THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Luke Ford is a Jewish convert whose late father was the Seventh Day Adventist theologian Desmond Ford. His father's career was blighted for a mysterious theological reason I am simply quite unable to understand even though I am keenly interested in theology and tried to get my head round the subject. In the end I gave up concluding that it is in fact impossible to understand the nonsense that is Christian theology. I wonder if Luke, who has had his life blighted by this feature of his parentage understands it either. In any case, he saw fit to reject the absurdity of Christianity to embrace a religion that he thought would give him the protection and status he craved. In the West, Christianity is despised by Westerners who regard all religion as patently absurd because theirs is patently absurd and has indeed failed. Luke's innate sense of snobbery and racism prevented him from considering Islam for a moment because he saw Judaism as giving him the social cache he had always craved while Islam represented everything he and others like him in the alt-right hate and fear: uncool low status immigrant culture.
The Dissident Right seems quite unable to formulate rational and coherent arguments on anything, it seems.
The alt-right are low education, low-information and low status white men whose behaviour and demeanour makes women in the classes above them think they deserve to suffer. For this reason, it is easy to guilt by association anyone associated with them, including myself of course, though I share none of their characteristics. Presumably, this is to serve as a warning to others who wish to take up the cause of nationalism, which I define as government in the national interest - an abstract concept the white urban proletariat with their woefully inadequate state education are woefully ill-equipped to discuss. Because these men have no one in power prepared to defend their interests, the matriarchy consisting of spoilt and entitled college-educated white middle class women will always regard these unmarriageable and unemployable social retards with unvarnished horror triggered by the thought that any member of their sex might have to marry any of these low status low education unemployable and unmarriageable men.
Because of the welfare state, these men of the former working class no longer have a societal purpose other than be seen as a burden on the state to be bribed with extramarital sex, transgenderism to induce them to self-sterilise and UBI to keep them quiescent while warehoused for extinction. In the meantime, foreign workers are imported to do the work the formerly working classes were meant to do. It makes no sense at all, unless the purpose is to keep this whole shebang of representative democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage going. China and Russia have been dropping gentle but unmistakable hints for Western nations to take democracy out with the trash and bury its stinking rotten corpse for a few years now. However, because the entire Western political establishment is in denial, the message has not been understood or absorbed, let alone implemented. I seem to be the only one prepared to discuss these things, but there appears to be a conspiracy of white men conspiring to deprive me of the oxygen of publicity.
29:00 E Michael Jones blames everything but everything on Jews, even the bad policies of Catholic Irish American Democrats.
35:00 Jews are not protected if they associate with the Right. There is a political litmus test.
39:00 "Reasonable and responsible questions"
40:00 E Michael Jones described as "a total crank". The comedian Owen Benjamin is not worth wasting time on, says Cotto.
1:07:00 Gottfried praises Hitler's writing ability.
1:14:00 Assimilated German Jews who were German nationalists
1:18:00 Italian Jews who joined Mussolini's Fascist Party
1:25:00 A self-hating Jew is a Jewish Republican.
1:36:00 The most virulent antisemites are Jews.
1:41:00 Sin is just stuff we shouldn't do, for our own good.
1:42:00 Jews do not proselytise because exclusive clubs do not proselytise, but political parties do. Islam could be perhaps be regarded as a one party state with regional branches.
1:42:30 The gap between the observant and non-observant Jews is really the gap between theory and practice. The greater the gap, the greater the sin. The greater the sin, the more you will be punished by God if He exists through rising antisemitism and the Mandate of Heaven being withdrawn from the American empire that Jews are servants to, instead of being the slaves of God they were intended to be. In terms of status, is it better to be the servants of the American empire or the slaves of God? I do have a solution to the problem, but it will gain no traction if I can find no one courageous or educated enough capable of understanding what I am trying to say.
Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?
CK:
A lot of Mein Kampf is about German matters of Germany in the 1930s. Its preoccupations would be quite different to the alt-right of the West now because alt-right is preoccupied with immigration and Nazi Germany didn't have an immigration problem, did it?
LF:
So let me just run it by you again. I'll just go point by point. Hitler had a biocentric worldview perspective on life: first of all a referenced nature so that is identical with the alt-right's perspective. The alt-right and its leaders are overwhelmingly atheists.
CK:
Hitler pretended to be Catholic. In his table talks he he actually favoured Islam because he thought Christianity was a stupid religion, although he was confirmed as a Catholic, so there were lots of things that he wanted to do but he knew he couldn't. He wanted to abolish usury. He did know something about Islam and thought it was a more masculine ...
Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.
LF [pretending I had gone off topic when what I said was exactly on point because he did not like me suggesting that Islam is the answer because Christianity is kaput]:
OK, Claire, I need you to stay on topic. So Hitler had a biocentric worldview. His perspective on life was first of all referenced in nature. He contended that before anything else we must attend to nature the world of living things in their environments and is not separate from or above nature but rather a part of nature we need to come to grips with how our nature actually operates, we must align our lives with nature, we must obey nature's laws. That is the alt-right's perspective.
CK:
Is it? I wasn't aware of that. I didn't even know Hitler said all of that. It sounds very vague.
LF:
You know, it sounds pretty clear to me. I mean I don't know what to say if you don't see that that's the that's the building block for Social Darwinism ....
CK:
Is it arguing for Social Darwinism or something like that is that? Is that what you're saying?
LF:
I don't know how you can get more clear than this: Hitler had a biocentric worldview that we must ...
CK:
What does that mean? Does it mean German-centric?
LF:
Does biocentric mean German-centric? Really that's what you're asking me? Biocentric is very clear, Claire, it means a worldview based in nature that humans must align themselves with nature, obey nature's laws that we're not separate ...
CK:
What does that mean? Does it mean empire?
LF:
Because we are in nature, frequently our choice is either kill or be killed ...
CK:
OK, so he started acquiring empire and it ended badly so maybe that's not always the best thing.
LF:
I'm not talking about whether this is the best thing to do, I'm asking if you can come up with any significant differences between ...
CK [answering the question immediately and succinctly]:
The alt-right are not about war but about pogrom.
LF [pretending I had not answered the question because he didn't like my answer]:
OK, you've got to stay on topic Claire. When I ask a question you've got to respond to the topic. We can't just go spinning off. Glib, do you want to jump in ...
[Glib and LF talk and I was invited again to comment on what they had just said, which wasn't about anything much in particular as far as I could tell.]
1:10:00
CK:
... biocentricism meant social Darwinism: eugenics ... was that what you meant?
LF:
I give up I can't be any more clear than than I was ...
CK:
Can somebody explain to me then? I don't think people understand either. By nature do you mean nature raw in tooth and claw?
LF:
Yes, that's that that's the beginning of the Mein Kampf worldview. It's the beginning of the Dissident Right worldview. The Dissident Right is not a theistic movement. The main intellectuals of the alternative right - Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Kevin Macdonald - they're all atheists. They all have a a social Darwinian perspective on life which I'm trying to see how there's any difference from that and the worldview of Mein Kampf.
CK:
Well, Mein Kampf is really more about culture and sociology even because Hitler does write knowledgeably and some compassion about how the poor used to live and and architecture and and lots of other things but you know if you read Greg Johnson's White Nationalist Manifesto, there is actually very little about culture. It's basically "I'd like to kick them out and I want to kick all of them out by 2060" and that's it. Mein Kampf is a more rewarding read. I would suggest for White Nationalists and compare what the white man was in the 1930s and what he he is now. In fact, recently I was watching these videos of these schizophrenics in lunatic asylums in America and it struck me how articulate even these mentally ill people stuck in asylums were compared to the tongue-tied people you have now.
It really was astonishing. Obviously, something bad has happened to to the white race and and and this catastrophic drop in in IQ and obviously it's all to do with religion in the sense that the least that a religion can make you do is make you marry before you have children and parent or children properly - that is the very least. Forget all the frilly bits like not eating pork and shellfish and that kind of thing. That's the very least your religion should do for you and and if you won't enforce that then your population will age and become stupid and weak and people will come in and take your stuff, and that's what's what's happening now.
[Luke Ford mutes me and turns to Glib again to talk about nothing much in particular.]
For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilisation and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children, and having children from responsibility for their care.
The result is that in Britain in 2012, 47.5 per cent of children were born outside marriage, expected to become a majority in 2016. Fewer people are marrying, those who are, are marrying later, and 42 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Nor is cohabitation a substitute for marriage. The average length of cohabitation in Britain and the United States is less than two years. The result is a sharp increase among young people of eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, stress related syndromes, depression and actual and attempted suicides. The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.
This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of “two nations” a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer. And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history.
In every nation and every government there will be in every nation every government will have a rent a mob and Antifa is our one now.
Antifa are probably part of the Deep State.
2:29:00
Claire, is the left simply more committed than the right?
CK:
Yes, simply because it's easier for them because they're already in charge at the top of the tree. Trump is trying very hard to dislodge them but he hasn't the manpower, I guess. There is no other big idea. I keep going on about religion simply because it has this kind of moral authority - an instant appeal to people. If the alt-right is just about race and immigration it's not a big enough [idea]. If you wait for everybody to be affected to support you then then it'll probably be too late, so you need some Universalist idea that's capable of appealing to people but I guess the alt-right are the last people prepared to support marriage and family values.
****************************
Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.
Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.
Intellectual corruption leads to your leaders not being able to submit to the truth, exercise logic or conform to the moral rules necessary for you to keep your society in existence and in good health.
This is the only explanation I can think of for Luke's strangely obstructive behaviour when I tried to answer his questions, which the others also noticed.
IN THE COMMENTS
kissmyass682
Why'd Luke get so aggro with Claire? He went from 0 to a 100, is there some history there?
Claire Khaw
Not that I know of, except that, possibly, he didn't like the way my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"
Matvei Daniilovich
Wow, luke actually got a little triggered with Claire.
Claire Khaw
Since I never got to answer the question properly before he muted me, I can only think that it was because he did not like the direction my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"
Alejandro Black
Loved Luke’s Modafinil rage with Khaw
Claire Khaw
I don't think that was anything to do with drugs.
Lou Duva
Very odd.
Claire Khaw
@Lou Duva I thought it was a bit odd too, but I think it was because he did not like the direction my answer to his question was going"Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?" From what I can make out, Luke was implying that both Mein Kampf and the alt-right want a pogrom. He knew I would say that the answer lies somewhere in between the status quo of liberal democracy and the pogrom the alt-right are proposing ie the civic nationalism of Secular Koranism and he didn't want me mentioning that again on his show.
Generally, a man should not be active in public politics under the age of thirty unless he is of extraordinary talent. Otherwise, he is in danger of either changing his previous positions on fundamental questions once he realizes he was wrong or clinging to a view which he no longer supports or may even be against. This will make it politically difficult for his followers to maintain their faith in him. Their old unshakable solid belief will be upset because he now appears to be undecided himself. To followers, such an about-face of their leader, means complete confusion in addition to their feeling of shame in front of those they have previously attacked over the issue. The second alternative brings about a result which is particularly common today. The leader continues to publicly claim he believes in what he had previously said. He then becomes more hollow and superficial and eventually becomes more corrupt. He no longer dreams of working seriously for his political ideals; no one dies for something he does not himself believe in, and his demands upon his followers grow greater and more shameless to compensate for his own insincerity until at last he sacrifices his remaining fragment of leadership and begins to play the political game for the sake of politics alone. He has joined that class of people whose only real conviction is absence of conviction coupled with a bold and shamelessly well-developed skill at lying. Unfortunately for decent people, if such a fellow moves into big government, the essence of his politics is limited to a heroic battle for permanent possession of his position to maintain his political life for himself and his family. The more his wife and children cling to him, the more stubbornly he will fight for his seat. If only for this reason, he is the personal enemy of every other man with political instincts. In every new political movement he senses the possible beginning of his end. In every greater man he senses a danger which may threaten him.
I found Mein Kampf informative and entertaining though it must be pointed out that Hitler conflates Jews with liberals and liberalism.
Jews, by dint of following their religion, practising their traditions and respecting the institutions of marriage and family, will find themselves effortlessly superior to the gentiles who do not.
While I do not agree with him about his racial theories, all that he says about government, democracy, the stupidity of the general public, liberals and the cowardice and hypocrisy of the middle classes remains disturbingly true.
His racial theories are clearly nonsensical since, if there were a race that was inherently superior to all other races then that race would stay top dog for all time.
That "every dog will have his day" is clearly closer to reality.
It is of course perfectly possible to argue that the Jews secretly or not so secretly consider themselves to be a superior race. They were after all the people who created God.
It could even be said that Jews are the teacher's pet in a world of dunces and bullies.
My theory is that the problem of antisemitism, endemic in Christian Europe, is actually a problem of Christianity, which is as a faith inferior to both Judaism and Islam. Christianity is inferior to Judaism and Islam because you have to ignore so much of it to make it work. I believe Hitler even thought that himself, but knew it would not be politic to point this out to the Germans of his time.
It occurs to me that if Hitler had really been serious about the Germans acquiring racial superiority, then he should have converted the Germans to Judaism, instead of just planning to get rid of the competition by shipping them to Madagascar minus their property.
Racial superiority is rather like claiming to be a lady or gentleman. The more you insist that you are a lady or a gentleman, the less likely you are to be either.
A truly superior person would never dream of claiming to be superior.
The prize would go to the Jew (and s/he must be a practising Jew and recognised as such Jews - perhaps a Rabbi or even better the Lord Chief Rabbi) who writes the best essay giving good persuasive moral reasons why Jews should read Mein Kampf.
But perhaps these days even the Clever Jew has been dumbed down by the culture of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.
If they were really clever, they would have ignored Waterstone's recommendation of Mein Kampf.
If they were really clever, they would have realised that antisemitism is not that far off the surface.
If they were really clever, they would have known that by drawing attention to the availability of Mein Kampf in Waterstone's they would send all sorts of people scurrying to buy a copy.
If they were Clever Jews, they would know that telling gentiles not to read unflattering descriptions of Jews is only likely to encourage them to buy a book from a book shop that stocks unflattering descriptions of Jews.
And that is why Clever Jews are not so clever after all, and we should not fear them the way some antisemitic people do. They too are getting stupider and are also contaminated by liberalism and its hysteria and its imbecilities.
We shouldn't worry about how clever Jews are, but how stupid we all are.
Why shouldn't Waterstone's sell Mein Kampf? If they sell it, why shouldn't they promote it? It is an important and interesting book, and a book which I for my part thoroughly enjoyed as anyone interested in European history would enjoy. If you read it, you would know that Hitler cared deeply about the poor and a lot of what he says remains chillingly relevant to our times.
If we think that Hitler really meant liberals when he complains about Jews, it would make it a more interesting read, and we can all fantasise about sending them as slaves to Madagascar (unless they renounce liberalism) when I am in power.
Everyone who wants to understand antisemitism, liberalism and nationalism should read it, and I would have thought Jews especially should read it, if only to be told how annoying gentiles find them and why.
Waterstone’s issued an apology after several people spotted the anti-Semitic tome at a store in Huddersfield in West Yorkshire with a sales sticker saying the book is “the perfect present” and “essential gift for anyone seeking to understand one of history’s most despicable figures. A shocking read and vital warning for future generations.”
I like to think the sales of Mein Kampf at Waterstones will have received a rocket up its bottom since that customer complaint has been reported in the national media.
I think Waterstones should have swastika flags on all their UK shops
with actors up and down the nation hired to play Hitler who will sign copies of Mein Kampf encouraging British schoolchildren in the children's section every hour to read more and study hard so that British schoolchildren of all races in Britain will excel over the peoples of other nations. He will pat the Jewish, Christian and Muslim children on the head and as well as black, Hindu, Sikh and Oriental ones, and be photographed with a rainbow race of British schoolchildren, smiling benignly at one and all ....
That would be my Xmas thought-present to all my Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends in aid of world peace and mutual forgiveness, for all atrocities past and present, real and imagined, denied and acknowledged ....
Hitler's ideas make perfect sense if we as a nation were treated as one people and behaved as if we were one people, irrespective of our race. He was already acknowledging that the Germans themselves were a terribly mongrelised people with brunette Germans and blonde Germans. If we treated the liberals as if they were Jews until they recanted, then I think things would be sorted out pdq with not many people being too much upset or inconvenienced or shipped off to Madagascar or wars started, or any more wars than those started by the liberals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya ...
Ein Volk, ein Reich, eine Partei!
How lucky the Germans must have felt at the time - however briefly - to genuinely love their leader, unlike the rest of Europe! It was a passionate an intense love affair that ended in disaster, which knocked the socks off the participants and those around them .... The Germans were like a wife of a dull, hypocritical, cowardly and effeminate man who suddenly found herself being wooed by a practised seducer with thrilling noble ideas. The outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Happy Xmas to all my friends and enemies, and especially to Tom of Waterstone's in Huddersfield.
My computer so I can access Facebook and Twitter keep in touch with my many many many friends as well as annoy my detractors so they do not forget all about me, and keep abreast of political developments in the world. I trust this is allowed.
If not, it's got to be a sofa-bed.
BOOK
All the Just William books by Richmal Crompton. If I had to choose only one it would be William The Detective. My detractors would doubtless ask why I have not chosen Mein Kampf ...
I think Desert Island Discs should have a book that one has read and a book that one has not read but keep meaning to. In that case I would choose Darwin's Origin of Species.
Do liberals have an agreed book of liberalism? No. Even the Marxists have the Communist Manifesto and an agreed set of principles.
Even the National Socialists had Mein Kampf.
Did you know that the Roman plebeians asked for their laws to be carved in stone in the forum so that they would know their rights, and this was indeed done?
Islam is the only religion that frankly admits that the difference between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.
An objectionable law is an objectionable law, whether it is passed by a government that calls itself liberal or whether it calls itself a theocracy.
It seems obvious that we should examine any law we find objectionable on the grounds of rationality v irrationality, good v evil, practicability v its opposite.
This obvious solution is for some reason rocket science to liberals (who have stupidity, intransigence, ignorance and arrogance bred into them after decades of being indoctrinated by decades of "progressive" education) who quake in terror at the thought of a theocracy or a one-party state. They are the ones who cry most hysterically "four legs good! two legs bad!" apparently oblivious to the fact that the political cartel - the political oligarchy that rules them have long since emptied the contents of the bottles with labels saying "Liberalism", "Conservatism" and "Socialism", homogenised them and poured them back into their respective bottles.
Only the most wilfully blind cannot and will not see this.
Feminism - an unnatural mutation of liberalism and a manifestation of the liberal death wish - is now the ruling ideology. Notice how no one at all dares to challenge feminism, except the Muslims. In Britain, you can lose your job if you say anything at work that a woman might find offensive as Andy Graham and Richard Keys found to their cost. You would have thought that some men might object, but it is the white liberal middle classes journalists who are too afraid to point this out, so feminised are they now.
The only way feminism can be sustained is through enormous state intervention (through the existence of totalitarian liberal anti-discrimination laws) and welfare support (sluts, slags and slappers are given child benefit at taxpayers' expense for breeding bastards).
Does liberalism have an authoritative handbook or a set of rules? No, they make it up as they go along.
Does Islam? Yes, even though the Muslims have difficulties interpreting it properly, but I can help sort them out.
Having read Mein Kampf, I was very disappointed at the Pope for pretending that Hitler wanted to remove God from the Germans. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11313328 Quite the contrary. This is what Hitler actually said about religion:
"By helping to lift the ...human being above the level of mere animal existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own existence. Taking humanity as it exists today and taking into consideration the fact that the religious faiths which it generally holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that they serve as moral standards in practical life, if we should now abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be seriously shaken. We may safely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessary conditions of existence as a human being. And thus the circle is closed."
"The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defence of its own teaching."
Now on the second volume of Mein Kampf, it is quite clear that, whatever you think of Hitler and his incoherent racial theories, he cared deeply about social justice and wanted to improve the lot of the poor.
It should be noted that the party that he joined was the Labour Party, which he very successfully moulded to take the form of his particular ideology.
National Socialism was therefore the anti-thesis of International Marxism because National Socialists wanted socialism for their own country, but rejected World Communism, which was a feature of International Marxism.
Trotsky clung to Marx's purist goal of World Communism until Stalin decisively saw to it that the Russians concentrated only on Russia Empire. Mao was only interested in the Socialism for China and not any other peoples who did not come under the rule of China.
It could therefore be said that any form of Socialism that had no international ambitions is in fact National Socialism.
The Russians can be said to have given up on their National Socialism the moment Gorbachev abandoned their one-party system - which is the distinguishing feature of National Socialism.
It can therefore be said that the Chinese remain the only living flourishing practitioners of National Socialism (with Chinese characteristics), which is a very interesting thought indeed.
National Socialism appears to have served the Chinese rather well. They have certainly made a point of not being obviously aggressive and expansionist. "One country two systems" demonstrates that they are capable of compromising when the need arises. Since China is undoubtedly an empire, they are very keen emphasising racial harmony, very understandably.
What a shame Hitler is not alive today. It would be delicious to be able to put the point to him on The Today Programme, perhaps, that his National Socialism is perhaps being implemented better by the Chinese than by the Germans, and whether he still stands by all the nonsense that was his racial theory.
He did after all say:
"Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years."
It would be delicious to be able to call the Singaporeans Nazis too, but it appears they only have a de facto one-party state, not a de jure one. Shame.
Reading is not an end itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose is to help towards filling in the framework which is made up of the talents and capabilities that each individual possesses. Thus each one procures for himself the implements and materials necessary for the fulfilment of his calling in life, no matter whether this be elementary task of earning one's daily bread or a calling that responds to higher human aspirations. Such is the first purpose of reading. And the second purpose is to give a general knowledge of the world in which we live. In both cases, however, the material which one has acquired through reading must not be stored up in the memory on a plan that corresponds to successive chapters of the book; but each little piece of knowledge thus gained must be treated as if it were a little stone to be inserted into a mosaic, sot hat it finds its proper place among all the other pieces and particles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain of the reader. Otherwise only a confused jumble of chaotic notions will result from all this reading. That jumble is not merely useless, but it also tends to make the unfortunate possessor of it conceited. For he seriously considers himself a well-educated person and thinks that he understands something of life. He believes that he has acquired knowledge, whereas the truth is that every increase in such 'knowledge' draws him more and more away from real life until he finally ends up in some sanatorium or takes to politics and becomes a parliamentary deputy.
