This show on classical musics. This show on musics. On last episode of Caribbean Reasons, many of you asked about the very last musical interlude. Many of you liked its frenzied excitement. Well, I can tell you it was from William Tell Overture by Rossini. In fact, all the music in the last show was from this piece, the William Tell Overture, With one exception, the piano music I played at the very beginning when I described my fugue dream. But I will not tell you what that was. I will never tell you. I am concerned with classical music and the problem of rise and decline in aristocratic and artistic traditions. This, to me, is a much more important problem than day-to-day political fixations of journalists,

the problem of artistic traditions, more important than the endless scheming of termite politicians or the dark shadows that run the modern states, the shadow interests that never sleep. Our salvation is in cultural revival and a cultural movement. I make only beginning discussion on this show. In any case, what do? It reminds me of William Tell Overture. You know who William Tell was? A moment about politics. After all, a great man in Swiss Switzerland history. William Tell. Beethoven inspires you with revolutionary spirit. But Rossini is different. William Tell, democratic hero, you could say. A crossbowman who offed a local petty despot with the crossbow right in the forehead. The Swiss love him. By the way, people today, they really shouldn't worry when someone buys a gun.

Everyone has a gun. But when you hear a guy gets a samurai sword or a professional crossbow, well, this I would be worried about. I'd recommend that you deconflict your friend if you get such things you take him for a Therapy session take him for a seance access the spirit of Marianne of Williamson I know a place you can use teapot in a Chinese restaurant in teapot You use it to channel her spirit and the golden blessing of Marianne of Williamson Have your friend listen to Jordan de la Sierra a New Age musician I don't know. Anyway, like other real democratic people, the Swiss love this man, William Tell, as a tyrannicide. I described in my book, very briefly, the tyrant slayers of ancient Athens, Harmodius and Aristogeiton. They too were venerated.

This is very common historically in democratic cultures. But it reminds you of how different it is from degenerated modern democracy. In both cases, ancient Athens and Switzerland, what you have is an awakened, mobilized people, an armed people ready to defend its liberties. This kind of democracy is better described as an assembly of armed men in the city or the communist, much like ancient Greek or ancient Germanic tribe, where the armed men would meet to elect their chief. You see similar institution in the Iliad, where the chiefs meet to discuss the course of action. They don't just have desperate decide. It's almost, you could say, democratic deliberation. Thomas Jefferson respects this. He sees the Saxon root of American way of life.

from Thomas Jefferson. Today, it would be considered, even by mainstream conservatism, to be elitist aristocracy or even vile, brutal fascism. Actually, they would probably call it fascism. They can't even make these distinctions, even though they pretend to. Women, homosexuals, many others, of course, couldn't vote in Athens. And in that city, as well as all other Greek cities, there was no way basically for a foreigner to become a citizen simply by residing there, even unto the billionth generation. This very modern concept that you gain a say in the fate of the state merely by residing in it, that by occupying a physical position in a country with your umpteenth pounds of lard, that this gives you a say in decisions that can lead to war, in young men dying in

war, this is so alien to understanding of all really democratic peoples. It actually makes no objective sense, and its real purpose, if you look at its effects in the real world, is to replace real and manly democracy of the Swiss kind with a system where you're ruled by shifty-eyed bureaucrats, Peter Strzok or psycho puppets like Butgieg or Rubio, and ultimately by their handlers, by those, for example, who publicly assassinated Epstein a few weeks ago, shadows who spit on the people and who know your vote means absolutely zero actual power. But let's say, let's say when you let in any case single women vote, single older women, single old childless spinsters vote or determine the course of your society, what do you get assuming they did have power? What would they want?

Would they not see, for example, young men with a mixture of lust, of fear, and of resentment over past slights of various kinds? Hardist has a clue to this, and this is what I discussed in my last show. In fact, if you want to see the psychology behind all I was saying there, you must read Aristophanes, his play where the women take over the city. Ultimately, they legislate that young, handsome men must sex them, must service them first, the older women, before all the others. That's really what it's all about. That's the ultimate redistribution. Just look into the eyes of Elizabeth Warren, or Hillary, or even AOC and say it isn't so. Anyway, Bill Clinton is calling me on the phone. Be right back. Until now, politic out of the way. We talk musics, much more interesting.

William Tell Overture, but this opera is written by Rossini, and it's very interesting that Schopenhauer saw Rossini, of all composers, as his favorite. Some people have refused to believe this, in the same way they refuse to respect Nietzsche praise for Bizet or Berlioz. So no, if you are a noob, you'd expect these men to like somebody like Wagner, so serious, whose music actually Schopenhauer thought quite lacking Wagner, or at least Beethoven most of all or such. But in fact, they love Bizet or Rossini. And some have thought they are putting it on, that it's not real, that it's an affectation. How could they like the light composers of relatively popular music? It could be, some say, an affectation, like if you were to go to a fancy party with a

mullet and tank top, it's a way of showing off self-disqualification, running game. But I believe Schopenhauer Nietzsche, for example, did like these composers. You must understand a man like Schopenhauer, when he's passed his fiery youth, and even Nietzsche later on, after Wagner, the intensity of their imaginations, their insights, all of this is of a kind that they look in music maybe for something different than you or me. They look, well, we look for intensity, maybe, for catharsis, but they might seek instead respite and rest. They may shun dramatic emotions, they might seek something very light and enjoy only something very light. But for us, I'd like to talk to you about some of my favorite music, which, like that

last clip at least, the last clip from last show of Rossini, my favorite music is quite energetic and exciting. I like the energetic musics, and I must apologize if I can present this with relatively little humor that you want from me not all my shows can be a pure comedy show i'm not your clown okay not but i've used for example this now what you hear playing in background Bach's harpsichord concerto in d minor is so rhythmic and energetic you can even use it at gym and i've thought before that Bach is able to inspire a sense of energy and rhythm better than African drum music or such, better than electronic dance music even, if you learn to listen for the rhythm at least. Nietzsche rejected Bach's too great piety and it is true. I've posted before how some of his music,

you can take for example Saint John Passion musics or some of his cantatas and it can almost turn you Lutheran at least while you're listening to it for some people that would be the best argument for conversion you know nerds don't like that because it takes away from their power when a Bach or a Bernini can convert you without words nerds just cannot stand that anyway I haven't been able to appreciate the Latin and catholic spirit of composers like Bizet as much you can call me a rustic and a bore i wish i had more access to that spirit but when i listen to Bach generally to the keyboard music because i do like Glenn Gould piano performances there is really there aren't harpsichord performers

for Bach at least who are as good as Glenn Gould is on piano or Svyatoslav Richter if you want a different style also piano for Bach you can listen to their recordings but when I listen to this I don't hear religion as much I hear instead the pure spirit of early modern Europe where there dawned on European men such immense and cosmic possibilities of world conquest in the highest sense. Listen to this, listen to the following. That is The Cyclops by Rameau. In Rameau, in Couperin. I don't know how to pronounce French names, I'm a bore, forgive me, but in these two, Rameau, you see this mix, a mix of pure energy, unpretentious elegance, and pure free emotion, innocent emotion, that is spirit of Baroque so-called musics.

But you must really think it is the music of the dawn of a scientific, assertive, aristocratic and world-conquering civilization. You must learn to look past the cultural associations you might have, let's say, for even hearing harpsichord strings. Many people have called Faldi Dadi or stuffy associations with harpsichord strings. You must learn to look beyond that and see the music itself and realize that it is pure emotion. Not even a representation of it, but pure emotion. Vivaldi, as a Tunisian friend told me, a Tunisian, another Alcibiades respecter, but Vivaldi is most like this pure emotion. Just listen to this. That is from Vivaldi Violin Concerto for Four Violin. This is the music, by the way, that will be played when I enter Rome in triumph. All will bow to me.

The Pope will submit, he will present me with the diadem of world ruler. I will be Pontifex. I will wear a flaming red toga and all will see my power. Do you see, this music, by the way, has many other social uses besides this. In fact, even today I hear that Baroque music has a special and salutary use. It's blasted at times outside 7-11 at night and in various other public places if you want to keep them clear of social infestations of various kinds. Even a convenience store pageant owner knows the power of this cleansing music. I'm told they use specifically baroque music above all to clear out the term I said. May it cleanse us within as well. If you like this show, I will cover musics in the future. Why not? I can't do in one show everything I like.

Maybe for chronological correctness, I would now cover classical period, or Beethoven's revolutionary and warlike music. Schopenhauer points out Beethoven, this wasn't his favorite composer, but he reminds you how the force of Beethoven music is very literally the inner meaning of the force of nature, of a waterfall, the force of gravity, the reaching of powerful waves. This same wanting is inside nature, or rather, the wanting that is inside you is the same as that. This is, by the way, why nihilism can never, in the end, result in a left-wing conclusion, in mere lassitude or entropy, unless that biological tendency of dissolution is already within a man or a people. But insofar as nihilism is employed to wipe away stricture and morality, which is to say

the opinions of the many or the sanctity of existing authority, it can only ever release the vehemence of the superior man's wanting and force from its shackles. It can only therefore ever reveal the primal hierarchy of nature. Remember, a lion wants something by will, and not because of words or opinions. It wants something by blood, and is the same in the end with men, unless you are very naive. But I must keep all these vehemence of Beethoven because I want to talk about another composer I like, one at the end, maybe even the very end of the high classical music tradition. This is Rachmaninoff, a composer who is often disdained by the pseudo-intellectuals, the half and half, those who listen to music not to enjoy it, but whether or not it comports with some theory they have,

some idea of music's place in history as if that matters. And ultimately, they claim they like something merely because it has a status among their friends or their clique. So a composer like John Williams, of course, they look down on, although he's one of the only ones now capable of making a tune you actually want to listen to, his original Star Wars music, his Indiana Jones musics. I think it's all very good, but they hate Rachmaninoff for the same reasons, because his music sounds so cinematic and because it was used in so many old Hollywood movies. They either used his tunes directly or copied his style. Just listen to this. That's his famous second piano concerto, Svyatoslav Richter performing. No matter how many times it's played is not overplayed, I think. The spirit of romance

I think is purest in Rachmaninoff. And of course people who pretend to be cynics, they are not, but who pretend, who would like to be seen as cynics, reject him for that as well, because he's romantic. But most of all, he's rejected because he continued to compose in this old style, in so-called romantic style, well into the 20th century, after 1900, when the intellectual fashion move to various kinds of so-called atonal or off-tonal musics of varying degrees. I think, with one or two exceptions, modern classical music, atonal music of various kinds, has almost no value. Again, there are some exceptions, but mostly no one listens to it because they enjoy it. It's not even for intellectual edifications that they do, as they so often claim, but again out of desire for status.

Insofar as atonal music makes you feel anything, it gives, I think in best case, maybe a sense of mystery or of timeless suspension. But in this regard, modern electronic music, for example, otechra, ends up far outdoing it. Far outdoing the modern attempts at classical music. So for that reason, most of it has to be rejected, I think. And it has been by the public, they don't listen to modern 20th century and after classical musics. Almost all modern classical music is listened to only by friends of the musicians or by professors who are unable actually to write a simple tune you'd want to listen to, even if they wanted. So they resent a man like Rachmaninoff, such a tuneful man full of beautiful melodies you

want to listen, who, against all the fashions, continue to write audience-pleasing romantic music well into the era of modern constipations and abstractions. When he does veer in a modern direction, he nevertheless never loses a special touch or character. He adds an element of aristocratic decadence to the atonality. Listen to this. That's from Sonata No. 2, where he at times flirts with modern features, but even there, you see it has a specific emotional character and isn't mere atonalism for the sake of autism, for some satisfaction of intellectual theory. And even in the same Sonata, there are glorious segments of incredible feeling and emotion. Listen to this. Listen, listen. you here at end of show with one of Rachmaninoff's great achievements, maybe not as known as

his more accessible piano concertos or symphonies, you can listen to those on your own or we put next time, but that contains in full the specific character I mean here, what I'm about to play, which is he is the last vector of aristocratic sensibility in music and maybe in the arts as a whole. It is the sound of the last European aristocracy, in the same way as you can maybe look at Rameau as sound of the end of the French Ancien Révignes. Rachmaninoff was of noble descent in Tsarist Russia, and he had to live after the 1917 Slave Aboriginal Revolution and never managed to return. He never lost that spirit of the European world right before 1914. You know Friedrich Hayek, he says those who didn't know Europe before 1914 never understand this spirit of liberty.

And you know the unusual part is, even to someone who doesn't know music well, he sounds instantly so incredibly Russian, Rachmaninoff now that is. He followed Tchaikovsky in style, and his very interesting historical oddity is that they, Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, were from Moscow, or they were educated there at least. That's where they were active in their musical lives while in Russia. But they attempted to compose entirely in a Western style. The Russian school of music from Moscow was Western looking or Western copying, yet nevertheless their music just sounds incredibly Russian, while the so-called nationalist music school, which was based in western-looking St. Petersburg, with composers like Rimsky-Korsakov or Mussorgsky,

I think they actually sound less Russian than Rachmaninoff. Sure, they're more self-consciously nationalist, they use folk elements, folk songs, but they're actually a less Russian soul in sound, so to speak. The nationalism of this kind you see therefore is entirely Western import. But I think this says something about how national spirit is best expressed in art. Nietzsche says that a culture is the unity of a people's art for something like this. In any case, do you understand why Rachmaninoff is so hated? In his life, in music, he is a reactionary. That's right, to a heavily politicized, crazy, fashion-seeking people, like you find in intelligentsia of music establishment or among academics, to a marxified intelligentsia,

his music is anathema because it is the sound of the old order, he's a musical reactionary. So of course they'd never admit such, even to themselves maybe, but that he refused to make any serious concessions to their intellectual delusions about music, that's a big slap in the face to them, and a big threat also to their academic grift. But anyway, forgetting these disputes, they're worthless. If you want to hear the spirit of the international old European aristocracy, of a lost world from before 1917 or 1914 and just good music above all else. Music that captures better than anything else the spirit of romantic passion as well as a grand, aristocratic, decadent vision of international European life, you can find it in this man. And I leave you then with these final amazing musics.

Until next time, Bap out.