Sullivan aka Jaydenx is the “Fake,” Jade Sacker, his accomplice, is the “Gay.” Here’s a few snapshots from her portfolio (https://t.co/YEO1CCsQn8)
The plight of Rohingya Muslims. The Kurds in Northern Syria. Trans Women in Cambodia. etc. Boiler plate globohomo
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
I'm increasingly interested in the idea of "personal moats" in the context of careers.
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
Moats should be:
- Hard to learn and hard to do (but perhaps easier for you)
- Skills that are rare and valuable
- Legible
- Compounding over time
- Unique to your own talents & interests https://t.co/bB3k1YcH5b
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
People talk about \u201cpassive income\u201d a lot but not about \u201cpassive social capital\u201d or \u201cpassive networking\u201d or \u201cpassive knowledge gaining\u201d but that\u2019s what you can architect if you have a thing and it grows over time without intensive constant effort to sustain it
— Andrew Chen (@andrewchen) November 22, 2018
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
Things that look like moats but likely aren\u2019t or may fade:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
- Proprietary networks
- Being something other than one of the best at any tournament style-game
- Many "awards"
- Twitter followers or general reach without "respect"
- Anything that depends on information asymmetry https://t.co/abjxesVIh9
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?