show Caribbean reasons, I wanted to tell you long term I have a dream of forming a kind of hotel lounge, not quite a nightclub, but an elegant lounge in tropical location with pool area modelled maybe on the one in Graham Greene's novel, The Comedians, which by by the way is a hilarious book about a weary English gentleman who returns to Haiti to take care of his hotel and his crazy mother and all the crazy things that happen there. This has been planned for a while and I will call it club tropical excellent. We will hold their symposia. There will be tropical whores provided, whore girlfriends at club tropical excellent they will all be of legal age of course but now that I say this I wonder what if Epstein was just trying to be a patron of the arts and sciences

in this way a patron of the arts what if he was Cosimo de Medici of our age what wonder but yes club tropical excellent either on hidden Caribbean islands or maybe in South Pacific. I was thinking South Pacific is better let me know what you think and if you are a venture capitalist if you would like to fund this. We will also have training camps nearby, training for gymnastics, Olympic gymnastics, squash, high jump diving. Anyway I said last time I wanted to discuss ancient constitutions and citizenship as opposed to the modern fake and gay varieties. Because you're being lied to, both the left and the right lie about things from the past, religion, politics, books in general, to support their own schemes, they lie. And the chief scheme,

of course, is to get you to sodomize yourself. Whether they invoke religion, selectively, like butt gig, and the Christian Marxists do, or whether they invoke classical Greece or Rome. The lesson is always the same. It's a morality play, a guilt trip cudgel to get you to give up something willingly and get nothing back. The lesson is always the same and these conservatives are some of the worst. They come to talk to you about ancient constitutions the way Mark Levin uses Constitution. But they've got a dildo waiting for you in the bag. Whether they use Thucydides, for example, to push the Iraq War and get you to maim yourself in such place, or classical or Renaissance republicanism to get you to accept confiscatory taxation as somehow noble, or when they misuse ancient Athens

to get you to become eunuch and give up your weapons, which is what some of the academic left does. The point is always the same. The menu is the same. This is what I will talk about today. This show, I mentioned the problem of sexual marketplace in the West, the changes that have been happening for the last 20 years. And I talk this idea Africanization of a sexual marketplace that begins to approximate the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. I need to clarify something about this first, because Menaquinone4, the famous frog Twitter poster, who has much commented on this subject, he got in touch with me, and he said I misrepresented his views a little bit. The point about Africanization of sexual marketplace doesn't relate, he says, to looksmaxing as such.

It doesn't relate to the efforts of men to improve themselves in terms of physique and appearance, in the sense of physique and biological appearance. The emphasis on physical culture doesn't really exist. He agrees with me on this. It doesn't exist among tropical agriculturalists, among horticultural people, as is called in HBD language. Even if you do have the women, let's say, living separately from the men. If you look at anthropological language, where women are not dependent on them in horticultural societies, where women are not dependent on men economically, and they're free to choose. But in Africa and in such places, this leads to men becoming highly social, extroverted, focusing on things like song and dance. not again necessarily physical culture the way we understand it.

It's much like I said in last show, but I forgot that Menaquin on Four and the people making this anthropological or biodiversity evolutionary psychology argument, they had already believed something similar and weren't in fact talking about what I call looks maxing as such or the the tendency you see very widespread now among American and European men to become strong and handsome. And the point is, the African example is only relevant insofar as it shows the end point of this subsistence pattern that we're seeing emerge in the West, where the women are free from dependence on men economically. It shows you the final outcome after many generations when people have been bred to this end. Of course, it makes civilization impossible.

In the West, the beginnings of such a pattern will take a quite different turn. This is, however, the point. In the West, when this begins to happen, it looks different. I believe this. Because of the pre-existing and very ancient biological propensity towards physical culture towards male physical looks maxing, I mean that it takes this turn rather the focus on physique rather than necessarily one of extroversion or of emphasis on musicality, song, dance or what you might call game. The form of display is different because of already existing cultural and biological paths. In other words, the already built-in peacocking is precisely the one based on the aesthetics of the male physique and even physiognomy and such, for which there are many biological and cultural precedents in the West.

This is origin, by the way, of the image, the famous image of the gym cell. You know about the incel, but what about the gym cell, the autistic gym cell? You can see coming back from the gymnasium with a cold, distant, rhein-gosling look in the eye and a box of cocoa puffs under the arm is a very powerful image and women have grown to have a mad passion for this kind of man. So anyway, I just wanted to clarify the point from last week because I thought somewhat I misrepresented the argument of the HPD people. They're not trying to connect the male looks maxing fashion to the so-called Africanization of sexual marketplace, not in the physical sense at least. It's rather the endpoint of that economic model that they're talking about.

It's also true that although we live in a thoroughly plebeian culture, where aristocratic affectations, by the way, are rather ridiculous, but although we live in such a world, there There are in fact many aristocratic fashions and even quite ancient ones that have persisted in some form or another. And the intense focus on male looks, I mean on developing your physique as opposed to just cosmetics or turning yourself into a performing clown. The focus as well on breathing for looks that is specifically on the face. You know a recent study that shows human brain designed to read the face, well at least some while the chimpanzee brain reads the ass. So that is quite a change. But the focus then on the face in choosing women, which is another feature of aristocratic societies.

What I'm trying to say is that this is originally based in a social and sexual economy very different from our own, and very different also from that of tropical agriculturalists, whether the ones in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. The aristocratic pattern of behavior, the intense interest on the warrior in his looks and the warrior magnificence, in his own magnificence, this is an entirely different origin and explanation. And through whatever channel, we have inherited that in our own time, even if in a distorted form. What's interesting is how it has erupted again recently because of this sexual anarchy left behind by the boomers. And we should be honest, not just the boomers, but their parents, the

so-called greatest generation. When historical judgment will be made, this so-called greatest generation will be shown not to have been very great at all, because it was they who unleashed this sexual anarchy. The boomers were in their twenties or so when this significant changes in this direction took place, they were not running the country. But this sexual anarchy has meant the end of the sober middle class life and patterns of courtship based on that life. And with that entire social economic model on which the nuclear family has rested since the 1800s, with that being over, the response to this sexual anarchy now erupts in the West a kind of physical culture of prowess, which may indeed be based in the need for display

at first, for display for women, at least in its beginnings, but which I believe, as I keep saying, its effects will be quite different, and this discipline of the body will awaken also certain psychological or spiritual turns that have been maybe dormant for some time. And I do believe this discipline of Sun and Steel, as some have called it, for whatever reason it may have first appeared, will have the most thoroughgoing moral and political consequences. Again, remember, the ancient Greeks forbade slaves from working out in gymnasium, which meant of course literally the place where one became nude and disrobed. That's what gymnasium means. They knew what the clothes modes were. They knew the relationship between the klosmo and the slave. And we live under klosmo-occupied government now.

But then, like I said, this brings us back to the topic of ancient Greeks. If you want to think about a jinn, I think that is a good analogy. That is exactly what an ancient republic was. There is a tendency now to reduce government types. Democracy versus authoritarianism is how liberals and neoliberals think about it. On the traditionalist right, or some of the so-called reactionaries, was that likely to just make a separation between democracy and monarchy, or modernism as they see it, and monarchy? They all have a dream of being court eunuchs for an American Latinx king like Marco Rubio, and rubbing their wrists with Vaseline. This is the so-called trad cats, fermula, people like that. By the way, I should say here, what are the rumors about Rubio?

Well, I have heard rumors from Miami. Is that he rubs salt on his member. He's called salt-stick Rubio in some neighborhoods of Miami. And others say he waxes his inner thighs, I don't know. But it's not good to reduce things so much. democracy versus monarchy only. And then if you're reactionary, let's say you believe democracy is weak and corrupt and monarchy is great or something like that. But in the past, the take was the opposite and ancient republics in any case, like I tell you, had very little to do with what you see now go under that name. You all know anyway that the franchise was so limited in ancient republics that none of them, even the Athenian democracy would qualify as a democracy today. They would all be called elitist aristocracies

or fascist apartheid states, oligarchies, and all such things, including by the weak conservatives now. You know, they would call it Nazi also. The only reason they don't call them these things is because they aren't faced with the reality. They can ignore the unpleasant reality in books, but they were all apartheid, elitist, fascist, militarist states by any modern definition. There was a long-running argument, for example, in ancient Greece, which stated that only the hoplites, that is to say the heavy infantry, should be allowed to vote. And this corresponds roughly to what it would cost to buy a new car today. I guess that's about how much a suit of armor cost at the time. You had to supply your own armor as a heavy infantry. This was a social class, roughly equivalent to modern,

maybe upper middle class. And the argument was simple. You can guess what it is. And it's something I've claimed myself in the book, which is that only the assembly of armed men should hold the political power in the state, because they are the source of the physical power, of the physical force. And any other kind of arrangement is therefore mendacious. Of course then there are disagreements about expanding the franchise, but even in that case it's almost always a military participation argument. In other words, it would have been very hard for Athens, as a naval empire, to deny the franchise to the rowers of the ships. And that's how it became a so-called democracy, because the rowers in the navy, who were poor men and numerous, could now vote as well. This is

similar by the way to what Andrew Jackson did in America. People forget how limited the franchise was in the early American republic and how irresistible in every way, including logically irresistible, was Jackson's argument that you can't really deny political participation to the men that make up your military force. That's a very strong argument and today They would, however, be considered fascist, elitist, Nazi, every other thing they like to call it. But it was in many ways the basis of ancient republicanism. I'm simplifying here quite a bit, of course, but if you had to think of the difference, it would be that in an ancient republic you had a group of men leading the state who saw it as a way, first of all, to prepare themselves to undergo a training regimen.

why the word is the same as regime to undergo this training for the sake of readiness for war so an ancient republic is in its inception at least in greece now i'm saying the phoenicians may have had different origins i don't know it's another discussion some people say the institution of the senate originates in the phoenician cities but that's for another time but for Greeks the republics were indisputably originally a military brotherhood and organized for this purpose. In the case of Sparta where they claimed the wolfman Lycurgus was the founder, and in the case of the Dorian states this continued to be for a long time a military republic. It was a mess hall barracks culture. In other parts of the Greek world this

This discipline was maybe somewhat relaxed, but only from a military point of view. They didn't abandon the military aspect entirely, but it got expanded, maybe you could say, for desire for self-perfection in other ways, which they called virtue. But in all this, they continued to be ruled by the discipline and the rigor of an athlete's training, an athlete's training regimen and diet, you could think. the analogy. Even if they were a sophist or an athlete of the mind, the same thing applied. This is why Aristotle, who I'm not a fan of, he may be entirely made up even, but he say right, when he say what the law does not command, it forbids. And this was the ancient attitude, whereas the modern democratic attitude is the opposite. So we don't even have a view

of what ancient republics were trying to achieve or why they existed in the first place. They were really, you can think of it, a very large or elaborate jinn. Whereas the modern state, whether democratic or authoritarian, is dedicated merely to preservation of life, life for the sake of life, preservation of mere life. And this mere life is embodied in the type of citizen or rather the type of subject, since there aren't really citizens in any real sense today. But it's embodied, this idea of mere life, it's embodied in a certain type of subject, which is a person that is not the athlete, not the thinker, not the explorer, nor anything great, but the carrier of mere life who is the woman, what you call the wine mom or the wine aunt or the affluent liberal white woman.

And on behalf of this creature and her comforts, all the cities are arranged. And you're supposed, on behalf of this creature, to bear burdens and to sacrifice your substance and time. So that is one small difference between modern and ancient democracy. You add to all this that the constitutions were never written. They were never really written, ancient constitutions. And there was not a class of judges who could interpret the laws with techniques of modern casuistry or any other kind of reading techniques. There was no class of judges. So you have something very different from what we understand by constitution today. Because when the constitution is not written, what is really meant by that word is the being of a people in its habits, in its unwritten customs and conventions,

and in its ancient bonds of loyalty. This is a people that shares much, many shortcuts even in communication, where a glance is enough to say very much. They have many shared experiences and a shared history. If you want to understand this idea of the Greek state, read the historian Jacob Borchardt. He explained how the Greek state is a work of art. But yes, remember the constitution wasn't written and for a long time the law was sung. They had melodies to sing the sacred laws. It assumed an almost divine status in people's minds, much like Moses' laws that were given by a god. But if you claim to see the Constitution in America today in this way, I would claim you're a role player and you're not for real. Because the Constitution, you can read this American thinker, he very good,

his name, Wilmore Kendall. He says the Constitution is a series of procedures. That's all it is, and he's right. How can you worship that process, a series of procedures? Furthermore, American Constitution has no fixed principles. And in theory, it can be changed by vote to whatever the people want to change it to. As long as they follow these procedures, they can change it to whatever. It has nothing fixed that it can offer in that sense. So please, then, tell me where the point of contact is, of anything I've said so far to your experience of what a modern democracy is. So it's very false for people to invoke ancient republics or democracy, as many conservatives do, in some kind of a wittish notion of linear progress from ancient Athens to modern London, or as many leftists do now,

again, in the hope of getting you to accept on yourself the same duties and privations that an ancient citizen would have been willing to bear on behalf of his state. But again, that's duty for the sake of duty. And they can't offer you the other part of the ancient republic, which they would reject as completely alien, Nazi and evil, the part that brings you concrete benefits. Those benefits are said to be obscene and blasphemous today. If you had to say what the main difference was between the ancient constitutionalism and ours, this has to be based in the difference between the ancient citizen and our own. The quality of the man is what matters, and no level of political organization, no ideas that you can put into people's heads, nothing of this will make any difference.

If you think you can take Paul Giamatti, Amy Schumer or Peter Stroke and make a classical essence out of them by jiggering with constitutions, laws, by teaching them ideas, I have a kebab stand to sell you in Baghdad. You can't even get back to 19th century America with these types. I have a nice Liberian space program to sell you. How did Liberia work out by the way? You know, they tried to copy the American Constitution quite faithfully there and in many other places as well. But then the other side, you look at Australia, at South Africa or Rhodesia before or in New Zealand. And you see, life wasn't all that different from America, despite the fact that they didn't have the American Constitution or the Declaration or the ideals or the other things that people

like to claim are the cause of America's success or the explanation for its way of life. Someone said recently, look at Hong Kong, obviously is very different place, but you put the English in charge of a city at the nexus of trade routes, it's going to be prosperous. America was going to be prosperous, being the temperate portion of a big continent settled by the English and the Dutch and others that they forced to cleave to their ways. So actually I have friend Thomas Seven, you all know him, he says something different. I think he's a Huguenot himself, not a German, but he wistfully dreams about what America might have been if it had been settled by the Prussians instead. I do too. You think that instead of this cult of individualism, which of course is anti-individual, you think

if it had been settled by the Prussians that mankind might by now have been colonized, at least solar system, at least. I don't know. But I do know it's very hard to take your job seriously, even as a scientist. When you go to lab and you're working really in the end on a taxi service or on a house sharing service. And that's the high end of tech, of technology these days. So you may grow up with dreams of space flight or of Neuromancer, but what you get is you get to work optimizing bandwidth for high definition porn, or you've got demented social justice people slamming you from one end and spooks and security state flunkies from the other. If you work in the university, you can go jerk off in the lactation room, I suppose.

You know, I never did that, but I was in the library and I did find some books I didn't like, and I did jerk off into a couple of books and I put them back on the shelves. I'm sorry I did this, but actually I was imparting my information to these books, you see, I was improving them. So in the end, it's the man that makes the state not so much the other way around. Or when it is the other way around, that takes hundreds of years, and it takes force. Yes, you can breed a certain type of man through a state, through state force, through state-supported eugenics. But just like a horse breeder doesn't really start a racehorse breeding program with a a mule, or with a water buffalo, or even with a faulty breed of horse, you see your mileage may vary.

And I'm afraid all the human material that exists now, whether you go to Europe or China or America or the third world, the human material that's been left is mostly the kind that goes for transgender operations and lactation rooms when left to its own desires. But the flip side is, like Nietzsche said, this is, by the way, his special praise of modern democracy. The flip side is that it makes the sudden rise and eruption of a great man that much easier. It makes his attainment of dominion much easier and faster. Why wasn't Plato able to become a prophet among the Greeks, like he so wanted to? They were a vigorous race and quite varied in their characters and nature So someone like him couldn't expand his might into others' minds that fast They were all quite different from each other

These kinds of things didn't really work among the Greeks The Spartan general Lysander was the first to be worshipped as a god But he didn't last very long either That's a line in my book that people make too much about It was funny. I listened to an interview with Anton, with Mike Anton, where he was discussing my book again with these timid conservative types, and they seemed concerned about that line, about being worshipped as a god. They thought about what they dread. The horror story is about self-worshipping irreligious millennials. I think something like that they must have thought. Well, it's more like it's one line in the book. And they thought it had something to do with millennial spirit, the selfish post-Christian millennial spirit. I don't even understand these people.

The millennials I knew wanted to become interior decorators or middle-class academics or engineers and to be free to stick a cucumber into themselves or something like this. Is that really self-deification? What are these boomers talking about? was Octavian a selfish millennial because he became a deified Roman emperor? Was Lysander? I don't know. That's what I was talking about or when in the Iliad, Diomedes seeks to fight the gods themselves and actually wounds Aphrodite. I guess you could say they were nihilist millennials, it's absurd. But there's something I'm trying to tell you here. When you have men like that, like what I just mentioned, who wish to be gods, and have the ability maybe to become worshiped gods, like Octavian did, there's some material you can work with.

When you have barbarians full of energy and spirit, maybe you can get to talk then about different constitutions and forms of states. When you have the material of our time, which is to first sight appears varied and balkanized, But in fact, it's uniform. It's made of scared creatures. It's conformist and meek, and it's very narrow and low in its ambitions. This is a type that's very easy to subdue. So my only constitutionalism for the modern world is for men like Trump, and even greater than him, to become the living constitution. This human material is fit to subdue, and not for much else. But the living constitution, isn't this a phrase some people use, they believe in living constitution. Well, I predict that not too far in the future, there will be one of you who will say he is

the embodied law and the living constitution. This is what I think is proper for world that is to come. One big difference is how public officials were treated in ancient republics and democracies as opposed to our own. In ancient Athens, they executed or departed generals who lost battles. I don't want to tell you what they would have done to ruling class who started wars of choice that they then lost. In fact, each official had to undergo an audit at the end of his term. And if he was found, for example, to have embezzled, I believe the penalty was death. The point is, you can't have a democracy or a republic without the most complete and even extreme kind of accountability on the part of public officials.

When public officials can fail, when you have failures that lead to loss of life or loss for the country, and you continue life as usual, you may have many other kinds of regime type, but you don't have either a republic or a democracy. And that may be okay, but then they should call it what it is. In the West today, if you call for an audit for the most basic requirement of both republican and democratic life, you're called the conspiracy theorist, you're called the fascist. Remember how they understand Trump, who after all, He was elected by a population that finally wanted to bring some accountability and some scrutiny to a ruling class that has failed so badly in everything it's tried to do. Remember the economic gurus of these people, thought that, for example, burning excess

housing was one of the possible cures to the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008. Where gurus like Paul Krugman promote the idea, in all seriousness, that you'd need a huge war or an alien attack to jumpstart the economy. What I've just told you is that digging a hole and filling it back up is the purpose of economic life as such, they mean that unironically. So this is the kind of person who populates the ruling class and they don't react well to being questioned with simple question, what have you achieved? Why should you continue in your position? Remember how they understand Trump and his supporters. They see it as a revolution of the unwashed against so-called expertise. They see it as a hatred of intellectualism

or of recognized expertise of some kind. This is line of Tom Nichols and quite a few others that they're smart, they're experts, and the yokels rose up against them. Just because. It's very telling that it's usually marginal strivers like this guy, Tom Nichols, or some insecure, true conservatives who make this argument most aggressively, because they hope to be given a seat at the table. Charles Murray, I feel sorry for him, with the book that he wrote, with the bell curve. After 2015, he'd have been hounded out of the country if he hadn't come out so strongly against Trump. You don't want to know what went on at American Enterprise Institute in 2016 or so. They had blood oaths and that kind of thing, loyalty oaths going on inside. He had to do it.

Some of these guys are being held hostage, I believe. But the others are genuine in their belief. I spoke to some myself of various ages, and they were frothing at the mouth and indignant that a man like Trump and his supporters would come along to challenge what they saw as their rightful social station and their opinions about political life and everything else. One might ask such people, what exactly are you an expert at? Has anyone ever asked Tom Nichols. What is he an expert at? Because knowing Trump supporters, you know in fact how much respect they have for real experts. I've never heard that Trump supporter or Trump himself attack physicists or hard scientists. In fact, he frequently praises them. And most

of his supporters wouldn't, for example, have disdain for the skill of a great neurologist. In fact, they have too much respect for these types, in my opinion. They have no respect for economists, which is not a real science. And almost none of whom, the economists, I mean, managed to predict the crisis of 2008 and who are chewing on policies that led to it. Yes, it's true, people do not respect these types. Or even less respect, maybe, for the bogus idea of political scientists or political operatives and experts of whatever kind, who take America from one failed war to another. People who lost the province of California, who turned it into a third-world dump on their watch, or who presided over a country where there is now a decreasing life expectancy

since the Obama years. In other words, a record of proven failure. They're merely asking that these people be held to some account. That's what all Trump supporters ask for. And what then is the reaction to this classical Republican demand? Well, let me give you analogy. Imagine you go to doctor office, a demented surgeon, and you tell him, listen, maybe you're not so good at what you do. You botched the last 30 surgeries in a row. You maimed or killed your last 30 patients. Normally, you'd be sent to jail, but how about you take a break and reassess? And imagine to this, the surgeon responds, how dare you? You can't say that. I'm smart. I'm an expert. You see that degree on the wall? My mommy said I'm smart. I'm an important person. I went to college. I have a degree.

How dare you question me? You're a conspiracy theorist. You hate expertise. You hate experts. You're anti-Semitic. You're a Russian spy. Putin is using it to spread disinformation into our noble hospital. Security! And this is what the reaction of this failed ruling class is. Well, do you think that in an ancient republic or democracy they'd be able to do that? I don't think it could even get there, where they would have the ability to say that. So no, we live in something quite different from a democracy or a republic, liberal or not. I don't know that such a thing is even possible today but what is possible, and I'm sure one of you, no doubt, the age of the Caesars will return in one of you.