Welcome, Caribbean Rism, episode 13. We are back this week with my usual standard monologue show. What a strange life to be now. You have PewDiePie, who has, I think, 15 million followers on Twitter, and maybe 90 million overall, if you count all the platforms. And an audience far larger than television cable news. You have him promoting books by Yukio Mishima. Do you understand what this means? Recently, this week, Paul came out that PewDiePie was looked up to by young people far more than popular musicians or sports stars like LeBron James. And this guy, PewDiePie, they're desperate because it's a blonde Swede they cannot control who built his own audience. He's not beholden to anyone. He's promoting, well, he doesn't go anywhere near as far as any of us on the frog online.

But he goes far enough. He promoted Mishima to his audience. This excellent book, The Sound of Waves, I think which I strongly recommend for all of you to read as well. An amazing love story, a retelling of a classical Greek mythology tale. But you know, to understand what this means, 10 years ago or this, I was trying to promote reactionary Japanese author Mishima to my friends, or to promote authors like Ernst Junger or Louis Ferdinand Selin, and I wasn't getting anywhere doing that, pretty much. Some of them enjoyed but didn't make a splash with the people I knew. I tried to start a number of secret societies over the years. I went to Paris more than ten years ago looking for a fight, looking for war, but it was too early and I think in Paris at least it still may be.

I was very disappointed by that, so I ended up going to the beach instead. You see, at that time, the only people getting in fights in Paris were the Muslims, the blacks sometimes, and Tagar, which is the Zionist college militant organization based on the teachings of Jabotinsky. They were going to, for example, Palestinian book signings in the Marais, which is a neighborhood of Paris, very beautiful old neighborhood, but it's full of gays and Jews now. And this organization, Tagar, they were going there just beating the shit out of these Arab book signings. They were mobbing the Arab book signings. But that was the only game in town at the time. And it wasn't my fight, I couldn't get excited for this. So I just went back to the beach, but the point is there was no one,

no one I met in my real life back then, recently, 10 years ago, maybe 12 years ago, who was like me at all, ideologically you could say, or who enjoyed the same books. No one into these authors, no one into these ideas. And in 10 years only now, you have basically the biggest media celebrity promoting the most far-right, uncompromising fascist author who committed harakiri, an unreconstructed Nichian Mishima to his audience of tens of millions of young people, just an enormous interest in these ideas. You know how weird it was that basically in my real life, even before I never really hid my views, but because they were so bizarre, so out there and weird, no one found them threatening. They were far more threatened back then, or they thought they were,

or they pretended to be threatened by certain... well, let's not say conservatives, but by the Christian right, by the so-called Christian right, by evangelical conservatives. To them, I was just an exotic lunatic. They could feel safe, not caring about my ideas, but now, within a few years, everything has changed. So what changed? Well, I've talked about this before, we all know what changed. They drove everyone to people like me, to PewDiePie, to Mishima, and they can't ban PewDiePie. He's too big now. And my guess is the more they will snap at him and try to lecture him, the more he will promote these things openly. Maybe he will recommend book by Ernst von Salomon next, book called The Outlaws. I recommend it for you also. Well, still some way to that.

But for now, in this show I want to discuss three major novelists, Selin, Junger and Mishima who were probably the best novelists after 1900 and also the most right-wing is not coincidence. And I mean, you know, like Freikorps and Spengler type of right-wing, not Rush Limbaugh. This is what this show is about. If you've been friends with shit libs, you know how much they're proud of propaganda about art being a leftist thing. It's a big tribal point of honor for the left. You know how it is people who watch Broadway masterpiece, Rent, and who believe its message. They take it as a matter of course that the right wing is incapable of producing art of any kind. That artistic output and artistic life necessarily must mean you're part of the left. I had a shit-lib friend in theater

who casually and without any spirit of discord that I could see, he claimed that it was impossible for art to be a right-wing thing. I could see he believes that. I mean, he could see no other way. And I do mean literally the left, as in these are people who thought Michael Moore is important social commentator or who watch MSNBC and this, who go to Obama inauguration. This guy's mother was a pastor with a liberal denomination. You can imagine what he grew up in. He used to pick his nose in public, this kind of... But it's easier to see why they think so. There are movies, Revolutionary Road, for example, with Leonardo DiCaprio, but also Mad Men. Many movies, many TV shows that build this case of a stotifying corporate or suburban

society that kills the artistic instincts, that is said to be insensitive to anything other than corporations, that itself, you know, it's somewhat of a tell. It's a tell to focus on corporations specifically. Because if they were honest, they would attack commerce. But no, they focus specifically on corporations and in particular on the discipline of corporate life, which of course they try to tie to sexual repression and to an authoritarian state when they can do this. It's a retread of 60s tropes inherited from certain third-rate Freudian thinkers. You're all familiar and there's no need to go in detail in this case, but when they display this life, a life that promotes conformity and is centered around work, a debased economic

or consumerist existence, that the artist must escape in favor of an urban and transgressive life. This is mythology they promote. And I pick those two movies and shows, but this point is made endlessly in media and film. Pleasantville, a movie from 1990s, is another example. You can see that this image has also become a rite of passage for the young of the rich especially who will leave their parents' homes today to live in Williamsburg or other parts of Brooklyn, Greenpoint or in Manhattan. But generally Williamsburg on a trust fund usually is the rule and they play act at being adults and at being free artists. It's become a joke of course, a stereotype joke. They're part time in an indie band and they engage

in a recreational cuckoldry. They produce nothing artistic, of course, but they play act at this kind of life. Some do join Antifa, so there's that. There are certain Antifa bars in that area here. Should I read off their names on air some day? Maybe I should. Should we pay them a visit? Maybe some day. Others will jerk off a dog in a bush in McCarran Park on Sunday night. For these people it's not even about art, but about play-acting what they think is a romantic identity, much like their dabbling in extremist politics, all of which they will soon leave. But then there are the others. This is all taken seriously by the unfortunates who actually do end up being journalists, or in rock bands, or theatre directors, or similar things, by the people who end up as

As America's artistic proletarians and apparatchiks, I mean now the ones who actually do become these professions and don't just play act for a while, the people who join the art cadres of American society and who then engage in a kind of cargo cultism for real where they think play acting is the secondary characteristics of what they saw artists from movies do, they think this will actually summon genuine artistic production. It never does. But they think this. Leftist commitments is the biggest one of these ritual prostrations to the images they receive from television and movies in childhood. And again, everyone around them believes the same and was formed by the same lies and propaganda. But this whole thing about art being left wing, that's what I mean. It's a media created lie.

It has no historical or natural truth behind it. When you ask for examples of great artists who live this way, there are almost none. What if this is fake? What if this division of the world between an unfeeling capitalist society of work and corporations and consumption, and on the other hand a supposedly avant-garde bohemian leftist or socialist art cadre, well actually we know also ultimately funded by corporations and billionaires today but you know and that produces crap hand-handed art that no one enjoys but what if all this opposition is fake because when you take a step back from all this and look historically and I don't even mean very far back you see all the greatest artists the one who produced something enduring they were men of the far-right the extremist crazy right-wing

fundamentalist by normie standards. You can read off the names of the main ones, but Dostoevsky of course, Tolstoy, who was the Schopenhauerian and what he later became, or Wagner, but of course many in 20th century, so much so that it is the ones on the left who are the exceptions. Berthold Brecht is an example often mentioned, and then you can add someone like Anatole France was a socialist. He's a French novelist. No one much reads today in the Anglo world. I have to explain who it is. He is important still for the French, but not that important overall. And these are the exceptions, very few. You can name them. Of course, there were a few so-called liberal artists at the time, people like Proust and such. But Proust would

be considered a white supremacist liberal today. And by his books, they would be burned by LGBT Junta because, you know, his main work is the most thoroughgoing condemnation of homosexuality that you can find, and it's made more poignant by the fact that it's written by a homo. I mean, Proust now. Maybe I talk about it some other time because it's about a man who goes through life seeking father figures, but he's betrayed by every one of them in turn. But few can understand it this way. There are also so-called tragic liberals like Joseph Conrad, you know, they invent these categories white hispanic tragic liberal but again Conrad was heavily under influence of Schopenhauer and No one like that like him or like Thomas Mann or the painter Max Beckmann

No, maybe Goebbels wouldn't call them a right wing But they be considered a rightist today and to a large extent in their time as well You take Beckmann, the painter with his interests in Wagner, in Blavatsky, a devoted Schopenhauerian as well. It's crazy to me they call Conrad this kind of qualified liberal and these kinds of things. It's appropriation by the liberals. He was not a liberal. He was a rightist. You know, the whining people of color, academic, Edward Said. He wrote his dumb book Orientalism, which was so influential in intermediate circles. But he was a man who was completely, intellectually, completely, totally fisted by Foucault in fact. That's a good way to describe what Edward Said was, his intellectual provenance.

But he wrote that book Orientalism entirely as an attack on Conrad. That's what they do. You know, these leftists, they cannot produce any art or literature as themselves. So they are consumed by jealousy and build a career such as it is attacking men of power and high vision like Said did to Conrad or that lying banshee Simone de Beauvoir, Simone de Bidet. She built her entire thing around critiquing Henry the Monster Land, another great rightist novelist who was, I think, almost executed as a Nazi collaborator. So to think that liberals or even mainstream conservatives could claim Conrad today is crazy. You know, he was right-wing as well, maybe not as right-wing as Dostoevsky, but Conrad is a man of the right.

call him today a white supremacist, and much of his work, I may talk of this one day, much of Conrad's work is a meditation on the meaning and fate of the white man. Those are his words in the colonies, the white man in the world on his mission in the wild, in Borneo and the colonies, the mission of the white man. That's Conrad's concern. But to these so-called liberal writers who are at most usually apolitical followers of Schopenhauer. Some other time I may talk Schopenhauer legacy, by the way, because his influence in literature is possibly bigger than Nietzsche's, not much talked about by anyone. But to these, which seem to be quite frequent, you can add the outright rightist nazos, the true rightist

like Ezra Pound, the fascist, or the futurists, or D'Annunzio and many others. And on today's show I'd like to discuss in brief the three main ones, Louis Ferdinand Selim, Ernst Junger and Yukio Mishima. I say if you want to make a reactionary reading group with your friends and just to read great novels, you can't go wrong with these three. I'd say the best novel is after 1900. No doubt, I'll be right back. Brennan, Brennan, you hear me? Brennan put on, put the musics on John Brennan of XCA. He's helping me today. He's here. He's my slave. John Brennan is slave to my sex. Brennan, my slave. Obama is my slave. Brennan, put on the music for the audience. Put it. This culture war I am talking, let me take a step

back and look at different but related controversy about, you see, they are mobilizing now the the classics profession and departments to combat the specter of fascism, as they see it, the alt-right, a very strange phenomenon. Why should classics professors, who are otherwise a very stolid and pedantic type, why should they get so involved in political debates now? And of course the reason is they're afraid that we've started to read Greek and Roman authors on our own, and that we're finding in these authors timeless truths that expose the lies of modern factions and modern parties and the entirely contrived ideological character of modern debates. We read Plutarch and Tacitus and Aristotle and suddenly the alternatives

were being shown appear not just limited but corrupt and illegitimate. They show themselves to us the Potemkin frauds they are designed to keep you in hock to fake manufactured controversies. You know what happened in Russia? They tried to make it so in Russia when Putin was coming on the scene around 1999 and 2000. Steve Saylor tells this story, an oligarch there, I think it was Abramovich or Berezovsky, who imagined himself as the power behind Putin, who first promoted Putin in fact, but he suggested to Putin they create two fake parties. One modeled on the neocon GOP in the United States and the other a more liberal variety with an entirely contrived public debate. Read about this. I'm not making this up. Masha Gessen, of all people, she talked about this.

I mean, where do you think the rest of the world learns these things from? America is the oldest communist country in the world. It's all Capricorn 1, and I've been trying to tell people this. For some time I couldn't get through to my friends in real life but now so many people are starting to see it because of the gravity of the situation to where we've been taken. So they're freaking out now and it's this line about how you see we are the frogs are appropriating the classics to promote racism and nationalism, where as you know supposedly the real lesson of the classics is that you need open borders. borders open legs. That's the lesson of Plato. Boys and girls, that's the lesson of the classics as well in general. Plato was a transgender trainee activist. It's all in the symposium.

So they've put out all their big guns on this. Donna Zukerface, who only has any prominence because she's Mark Zuckerberg's sister, and essentially she's flexing on her colleagues to give her, oh do you see now, they send a Mossad after me, they send the special forces. I'm joking, there's no Mossad here, this is Costa Rican special operators. Anyway, forget that sound, ignore it, but it's Mark Zuckerberg's sister, so what essentially she's doing, she's using her brother to make her colleagues submit to her or else implying that her brother will crush them. It's quite an alpha attitude if you think about it, She's a real operator, Donna Zuckerface, but ultimately it doesn't do her any good. She has this book about how the evil alt-right is appropriating the classics,

but although it's published by Harvard University Press and it got plugged by all the big shots in her field, she can't sell anything, she can't, nobody's buying that. Nobody wants her crap. A week after her book came out, with all this splash, She was selling actually less than I was that same week, and that was quite a few months after my book came out. So of course they're mad that we're finding in these books a celebration, for example, of excellence, of hierarchy, a celebration even of biological excellence, and also quite plainly of patriotism, and of national life, and of patriarchy. Because Aristotle, for example, let's just talk about national life for a moment. Aristotle is quite clear that ethnic faction in a state is a cause of a big weakness.

Yes, it's all there in the politics, he's explicit. You know, they don't talk about blacks in the classics, that's true, because they did not divide the races the same way we do. They didn't have global world, they didn't have blacks and mongoloids, so instead they had much more particular racial classifications, particular to their own knowledge, the way for example Hakan did, and many times they had to be discreet about this, because they did live in some states that had a racial hierarchy that was justified in a different way. So if an author says, for example, that Dorian and Ionian wouldn't have gotten on in a state, It doesn't therefore follow, as modern academic readers claim, it doesn't therefore follow

that they believe bringing in Hutu or Han in a Dorian state, that it would be okay. It doesn't follow. Similarly, if an ancient author is against tyranny because they don't want, for example, a champion of the people demagogue despoiling an ancient aristocracy, an aristocracy with warrior pest that practices biological eugenics and is the upholder of ancient and esoteric religious rites, it doesn't therefore follow that such people would be against Drumpf today and be all hot to follow Peter Stroke and Janet Napolitano and David Axelrod as supposedly embodiments of modern patricians. These things don't translate one to one and I'm not even sure if the retards know that and are lying, I'm not sure. From what I've seen, they actually believe these things.

They believe they translate one to one. You want to see appropriation? You had this Professor Nussbaum. I think Cass Sunstein, it's his side piece. Look up Professor Nussbaum. You know Cass Sunstein? He wrote articles with Vermula, who now pretends to be a Catholic integralist. So one of the best things written about America's lame ruling class is by Mark Ames. Look up Mark Aime's article in exile on Sunstein and Nussbaum, the power couple. It's called All the President's Middle Brows. Middle brow stuffed shirts. And if you point this out, they invoke so-called Nietzschean recentiment, a concept they don't understand. But they invoke that to try to explain away to themselves why you think they're frauds. Anyway, this Nussbaum, she went before Congress and she testified. Listen to this.

expert opinion now, you hear they call a classics professor hack in Congress, and she testified that the only possible objection to homosexuality could be religious, specifically Christian, because she claimed there is no condemnation of homosexuality in ancient writings, in pre-Christian writings, which I've covered partly before. Of course, it's completely untrue. The image of the kinidos or the ketamite, that was one of the worst things that you could be called. In her case, I believe she perjured herself because she had written about that. In her case, she knew that. She perjured herself. But every attempt they make to pervert the classics is of this sort. On the right or the left, the fake right, I mean, of course, the fake conservatives, the message is always, it's not yours.

It doesn't belong to you. The message is that these ancient authors supposedly taught liberalism, anti-racism, Prosodomy, atheism, they were all a nibish leviathan worshipping academic like us, there is the message. The lesson is that you must lose as a matter of principle or otherwise you would have been condemned finger wag by Socrates. That's what they wanted to believe, or if not, Socrates entered whatever other imagined and edited author they want to invoke that day. For example, they were very worked up about the fact that many of us like to post ancient statues and because some statues look like Arno Brecker statues and you know all these people believe in Sontag's fascist aesthetic thesis this crazy idea

through which anything that is full of health and vitality and power and art to them it's fascist so because of that they were very worked up because oh no these ancient Greek and Roman statues why the bronze the reaction bronzes they They look violent, they look thuggish, so they seem actually to be that way in their faces. They may look too white. They look too much like Peter O'Toole, unless you have nothing to tell you that actually they look like his uncle. So their way to disprove that was to tell people that, well, you see, these statues weren't really white, as if that's what made them attractive to us. They think that the marble is white, right? They think that's why we like these statues. But they say, no, it's not white. The marble actually was painted.

Wow, that's their argument as if this was a big disprove. But of course, if you look at the residues, the skin was, by the way, I don't know, are you alabaster white? I guess some of us are, but the skin tone, in any case, of these statues is not people of color-based skin tone. Let me put it that way. It was not Kamala Harris-colored statues. And frequently the hair coloring was blonde and the eyes blue when they examined the residues. So that part they don't tell you, they just tell you, oh, they were not white, they were actually painted. Well, yes, thank you very much. You're painted like Dolph Lundgren, but it's all like this, a desperate attempt to reinterpret really, to reinterpret things that we don't really care about when we read them.

They can't even understand why we're reading these authors, so they're screaming at an empty hill. They're shooting blanks in a dark bathhouse. Doug will get them. Ultimately, they try, maybe without knowing it, to make the classics as gay and lame as possible so that you won't be able to go back to this well from which men of the West have always taken sustenance and inspiration in times of trouble. And they really don't want you doing this, hence all their academic martinettes. Left and right, socialist and conservative, They're all in action, all wound up now, trying to stop you from letting Plato and Aristotle or Tacitus and Thucydides turn you into fascists. None of them know Greek, by the way. I can tell you this for a fact. They pretend to, but basically none of them know Greek.

The most aggressive ones are the Zuker phase types, though. And it really worked out that you might notice the Greeks were unapologetically patriarchal and that it was men's exclusion, total exclusion of women from public life as well as intellectual life that led to the intensity and height of Greek art and thought. They don't want you noticing what men who band together in a great cause can accomplish. And not even that many men actually. You need not more than 30, 40 maybe. They mistranslate basic words or play stupid. There's a recent translation of Homer's Odyssey by some chick. I forget her name, but she begins, look, this is how she begins the Odyssey. Let me tell you of a complicated man. Something like this.

She translated Homer, in other words, into a college girl's lame, everyday language so that you'd find it intolerable and boring and put it away. Actually, I'm not sure what their intention is because no one is actually reading their books so I can only interpret it as a form of complicated performance art for their friends. The fact is, they're completely, totally unprepared, both left and conservative, to deal with a genuine engagement with the classics that doesn't take place on their highly controlled and edited turf. The passages from classical authors that assume, in plain language, that assume the ripeness and naturalness of what is called nationalism today, that assume or promote a racial hierarchy,

promote the hereditary nature of the qualities that most of all would consider the participation of women in political life to be a childish absurdity fit for people of slaves, a people with no future that condemn the demagogic projects, really not of Trump but implicitly of both the left and the right as they've existed since at least 1945. All of this is plain to see in classical authors and these people are twisting, fighting a against a giant octopus trying to stop you from reading these plain truths. Many actually have no idea, however, these passages even exist because they never, both left and conservative, they never read the books themselves, but usually only interpretations or at most they focus on very particular passages that get passed on among them and hacked to

death out of context. I remember, long ago, I was talking to some crazy leftist technocrat type and he expressed admiration of Homer. So I asked him if the spirit depicted inside Homer, Achilles' sacrifice, things like that, Diomedes' glory, if it's not at odds with his vision of the world and for the future. And he had nothing to say. He actually, he got very angry and he educated me, he educated me telling me that it's just an artifact of the human past, that of course it will always be very important, they concede that, but that now the concern is how to feed a world of billions, an old phrase they keep repeating. You know, Kaganovich, the famous Soviet commissar, Kaganovich, he also, he loved to read Turgenev while the Ukrainian kulaks were being starved to death.

It's so sensitive and literary. You read it as an artifact of the past. This is their concern. He got mad at me because, you see, yeast must have superior rights to everything, and nothing is allowed to arise that is different from the ant heap, or rather the locust colony they are constructing. Do not be fooled by conservatives either. They pay lip service, but that's all they do. In their estimation, classical authors will remain the private hobby of a fat-fingered ineffectual reading class of diddlers who meet to talk in self-important tones about, for example, magnanimity in Aristotle, although they've never met anyone magnanimous, nor would they recognize someone if they did, nor do they even really read about such people.

Because again, they never step outside the few books and even the few passages that get passed around their cliques. Like try to ask them about what Aristotle believes causes intelligence in man, biologically, the relation to climate, they will either not know or they will be unable to put two and two together. And this self-styled clerk, this self-styled priestly class, left and conservative both, they want above all to keep you from taking inspiration, let's say, from the heroes of Plutarch the way the founders of America did. But they're actually completely unprepared to stop you or to argue about it because they've They've studied these authors entirely only for status reasons, and without any desire to understand them.

But merely to buttress the regime they live under, they consider themselves the redemption of this regime. It's all based on willful suppression of passages they find uncomfortable, on mistranslations, and all such things. Aristotle all but says that peoples, for example, who live in excessively hot and dry climates And he means, of course, specifically, Ethiopians, blacks, and some Arabs. He calls them stupid and he explains the mechanism by which they are stupid. That he has a physiological and climactic explanation of how this biological type appeared says nothing very much because he doesn't imply that this stupidity, which is inborn and it's a matter of genealogy, he does not imply this will change if those people move

to a different climate, that they will change in the same generation, there are many such cases that, again, either these people, usually they don't know about them, okay? But when they do, they try to explain them away in the sense of, oh, for example, Aristotle praised Carthage, so he was therefore not a racist, he was a cosmopolitan. Okay, so we praise Japan, so we're multicultural too. irrelevant but through such emotional and half rational retarded syllogisms they can ultimately only think emotionally and by denunciation left and right this is how they think and this is what happens when you have a discourse run by women by particularly ethnic kinds of Jews and other ethnic narcissists and provincials they fool themselves through emotional syllogisms

that ancient authors were anti-racists, that they would have supported a zuckerface-run government, or at least one run by Renpois like Marco Rubio. You know, Rubio, the elder statesman, the Andrew Cunanan of this decade. Perhaps try to restrict access to these books somehow. Perhaps they will try to edit them, edit the online versions and restrict access to the physical ones. They certainly don't want people to have unmediated access, let's say to Plato or Plutarch. They don't want it, they're afraid. But what is the purpose of reading the classics ultimately, if not the eruption of ancient life into the modern world? And that's what they fear. This is purpose of reading ancient authors, ultimately it must be.

And I say to you that these three authors I mentioned at the beginning of show, Celine, Louis Ferdinand Celine, Ernst Junger and Yukio Mishima, this is what they all do so well. In fact, it's more accessible than ancient author directly. There's nothing wrong with starting with that which is nearest to you. Because I believe they represent the eruption of ancient life into modern. Not its role playing, not the repetition of words that aren't digested, but the shocking expression of the ancient man in our time. What they speak to you is rebirth of ancient man or certain types of pre-modern man in In our time uncompromising and without apology or hedging, you can consider this show merely an introduction to these authors.

Each of them probably deserves a single show of their own or maybe a single show devoted to a single book. Today I believe a special day, by chance news I receive, that the widow of Celine died just today at age of 107 is a sad reminder of a disappeared world. Will we ever have a writer like Celine again? The highest honor was paid to me when someone compared me to him. And Muhlbach compared me to Willoughbeck who is Celine's heir in some way. I don't pretend to be at their level and certainly not based on just one book. In future I hope maybe if I'm lucky to rival them, if I'm blessed by muses. But Celine is most accessible of the three authors I mentioned. At the same time also a bit more difficult to take because he writes in a slang argot

in a language of the streets and of criminals and like all slang it's a bit dated so it's a difficult maybe to read in French and then the translations they can't truly capture the energy of the original. Celine was a doctor, medical doctor like so many of you. It's funny what they think of us. If I had to name one profession of the men I met online among the frogs, maybe the one that stands out the most by being disproportionate frequent, well it's people who work in tech of course, but aside from that it's doctors, medical students, it's very funny. And I'm not saying this of course because I want Gentiles to consider us respectable and marriageable for their ugly daughters, but to strike fear into them it's the truth

should frog Twitter ever take over what you'll get is a government run by doctors and biologists. Doctors you see are people who, well of course to tell you the truth many doctors are stupid and close minded. You've all met them, people who work from a chart and who go into it for status and money and are whores to pharmaceutical companies and they care nothing about curing or about knowing and understanding biology. But when they are not this, when it's a genuine doctor, he has to be an artist. When a doctor is smart and talented, he has to confront biological reality in a direct and concrete way like few others ever have to. He sees the way this differs in way, by type, from person to person. And then, of course, the hell that he's put through in modern training, the residency

period and all this, the social politics of the modern hospitals, the pharma industry, It's very hard to pull a veil over the eyes of a doctor because he's witness to all the deficiencies of the modern world as well as the natural realities that are hidden now. And then also, I don't know if this is true, it would be for me, but the intense ugliness of that life. Because to me there is no place more cursed, almost no place more cursed than a hospital, the ugliness of it. It's a place of intense suffering and bad energies. And maybe they, the doctors above all, if they're sensitive men, they have a need to escape that, to experience instead life at its healthiest. They need beauty as their own medicine, as a form of escapism maybe, as something to aspire to, as their recompense.

You have to abandon this effeminacy. You have to abandon this effeminacy when you're a medical student or a doctor. Anyway, be kind to us. I'm telling this to you, normies. kind to us because your doctor may very well be one of us, the people designing your weirdo medications may be one of us. But although Celine is not some guy with Asperger's or HBD spergoloid, he writes nevertheless as you might expect a working class medical student to write, with a really brutal awareness of life as it is, of himself as he is most of all, this what you can appreciate in Celine. The brutal self-consciousness, totally bereft of delusion. It's an incredible and exhilarating strength when you see it for what it is. His style and his observations are tonic against self-delusion.

You know, the character of modern life, since at least the French Revolution, it's all pretty lies. Pretty lies, but then by definition also almost flimsy lies. The lie of progress, the lie of equality, the lie of the dignity of labor. The lie that mere life has any worth, which is to say, the lie of human dignity, which is one of the most destructive and anti-natural, and yes, I would even say anti-Christian lies as well, the lie of human dignity. And through these pretty lies, the modern project has hidden its insidious evil until now when it's almost too late and you come face to face with its final intentions. You really get to see the bleak brutality that these lies have tried to cover up. But you have to abandon them as also the general technique, the technique of psychological

self-delusion that the modern education promotes also in the smartest men. And this is what Celine teaches you to cut out of yourself. And it's not an ironic or a self-protective self-degradation or a self-deprecation like you see with narcissists, it's real. It's a consciousness unmediated by feminine rationalizations and word games. It's in other words, it's the classical spirit of natural observation, which is what other writers even in the 19th century, they sort of aim for this, but it is at its peak in Selene at its raw peak and even when he reflects on himself, which arguably ancient authors they don't do so much, but even when Selene does it, it's in their spirit for sure. You know, it's not this kind of modernist introspection and wankery, he's aware of

his limitations, of his cowardice, of his worthlessness in this very direct and manly way that's atonic when you see it for what it is. It's like he takes the whole modernist attempt at self-introspection. You see it in Dostoevsky. Freud had to bow to Dostoevsky in this regard. You see it, of course, in many others. But here is a man with a doctor's concrete insight and clinical uncompromising vision of nature, of biological nature. So he turns that introspective project into something very different, into a kind of medical self-dissection. So much of what modernism and modern life is, it's world games and self-delusion. And the rightists, including far-rightists, are prone to engage also in this kind of narcissism. But Selin will always be there to bring you back to reality.

His main work, Journey to the End of the Night, that's probably the one to start with. But like I said, of the three authors I mentioned, he's sometimes hard to read because for stretches of this book you might even get bored in the beginning. you have to push through it. It tells the tale of a doctor, of his various adventures or misadventures in Africa or in America, his observations of modern life and its trash character. You can't escape it wherever you go. And here is a man who sees life and nature for what they are. This is why I admire this book. And I have to tell you, many mainstream conservative intellectuals have read it too, because it was so highly recommended to them by Ellen Bloom, the Straussian.

This is Mike Anton's own sect, the Straussians, they've all read this book, but I don't necessarily agree with the reason Bloom liked it. Well, one of the reasons he likes this book, you see this book sort of has a lesson, a moral climax of sorts, where a certain character in the book, he refuses to tell this girl that he loves her. She demands him, say you love me, say you love me. He refuses and she kills him for it. And this character who gets killed, he's complete a rogue before that, a criminal and a bandit, but on this question of love, he refuses to compromise. He refuses to lie about it, so he dies for it. So Bloom interprets this story almost like a medieval redemption tale, where the rogue and the bandit or the whore get redeemed in the end.

And the narrator, Bardamu, is a man like I described, unable maybe to love and unable to believe in anything, but witnessing this sacrifice of this bandit is a great thing for him. So in that sense you can see it as a kind of story with a moral climax. But just for this reason, I don't like it for that reason, I like it for the other reasons I tell you. And I recommend another of Celine's books, Death on the Installment Plan. This is maybe the better of his books, I'm not sure. But this book is the same as Journey to the End of the Night, but completely bereft of any such lesson. So then, in the second book, Death on Credit, or Death on the Installment Plan, you see this vision of life I mentioned before, which is presented with relish and style, but which

is an understanding of reality totally stripped of self-delusions. Brutal, hard to take, and self-delusion is what you must cut through, you must cut it out of yourself. Many of us have been forced by circumstance into that condition anyway, into coming face to face with brutal degradation of life. And in the modern world, every ideology, every religion, every political movement almost seeks to sedate you, to pull you back into a veil of complacency, to pull it over you, to cocoon you, and you must resist that. It's the most destructive thing in our time it is. You must resist it. You must face life as it is with the courage of classical men. I promise you this is the beginning of anything great. It is one great difference between us and the older conservatives.

They no longer see that their pretty lies are broken, they have no power, and in fact make life even more bitter because they add this saccharine mendacity that is so easy to see now. You know, it's like a grown man wearing panties. It just doesn't fit anymore. All the pretty lies are shattered by our time and you need Celine, you need the company of a man who sees the bleakness of life the same way you do. He has the biologist's eye and when you learn to see it as he does, it's not depressing. It's an energy boost, it's an energy tonic. He was a man of energy and of course then they don't want you, finally they don't want you asking if Selin maybe had the right solutions to the modern degradation. They certainly don't want you asking this question.

Charles Jungler is, I think, more accessible than Selin, more instantly likable. There's a new translation of his main book, Storm of Steel, or rather a reprint of the 1929 translation by Basil Creighton that I encourage you all to get. It's on Amazon, and it's recently been made available again by one of our friends. The story of World War I soldier, but there is no condemnation of war there that you're used to seeing, especially of that war, like in All Quiet on the Western Front or English Poets or this sort of thing. Not that I like that war, but it's refreshing to see a soldier write about it in this hard, realistic way, without condemnation, without hand-wringing. The book, I think, was part of an officer's official reading list in American military

courses until very recently, or maybe it still is part of this reading list for American military officers, I don't know. It's the most unusual meditation for you on war that you can find after a lifetime of morally denunciations because it's direct, it's hard and cheerful, it is an old classic political traits. So actually, Junger seems to enjoy himself. There is a great scene about the curative properties of wine in the book. Just read it and you'll see. You realize war is great fun. That's why war happens, you know. Men like war. They happen to like it. You can't understand war and therefore you cannot understand politics and ultimately life if you don't enjoy war. That's why these things are a mystery to most, and almost they're off-limits to women, almost,

except to monsters among women. So Luttwak mentions this, and not so directly, but when you have all these very pious men tell you that Homer, for example, is about the fruitlessness of war, of how war is bad, which is a very common take now, but Luttwak reminds you that no, Homer is about the glory and the exhilarating excitement and freedom of war. And you get some of that in Junger, who has this kind of matter-of-fact description of things like you might find in Thucydides or in Xenophon or in Heraclitus' famous fragment where he celebrates war, war as the father and king of all. I don't like World War I. I don't like the Somme, this battle. You know, all you conservatives who whine in this sycophantic way about the Holocaust,

But you have no tears left over for the young men who were cut down at the Somme. And look at the rate per minute of the best young of Europe who died in that battle alone. It was the carnage of that war that radicalized someone like Celine. How about some remembrance for them, you spineless conservatives? We can't expect the left to shed a tear for those men. But you seem to have no sympathy or remembrance left over for your own soldiers either. It's a terrible event, a terrible event, but at the same time, I have to disagree with the people who claim that it was the end of Western civilization and this. That's a huge cope. If you look at some of the Roman wars, especially the wars, for example, not even the late imperial

wars, but the wars when Rome had just unified Italy, when you look at the social war that started around 90 BC, the number of people who died in that was staggering for the time. But Rome recovered very fast from this, it recovered from some other catastrophic losses too, from massive internal political purges as well. A civilization isn't failed, a society is not failed by one battle or one war unless there's already something very wrong with it. The Byzantines were basically ended by one battle, but they were on their last legs by then anyway. And I think the people who focus too much on World War I want to avoid facing the reality that the proximate cause of Western decline is actually World War II.

And above all, in their hindering way, they never want to confront the abysmal stupidity of this man Churchill and of the disaster that he wrote on Europe. He's really, in so many ways, responsible for the end of the British Empire. And history will ultimately judge him as either a moral fanatic or more likely as a corrupt traitor and demagogue and a drunk fool for what he did to England, not just to Europe but to his own nation. Buchanan had the courage to call out how reckless and foolish this man was. Just read Buchanan's book on him. But in Junger you see the spirit of adventure and a warrior's cheerfulness. He joined the Wundervogel, the youth adventure and scouting movement that I mentioned briefly in my book and then he ran away to join the French Foreign Legion.

He was a soldier in World War I. He ended up getting the highest military decoration that the German Empire gave for his bravery. Well look, this book is hard to describe because in many ways it reads just like a war diary. I think that's what it was in fact, but it's very matter of fact. But for that reason, I believe he too attempts to bring out the world without a delusional moral filter. He tries to have a hard, cheerful and tragic, yes you know, cheerful and tragic go together. Tragic isn't the same as sad or pitiful. Cheerful and tragic can go together. The moral observations in the book are very few, very terse and ambiguous. There is no politics, there is no stomping. I heard the story that Max Beckmann, the expressionist painter, when he was in World War I and he

was running on a field and there were explosions of artillery shells to the left and the right as he was running on this field, that he says how he felt no fear, he felt like he was in a dream. He felt dissociated from everything and was able to experience these explosions as an aesthetic event. I hear this from friends who were in combat, how they felt nothing at the time, no fear, But of course there are other times in modern war when you are consumed by fear, by boredom, by helplessness in a way that was maybe unheard of in ancient combat because when artillery is coming in it's unpredictable. You never know when it comes and there is nothing you can do. In any case, what I mean to say is that sense of Beckman's younger book is the same. It gives you a sense of that.

It covers all these different states of the spirit of the modern soldiers and it's hard to call them horrors because they don't appear in this overwrought way in the storm of steel. That's why I would recommend it. Jünger after, just to tell you beef after the war, he remained reactionary after the war but like many of his type, many who were in the Freikorps, he was anti-Nazi even though he would be considered fully a Nazi today, even by conservatives. But he wrote a book on marble cliffs against Hitler and many of you, I know you enjoy his much later novel from the 70s called Umasville, I don't know how to pronounce. It's a kind of science fiction book centered on a man, the Anarch, at the court of a tyrant in North Africa in a science fiction future.

I can't cover Junger's whole career here of course, but if you want uncompromising classical depiction of war in modern age without self-consciousness, without delusion, read Storm of Steel is almost as if you hear a man who has stripped the modern lives out of his spirit, like Celine did, who speaks again with the voice, maybe, of a Spartan poet in our time. Yes, the Spartans had poets too. In our time, they speak Prussian. There was a myth, the Germans, they love in the 19th century this myth, that they were Hellenes, that they were the Hellenes of our age, the Greeks of our age. I'm not sure. Maybe this was self-flattery. I think we should invite Nicholas Nassim Taleb and that whole crew of ethnic supremacists

and they should give the Germans a lecture or two about squid ink pasta and how Lebanese mama's boy Kulture, and loathing about playing backgammon, that this is really the fountain and spark of higher creativity. But if you want to leave that behind for a moment, that propaganda, read Junger. You see classical spirit born anew in our time. Yukiko Mishima is a very strange writer. He's closer to our time, even though he's Japanese, and therefore alien. You know, in Japan, I don't need to tell you, they have vending machines that sell used women's panties. That's a thing there in Japan. You have, on the train, middle-aged business executives who shamelessly read BDSM, sadomasochistic magazines in view of everyone, in view of children and old women.

Then at night, they pass out in their own vomit Shibuya just asked train master Alex for confirmation. I heard the funny story about the boss, boss of a business there who pointed out to a female employee that he could see the light that was on in her apartment at night as he took the train home. He sussed out where her apartment was, just what floor, where on the building it was, and he kept tabs on her when the lights were on, with the implication of course being she wanted to know what man friend she had over at night. This kind of thing is very common in Japan still, it's an unusual culture. But Mishima, it's closer to us in times than the other two I mentioned in some way. If you look past the occasional Japanese oddity, it's still quite accessible, and I'd recommend

you start either with book PewDiePie recommended, The Sound of Waves, which is a love story, actually with Spring Snow, which is also a love story set, it's the first in his main work, The Sea of Fertility, a tetralogy of novels, four novels, and this, Spring Snow, is the first installment. Spring Snow is a love story in many ways, very much like Journey to the End of the Night, I think. And I mean so only insofar as you consider moral climax of the tale, the style, the content otherwise completely different. cinema tells you a tale of Japanese nobility in its decadent phase around the year 1900, a bit after, and the main character is 18-year-old Kiyo Aki. But anyway, I don't do plot condensation. You can look it up for that or just read the book. You should just read the story.

The main character essentially refuses love affair until it becomes completely impossible, and only at that point does he act. It's a story about uncompromising spirit. It leaves you in the end after the climax. It left me quite paralyzed. It left me quite paralyzed with this intoxicating longing when I saw the secret and uncompromising meaning of this main character and of how he laid out his self-sacrifice. It's a story about self-sacrifice for a hidden reality. It makes you understand Harakiri. It makes you understand seppuku. Not as some weird cultural practice of barbarians, but as a victory of the spirit, a victory of purity. He makes you experience this and then the same story is retold again and again

in variations in the rest of this tetralogy of the sea of fertility that also tells the history of Japan in the 20th century. It tells the secret destiny of Japan. Another similar love story by Mishima is actually his first book that he wrote while he was a college student. He wrote this when he was 21, I think. It's called Confessions of a Mask and it's It's really a shocking tale too, a tale of perversion, but also it's kind of an introspective tale, but with climax a little bit similar to Spring Snow. It's hard to read for some, because as a main character in Confessions of a Mask, who is actually Mishima himself, the main character here just delays so long with this girl. He delays consummating and never actually acts on his desires for her, or delays that

this is frustrating for some to read. But I would read it anyway. He also tells stories of perversion in this book that are hard to take for some. More shocking is his other book, Mishima's other book, The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea. And I don't want to tell you what this is about, but I do want to tell you it's like Par Lagarkvist's book, The Dwarf. It's one of these perfect books, not a sentence out of place. It's one of maybe only three or four, five books like that. Not a sentence of, as a sailor who fell from grace with the sea. But I'd like to close Mishima's section. You all know what Mishima did. Yes, he had private military and he tried to take over the Tokyo military headquarters and bring back imperial rule.

It was more like a show for his self-sacrifice, I think, because he killed himself very ostentatiously that day in 1970, he did this, on the same day he submitted publication of his main work. He knew what was going to happen. So many refused to accept or understand this sacrifice. But I think he set an example for Japan and for many of its most spirited and intelligent men, so that he secured the future of that nation in part through his sacrifice. He reminded people. He reminded them, just like what I told you in my first show, Dominic Venner, he reminded the French, but he reminded the Japanese that we are still here. We will not go anywhere. You will not get rid of us. You will not reduce life back to the hovel.

But anyway, the novel of Mishima that most right-wingers love to read is Runaway Horses because it's the one most explicitly about a rightist revolt. It's the one most explicitly political. It's set around World War II or a little bit before, and it tells the story of a Japanese psycho right-wing radical and truly a story of a handsome man, a champion in sword fighting, an athlete. I leave to you that book then. Just read these. It's fine. Mishima was going to get Nobel Prize for literature many times, but of course because of his political sympathies he never did. But the funny thing about Mishima is that he does not rail in geraniums against modern life like a leftist would expect of a rightist, like he would want us to. He gives modern life its due.

He sees its great attractions and seductions. That's what I'm trying to tell you. You cannot be artist and put life polemically in a book. You cannot be pedantic and hand-handed with a message, with a doctrine. And he has some books, these are very interesting, that are set in urban Tokyo after the war. One of them is called After the Banquet, and it tells the story of a woman, an impresario of sorts, a kind of woman who owns a banquet hall, a restaurant, a caterer, but very high class one. And she ends up managing as a campaign, the political campaign of a kind of uptight leftist politician who had retired. She brings him back into public life, she has an affair with him, and she runs his political campaign. And it's a very sly book, not one word of

condemnation of women or of modern life, because it presents from point of view of this middle aged woman, very sympathetically, it's very understated. The criticism of modern life in that book, very understated, very sly. The appearance of antiquity in that book, very insidious and for this reason I prefer it because it's a really shocking eruption of ancient spirit in the middle of modern life where you would least expect it. In entirely modern words and modern circumstances it sneaks up on you, it's very potent, it's It's one of the most devastating attacks on democracy, this book after the banquet. If you read it right, I may go into it at some point in a show just on this. There's also this other amazing book, Forbidden Colors.

It's about a gay underground in Tokyo in the 1950s, which again, it's just a casual story of an uncompromising ancient spirit in an entirely modern setting where you would least expect it. And that's why it's especially shocking. And it's told entirely without autism, without didacticism. If you can get past the gay stuff in this book, Forbidden Colors and the Perversion, it's one of the most shocking books you can read, precisely because it's so understated, the ancient spirit as it appears in this athlete, the main character of the book, in the middle of the most modern circumstance of degradation, of sort of urban decay, of perversion, of a world dominated by women. And that's really what this story is about. It tells the story of the complete empty character of women. So I don't know.

Look, I don't know if these two are the best to start with. I would recommend you start with Spring Snow and with Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the sea or with these or with the book that Pewdiepie recommended, The Sound of Waves. And if you form book club with your friends and you read Celine, Junger, Mishima or just Just read them on your own, I think you understand in full how the spirit of antiquity can be reborn complete and without any compromise in our time, without any LARPing too, without any roleplaying, without any autism. These men, they were not the half and half, they didn't let fear and laziness break their spirits, they didn't become hand wringing ninis, never give an inch. Top it off by the way by reading Ernst von Solomon, the outlaws while you're at it.

I'll give list of all these books in writing. Goodbye until next time. Back out.