I was on the street this week, walking at random, very sleep-deprived. This is why I show late sometimes, these last two weeks. I hope to move back to Friday night time for Caribbean reason, but, you know, I terribly sleep-deprived because they put nightmare vision in my head and they lied to me about construction in my building, destroyed my sleep schedule. So now I have to find a new place to live. I was also sometimes busy overthrowing new government, but mostly I have to find a new place to live. And I spent two nights in sex motel just so I could get some sleep. Do you ever get very romantic with a prostitute? You know, I know what Delicious Tacos does. It's very common phenomenon. Others I know. I know a guy who, he cries with a prostitute.

become very affectionate with a paid girl and he puts head on her chest and he cries, but he treats a non-prostitute, he treats normal girl very badly. He jackhammers their face and this kind of thing. I don't mean violence, you know, it's family, it's not family show, but still I feel vulgar saying he fucks their face and this kind of thing, but what can you expect? I'm sorry, it's not Family Show, but I was not with Prostitute this week or any other week, but it's very clean, actually advanced six motel with many features and sauna inside the room and Jacuzzi I do not use, hypochondriac, but very advanced motel and I would have several screens. I asked for room with several screens on it at the same time with pornography. I'm sorry, I put it on in background for atmosphere

sometime because it's new world, you know. I have a friend, he was dentist from Leningrad. He come to USA, come to America. He had a young wife and child with him. Recently married and two year old child, and he left then for a 19 year old stripper. He left his family and when one of his colleagues asked him, why you do this, why you live, how can you leave your family to be with a stripper and buy a Porsche, a Porsche car? He say, it's America, because it's America, you know. So, but I think he had a right attitude in some sense, because this new world, you know. So I put on pornography and then I had on other screen, I had Al Jazeera and Bloomberg and Arai and NHK, the various news stations from around the world. I tried to replicate this kind of penthouse,

penthouse society in my head, you know, but no really. So just to escape this infernal noise in my building, I was forced to stay in Sex Motel, but it was not good enough. I still could not sleep. So being in these days, I walk the streets aimlessly two nights in a row and I mutter under my breath. I say, you know, my name Jamal. I say this over and over again. I think you heard me right about this before, how you might want to experiment with doing this on crowded city streets or on college campus. You walk around muttering under your breath, my name Jamal, my name Jamal. over, except that I got carried away and I started to switch to other things in this country. You know, nobody knows that that's offensive. So I say, my name's Susan. And when that doesn't, then I start to say the name

of the neighborhood or the street that I happen to be on or other words, local words in very exaggerated, offensive way, like my name Usted. So I walk in some part of Uruguay named after Normandy, named Truville. I walk on the street, I say, my name, my name Usted, my name Usted, over and over again, as when you are very tired, you might want to do this on your own, you know. You might start to have a laughing fit. It happens to you if you're tired. So I'm walking on the street, laughing to myself, and it's just a way to enjoy myself. You know, I say, my name Usted, my name Usted. And I had a couple of drinks also. And what happened to me was I rounded a corner while I was talking to myself and laughing this way. And a policeman, he was standing the street

and he saw me there saying these things to myself just as I was saying, my name was State, my name was State. So the thing about laughing fits is you can't control them. I had a friend, he like me, he has laughing fits. So for example, he told me he was in classroom and professor tried to make joke, but it's very bad joke. You know, academic, typical academic, he make bad joke, nobody laughs. But my friend imagine throwing a pen at this professor's head and it bounces off. So he started hysterical, uncontrollable laughing fit because he imagines this. And then of course everyone in this classroom look at him like he's an idiot. He thinks he's laughing at this very lame joke of the professor. So he has to excuse himself and he run out of class with laughing feet, hysterical laughing

feet because of this. And some of you may have similar problem, I do anyway. So I round the corner on street at night while I'm laughing to myself and repeating under my breath very violently just over and over again, my name Jamal, my name Usted, my name And this local cop sees me and he starts to come toward me. And I quickly realize the situation. I start to run very fast. I was not supposed to, I know, but I start to run while I'm laughing hysterically from this policeman. I would not do this in America because they will call backup and helicopter gunship and hunt you down with backup police squad cars. But in other countries you can do this. I knew this guy, first of all he was a little portly and he could not catch me and this

guy was not allowed I know to leave his designated area and would not chase a gringo too far. So I ran from him, not recommended at home, okay, but I ran, I was running on street at night with hysterical laughing fit running from policemen because I knew what he looked like. He would think that I was on drugs and I at the very least have to pay him a bribe. But I was not on drugs. I'm sleep-deprived and I was amusing myself. So, anyway, this way I'm late with show sometime, but now this show is very special because I want to talk paintings and sculptures I like, and general idea of these two visual art and what I like in visual art. And it has to be experimental show because now this is episode 15 and we are still at beginning of show as I see it, only 15 episode in.

So like in music show I did earlier, I only will cover today very basic general things, very basic introduction to what I like. I cannot pretend to offer you complete theory of aesthetic contemplation because you will eat me. You will all eat me like cannibals if I venture too much here because I know many of you are artists yourselves and have very particular tastes and ideas about what you like. That's one of our huge advantages in this. Going back to before 2016, the memes, you know, many of the meme artists are very good at what they do, were so good at it that the CIA got angry enough at 4chan to have an episode, you know, that psy-op show Homeland on Showtime, I think, and they had an entire show dedicated to 4chan because they were so upset by what you did to them in 2016.

On this show the proud CIA woman with borderline personality disorder, I think Claire Danes is the actress name, some kind of tranny with BPD, and she physically destroys a 4chan incel. You hear? This is the CIA's fantasies. They were so humiliated in a major way by 2016 by your memes that they had a special meme division at CIA or at Pentagon dedicated to countering you. But they weren't getting anywhere. You saw some of their memes, they were absurd and they can't do it because they're basically dumb. Among us there are so many graphic designers and painters and good drawers all of high hand who besides the online things I've seen, many are art students or painters themselves and make quite fancy paintings.

Because of all this I feel maybe hesitant to come on here with my own tastes and thoughts on art because many of you are hardly new to any of this. You are set in your own ways and tastes already maybe. And in that sense I only want to encourage you to continue on developing your artistic skills with maybe some vignettes later on from lives of the great painters and how hard they worked at their task and how dedicated they were and to encourage you to emulate that. my own thoughts about what visual arts mean to me and what purpose they serve. My own tastes are very particular and I can only speak for myself here. But I can tell you that I reject totally, I reject the mainstream of art criticism. It's totally useless. And I'll say a bit more about that as a will.

I find completely pointless and art critics as well as most literary critics should be immediately arrested. They must be sent to a pool area, camp, a pool, where they will be hazed and sexually harassed by buff lifeguards. But of course they would like that. However, I must take a break, I'll be right back. The entire art world, art industry, the art criticism world, art theory world is all total fraud and this includes many museum exhibits as well as the most venerated creatures of the connoisseur circuit but most of all it includes your conception of high art and the role of high art as it's been received especially if you had the misfortune of having your aesthetic sense violated by a university department even through maybe one course or by following any contemporary art

debates it's all a front and a fraud so let me give you some examples you take Bernard Berenson who is this man Bernard Berenson very famous in art world he lived roughly mid 19th century about 1860 he was born to mid 20th century and he was a man said to be a high estate an art appraiser who established himself as an expert on the Renaissance masters, an art historian who became a critic and authenticator of art, which of course involved him in the market for artworks. He was born in Lithuania as Valvroyansky and would have literally, he would have likely tried to run a real estate speculation scams on Polish or Ukrainian peasants if his family hadn't immigrated to America, where he found the land of opportunity. He was a precocious student and so on and so forth and by the way

how about that name change? You know my favorite case of a WASP or Nordic impersonation is Holbrooke, Richard Holbrooke. Look up that guy, what his name was before. Another one is Bill Kristol. Bill Kristol's father, Irving Kristol, acted a lot like Trump. Guy from the Bronx but Bill Kristol, he acts very very different. Where did he learn to act that way? Why does he do that? Anyway, but unfortunately old ethnic animus is not left behind with a name or with a manner change. Not in these cases. I don't need to go over the whole career of this man Bernard Berenson except to point out that he used to be seen as one of the major, if not the major authority in American art history, he held court at a villa in Florence, Italy. It's called Itatti Villa, still exists.

And he had around him a whole retinue of celebrities, European nobility, so-called writers and intellectuals and financiers and such who liked to be seen around a man of such refinement and taste. Oh, how brunch, how brunch, so refined. He is the plaster model of all the figures you see in media propaganda movies, and all such prefab about a very refined aesthete and connoisseur who holds court, but of course he was a fraud. There's a book about this called Artful Partners, and I linked before to an article that showed together with other art appraisers on the make, he duped people at the time into paying exorbitant fees for fake art, false attributions, all such kinds of things. He made false attributions for profit. But this is par for the course in modern art world.

I linked to another article that showed something like 95 percent, and yes, there's no exaggeration, 95 percent of so-called pre-Columbian, you know, Aztec and Olmec and such artifacts at at a major California museum were actually shown to be fake. That's a 95% fake rate, forgery rate, at a major museum. And in fact, that is not unheard of. Loki, Julianus, the poster, linked just the other day to how, you know, most known Chinese inscriptions of any antiquity are in these kinds of bronze inscriptions. But virtually none of them are available to outsiders. outside scholars don't get to see them, to handle them directly. They have only what can be seen in photography, in photographs, from catalogs, and estimates are even that from what can be seen

in these photographs, estimates are about half are fake, half are forgeries, and these are mainstream sources that I've been talking about so far. Mainstream books, mainstream articles, not internet nut jobs like me, But mainstream books, and basically the whole art world right now is pretentious shit. And that can be seen from consulting their own sources. It's made to pilfer people, it's made to pilfer the rich on one hand, and on the other it's made by the rich to store value from usury, from money laundering, from this kind of thing. But you know, this is all, everything I've described so far, this is primitive stuff. This is a kind of primitive corruption 1.0 and since then they have upped their game quite a bit.

You see boys and girls, well actually I should be honest there are maybe five girls who listen to my show and they're all dominatrices, they're all monsters. But you see boys and girls if you go to a third world country, I told you before you have an advantage because you can actually get out, you can get out a lot of petty crap with a bribe. I'm not saying I do cannibalism or this kind and I bribe to get out of it. I do nothing bad, actually, aside from minor thing like I told you on street to amuse myself. But it's, you know, with modern states, there is such a thing called robo legislation. So no matter where you go, there is just endless laws upon laws passed by these parliaments who feel the need to pass endless legislation and regulations.

So you're always actually in breach of some law, including in America, especially in America most of all, where you can see how it's inconsistently applied. They always have something on you. This is a kind of corruption. In the third world, you can get out of this insanity with a small bribe. Let's say if you're actually corrupt, you can pay a small bribe to the undersecretary of the Ministry of the Interior and so forth, and you can get the right to import something or to mind something or to have a 17-year-old wife or whatever, whereas, you know, in America, of course, if you do that, if you do pay direct bribes, you will go to jail. But what happens instead, they up the game like I'm telling you, is they legalized it. So they found legal ways to do these same things.

They made it systematic. That's how you get the Clinton family going from zero net worth to $225 million net worth despite having been in public life the whole time. And it's all done legally. So you see, the third way of doing, third world way of doing corruption, that's piquery, that's small-time stuff. In Washington, D.C., it's all indirect or actually legalized. And the reason I say this all is because they did the same, in a way, in the art world. So Bernard Berenson Valvergiansky was a piker compared to what happened after World War II in the art market. Why go through all the trouble of finding historical pretext to make false attributions and go through that risk when you can actually design a fake abstract intellectual theory, a whole theory about, say, non-representational art,

when you can have fake artists fulfill that theory and then have overvaluations of that crap art where the super-rich buy it as a store of value. You see what I'm getting at? Why not create a whole fraudulent market of so-called art that wears the skin of the previous art tradition as camouflage? And for this to understand this, what happened with art world after World War II, I encourage you to read Tom Wolfe's book, The Painted Word, which is about precisely this but mainly how three art critics, Clement Greenberg, most of all, but also Harold Rosenberg and Leo Steinberg. So yes, Greenberg, Rosenberg, Steinberg, Ratzenberg. Sorry, I'm just copying Michael Savage now, but about basically how the art of that time, of the 60s and 70s, and what came after,

was designed to cater to these theories. In other words, art had become a handmaid to art criticism or art theory and the artist a slave to the critic and Tom Wolfe he defends against critics of his argument I think quite well I saw a debate you can find still I think on YouTube debates where he gets questioned by very angry young ladies in the audience and he defends himself by pointing out that he did quite a bit of research in this book and he shows the chronology the chronology of how the critics theories predate the art it's supposed to describe and in many cases he shows actually direct cause and effect how these critics, in particular Clement Greenberg, determined the artist themselves or gave orders

for what kind of art should be contrived and of course you have to add to it, it's recently come out that all this garbage art was founded by the CIA. You know it's very funny when this fact was passed around on Twitter some time ago recently, A very reasonable gentleman from academia came on very fast and lectured me that this was not so bad, you know, because the CIA supported Jackson Pollock and other kind of non-representational art because it wanted to show that America also had artistic and useful vitality and high culture and not just the Soviets and their various forms of propaganda. So I don't know about that. I don't know. Does that make sense? Does that make sense to you? That's something for you to consider. Why do you need a secret police agency to fund this kind of thing?

I'm not sure and to create an artificial market based on intellectual fraud. But that's for you to think about because remember what attention and money goes to this crap does not go to other artists who are shut out of attention and shut out of being able to live and of being able to make their own art. But basically, this, what I'm telling you, forget the CIA for a moment, this complex art theory, museums, oligarchs, artists like Jackson Pollock and others after 60s and 70s is a front for money laundering, okay? Behind all the abstract word chopping theories, all the so-called artistic efforts, the posturing, the bohemian posturing, this is a way to justify the creation of an art market based on artistic

fraud of pieces that provide little to no visual experience or no profound perception or emotion that objectively in a normal time would be seen as worthless or at most as some basic decoration, including by people, yes, of genuine taste, I would claim this, yes, but they are hyped in this closed loop of media artifice to fetch enormous sums and then are seen as methods to store money and to have asset appreciation during inflation. This then is a way in which the corruption of someone like Berenson becomes legalized and formalized and even accepted to the point where it impersonates the art and art gets replaced by art theory and ultimately an art market. Because the theory being words, words are manipulable by the burgs who control the organs of so-called art criticism and art media.

And Tom Wolfe was predictably called a fascist for this book, The Painted Word. It caused a complete meltdown in the Jewish press because this, of course, what I've been describing is one of the principal means of both artistic, cultural, and financial corruption in the modern world, this fake art market. Well, it's worth quite a lot, you know, this art market. Just look into it. And if you criticize their designated gatekeepers and manipulators of world formulas and of these art speculations that create the value of this market, you're in a bad way, you're or a Nazi. Well, I must take a break and hopefully back to discuss more pleasant matters maybe. The destruction of artistic traditions was unfortunately already upon the West before

this imposture that I'm talking about. Otherwise, it couldn't have happened or not as easily. But even so, this fraudulent impersonation of art by a contrived art market and media marketing op, it has had terrible effects, and I mean that to the extent I've even met young painters who believed that the value of an artwork or of a book was determined by its market, by who bought it or by its market value, by the money or price that it could fetch on this art market or by its audience, and that they maintained it is metaphysically indeterminate to even consider whether a piece of art has objective aesthetic worth. And this kind of thinking probably takes root in people who are either of small spirit to begin with, or otherwise maybe they are okay people but they have temporary weakness in

their lives and they start to believe this crap. But this kind of thinking couldn't have taken such strong roots without the Clement Greenbergs than those types who followed in the footsteps of the Berenson's before them. And to me, this is just a small case of something much worse. Two things that are in fact much worse, which is, first of all, what I just briefly described to you regarding the art market is a kind of fraud, but it's a kind of species of the big lie, the media big lie. And this kind of big lie was born at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. Not that it didn't exist before in some form, but by the end of the 19th century, the world had already had about 100 years of democracy and of the so-called free press already existing

within the democratic so-called world. And this last principle, the press or mass media, had managed by the end of the 19th century and not before, but by that time it had managed to establish itself to where it could now, together with politicians, spooks, and oligarchs, it could begin actually pushing big lies on society in a coordinated way that had been impossible before. And if you question their coordinated lies, they call you now a conspiracy theorist, which makes you a target of law enforcement. But there are many such big lies in the 20th century, many. And the art story after 1960 or so, that is one big lie that I describe to you. But I believe, to give you just one example, one of the first big lies, if not the first

one of all, was the Dreyfus affair that appears to be the birth of the so-called intellectual. The intellectual being a modern, politically engaged artist or writer who pretends to be somewhat of a intermediary between the philosopher and the people, or an artist who's politically engaged again, who writes in support of a public cause. But I will link later on my account an article, a speculative article for sure, not a mainstream media article, but that presents plenty of very odd events surrounding the Dreyfus affair so that it appears to have been a media psychological warfare engineered by the French deep state to try to discredit the reactionary opponents of the Third Republic. So in other words, the regime of that time in France, the Third Republic, this kind of

democracy allied with mass media and high finance, and the French deep state, the military intelligence organs, it appears from what it looks like that they ran the Dreyfus affair, it was completely contrived by them, and Dreyfus actually never did a day of time in Guyana, but they did this to discredit their nationalist and reactionary opponents, and actually if you read Guy de Montpassant, the novel Bellamy, which I've discussed before, but it's one of the most powerful criticisms of modern mass democracy and modern mass media. This one was written a little bit before, in the 1880s, I think, and it really exposes media operations and modern so-called free press for what they are, the dissemination of the big lie.

So you could say Maupassant, he anticipated this whole criticism of the media big lie that I'm referring to here when I attack the art market fraud and the Dreyfus fraud and And then of course many other fraud. His novel Bellamy is about a handsome officer who's down and out in Paris, he's broke, he's from his Norman background, I think he served in Algeria. He comes to Paris or in North Africa and he ends up rising in the ranks of Parisian high society by seducing a string of wealthy and influential mistresses, some of them married. And while I may discuss the novel some other time, you know, you aficionados of game, Why don't you use your skills to seduce rich women like this? It could be very useful for us. But anyway, this novel is very striking Mishima style before Mishima.

It's a contrast between the virile vitality of this officer and the way he is able to use that power to subvert the so-called power of the world, which is the press, the modern press or what Nietzsche elsewhere, he calls it the false Socrates of the modern world. And that's the bigger point I'm getting to in everything I mentioned so far, is that what we see in all these distortions surrounding art, for example, is the triumph of word over vital image, or of logos, of logocentrism, which is not a reason. Please understand this. This way, Nietzsche in the lecture that I'm referring to, he says this modern Socrates doesn't speak Greek, nor is he reasonable. And he calls this modern Socratism the Jewish press. I'm sorry if this offends you, that's Nietzsche's own words. Imagine that.

He's not what you hear from lefty or liberal or even so-called conservative academics. He had quite unusual opinions that you do not hear about. And what you have here in any case are words, word formulas used as incantations and spells a belief, not in reason, but in empty words and phrases and speech used as weapons. Which speech for the sake of speech, which in practice this womanly reliance on legalistic technicality to try to disingenuously, for example, get around facts that you don't want to admit, or especially it consists in tactics of guilt by taboo association. It's not actual reason, it's a form of weaponry by speech. or the word choppery of the art theories I mentioned, and many other similar critical or academic theories. And this is a morass of word garbage

that the modern world, I'm sorry, inflicts on every intelligent man, a labyrinth, that it makes it almost impossible to escape. It does not want to let you escape this. It's very hard to get out from under it. Other thinkers have tried to get out from under it, And I've tried in whatever way I could somewhat to shock people out from under it with the images that I post, which by the way, even the images they say I post half-naked models. I don't just post them at random, it's very hard to find the particular ones I choose. I choose very carefully. It takes me a long time to find the images that emit the right kind of power and vibes. And then also with the kind of language that I use sometimes, I try the same.

Because I believe in the end of the worship of logocentrism and the end of mere words. And I believe in the eruption and rebirth of vital life again in art and also in politics. And I'll be right back, I'm sorry I did not talk about pleasant things, I will be right back to talk about some pleasant things, things I admire in the visual arts. I would say even literature should work on you by making you forget words and having you understand things in much more direct way that has to do with inborn perception. Yes, art, visual art, actually I'd say literature too, but certainly visual art and music should work on you. I don't want to say by making you feel or just to feel, but certainly not by making you think in the sense of thinking logical sequences of thought.

If by thinking you mean being abstract words or word sequences, something like a crossword puzzle or an algebra equation or a series of if-then propositions, I don't see the point of using art for that. Ultimately, people who use art to do that, to intellectualize, are just using it, they're assisting it, they're looking at it to feel smart, which is to say for status. And this includes, by the way, nearly all women. And on this subject, I think it's good introduction to what art actually is, to look at why women usually as a rule can't really appreciate it. So I don't like to read things out on this show, I don't like to read things that other people write, it's boring to me. But I make exceptions this time, I read some quick passage from Schopenhauer, from his famous essay on women.

I think you will like it, because he say, this is Schopenhauer now Nothing different can be expected of women If it is borne in mind that the most imminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine and original or given the world any kind of work of permanent value This is the most striking in regard to painting the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours. This is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind, which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all.

For natura non facche saltum, that means nature does not make a leap. And Huarte, in his book, which has been famous for 300 years, Hamed de Ingenios, sorry, he cites it in Spanish. It's a book in Spanish, you're not going to look it up anyway, by Huarte. But he says, he contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter. women are and remain taken altogether the most thorough and incurable Philistines, and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands, they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are Philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted."

So Schopenhauer says this, but to really understand what he means by objectivity of mind. By the way, he's completely right. When you hear women whine today about how they're oppressed and they were never allowed access to the arts, they were allowed access to the arts plenty. A housewife could meet with other housewives and they could have a painting club and access to paint and materials. Many of them were quite well off, but they never managed to perfect painting at all. While they did, however, in some cases managed to be good writers. It's rare, but they did manage to do that, which shows it's a different kind of matter when it comes to the visual arts. The women do not have access, really, to the plastic visual arts. Yes, I know you can make exceptions.

That Mexican chick or Georgia or Keith, I think, I don't know, is not my thing. I think it's contrived. Nobody really pays attention to it because it's crap. It's pushed on you. But Schopenhauer, what does he mean when he says objectivity of mind? I'm sorry I have to rely so much on him, but he writes very well and basically I agree with him on the meaning of the visual art, on the meaning of painting. You must understand why he says this. To really understand objectivity of mind, you have to look at what he says about the Dutch painters and in particular the still life paintings for which he had so much admiration. So for example, he say later, he say in his main book now, I'm quoting Schopenhauer, inward disposition, predominance of knowing over willing can bring about this state, it's

a state of objective contemplation he means, in any environment. This is shown by those admirable Dutchmen who directed such purely objective perception to the most insignificant objects and set up a lasting monument to their objectivity and spiritual peace in paintings of still life. The aesthetic beholder does not contemplate this without emotion, for it graphically describes to him the calm, tranquil, will-free frame of mind of the artist which was necessary for contemplating such insignificant things so objectively, considering them so attentively and repeating this perception with such thought. Since the picture invites the beholder to participate in this state, his emotion is often enhanced by the contrast between it and his own restless state of mind, disturbed by vehement willing,

in which he happens to be. In the same spirit, landscape painters, especially Rousdel, have often painted extremely insignificant landscape objects and have thus produced the same effect even more delightfully." So again, I'm sorry I will not quote further from Schopenhauer or other writers in the future, but I wanted to because he expresses it so well. And this passage shows how Schopenhauer's understanding of art in miniature, you should read his entire book for full meaning, but I'm repeating it here because I basically agree with it. In great visual art, in other words, you are able to become... Well, to put in my own words, you can say you go into a kind of a trance. You become transfixed on the object depicted because it captures an idea in nature so well

that when you see it, it overtakes all your perceptive power. You know, there is intellect in direct perception of things without words and without abstraction. This is what I'm saying so that you can grasp an immediate concrete species of the world. For example, his discussion of architecture is very revealing of what I mean because he believes that architecture displays to you the lowest grades or the lowest ideas of nature. That doesn't mean low in the low hierarchical sense but the most basic ideas of nature, the ideas of gravity and weight and of light. But obviously it achieves its effect on beauty on you by displaying these to you intuitively in your perception, not by explaining them in words. So, for example, when Schopenhauer says, such ideas as expressed in architecture

are gravity, cohesion, rigidity, hardness, those universal qualities of stone, those first, simplest, and dullest visibilities of the will, the fundamental base notes of nature, and along with these, light, which is in many ways their opposite, Even at this low stage of the will's objectivity, we see its inner nature revealing itself in discord. For properly speaking, the conflict between gravity and rigidity is the sole aesthetic material of architecture. Its problem is to make this conflict appear with perfect distinctness in many different ways. And it solves this problem by depriving these indestructible forces of the shorter path to their satisfaction and keeping them in suspense through a circuitous path so that the conflict is thus prolonged.

He means, for example, in the arch, this conflict between rigidity and gravity. So I don't want to read the whole thing here, but basically you understand here in a basic way the meaning of all the visual and the plastic art in general. They are meant to display to your understanding, to your inborn understanding, certain fundamental ideas of nature. So, those others like paintings, or you want to look at paintings of animals or of humans, they merely reveal different ideas in nature or different grades of the wills, objectification, as Schopenhauer put it. So that true art will display inner truths of nature in a direct and uncanny way to you. And all this true art then will have this uncanny, unforgotten character, because it will remind you

of the unbegotten forms that form the sinews of the world. This is me saying this now, I'm not going to quote anyone further, but in any case, you see why so many artists love Schopenhauer and so many were inspired by him. It's okay to be inspired by a philosopher or a religious thinker that is quite different than following an art theory as a recipe. Among artists, for example, who were inspired by Schopenhauer or Max Beckmann, who I've talked about briefly before, and who I may discuss later on the show, or Giorgio de Chirico, the founder of the surrealists, but many, many others. You see how a philosopher, unlike a dopey art critic, a philosopher is able to inspire a broad variety of art styles and aims actually to inspire people who even conflict with one another. This is possible.

Whereas an art theory just inspires an art market. A coterie, you could say. Anyway, you know what other artists loved Schopenhauer. This was Hitler, and he carried this book, The World as Will and Representation with him into World War I. Whereas other German soldiers carried Das Spexerasustra by Nietzsche. But Hitler, he carried Schopenhauer, and you know, he was an actual artist, by the way, and potentially an architect, and not a bad one at all. And you should not believe the propaganda about him. And he, like many other artists and aspiring artists, look up to Schopenhauer as a prophet. It's very strange, I will close this segment by pointing out, it's very strange that the fate of Europe mid-century was decided by a seminary student and an art student, a seminary

student being Stalin and an art student being Hitler. This isn't my point, others have said this before, but very interesting that Europe during its age of technocracy, during the so-called managerial revolution, that it would be an art student and a seminary student still who determine the fate of the world and the fate of continents. But anyway, I will try now, this is just introduction to show, to talk perhaps about one or two favorite paintings directly. This painting, Landscape with the Ashes of Phocaeon by Nicolas Poussin, that's P-O-U-S-S-I-N, if you want to look up this painting while I talk, but I will post perhaps this show on YouTube with painting image backdrop so you can see what I'm talking about.

But Poussin was a French painter who lived in Italy, and he is to be praised for this, for his purity. Let me explain to you why. He was a man of Norman origin, and he went to Paris, French, to study, and he was not Not from capital city, he went there as art student and he loved the Italian style so much he went to Italy to study. But what you must understand is that in the 1600s Italy was already past its prime, politically, socially, even in many ways artistically. That's not Italy at its peak. Whereas in the 1600s that is literally France's peak in the world, in world history. Just like you may think of Pericles' Athens as the peak of ancient Greece, I actually think that's Greece already on its way down. The peak of Greece is roughly the period, let's say, 800 B.C. to 600 B.C.

That's really the highest and most vital and mainly time of Greek history. By 500 B.C., things are already maybe on their way down. And for Italy, let's say, my favorite period to live, you can pick anywhere from, let's say even 1300 to 1500 or 1550 AD that is, otherwise BC and is when the Aryans arrived in Italy I think, but anyway you would love to live during that time, I would have liked to live in those places during those times because life was at its peak during those times. But France has a claim to this, to the same, its 1600s at its peak and one of the great eras of human history is France during the 1600s, its great century of great politicians, great successes abroad, genius minds and artists, genius politicians, genius philosophers, many

of you who try to perfect the aphorism style for which Twitter is suited, I have recommended to a few of you to read LaRouche Foucault, one of the greatest aphorism writers of all time who lived also in the 1600s. France at that time was full of such men of strength. And I mean if you read about his life, LaRouche Foucault, if you read about his life too and how exciting it was and you compare it to the lives of modern thinkers, well he actually lived a complete life of high thought and also romance, adventure, the glories of war and revolution. But anyway, why do I say this? It's because Poussin was actually offered I believe the highest post for a painter in Paris at the king's court during this the peak of his nation's history

And he refused it. He couldn't take it. He went he accepted it I think for a short period and then he just returned to Rome Because he wanted to devote himself entirely and only to his painting and to his calm life To his calm provincial life to support his paintings He did not want to get sidetracked with honors, with political life, with intrigue and such in Paris. And that takes amazing single-mindedness, purity of purpose for his art, and I think very few are capable of this. On the other hand, you could say some like La Rushfoucauld maybe don't need it. I don't know. In any case, this painting by Poussin, Landscape with the Ashes of Phocion, composed maybe in strange year 1648. This is landscape painting and it has this quality that Schopenhauer described that I said before

about landscape painting. It's very calming to see in one sense. It puts you in a trance of pure objective contemplation where the objects you see, landscape takes over entirely your perception. But quite aside from the historical content which I don't believe you really have to know to appreciate this painting. But quite aside from that, there is something menacing about it, is why I like it. It reminds you maybe of Giorgio de Chirico's much later eerie landscapes or cityscapes. There's something sinister and menacing in this painting. And you see it, most of all, in the central figure of the woman that's standing in the middle of the painting, with her back turned to you and watching an obvious fear toward the city, she's on the lookout.

And meanwhile, another woman, she is collecting ashes of a man, obviously, and well, it's her husband, so you don't need to know more, actually, than what you see and the title of the painting, but in fact, even if you did not know the title, it would still have the same effect, I say, but even stronger, because you'll be very puzzled by what is this woman doing, what is she collecting there in the middle that the other is keeping a lookout, and why the effect is very disturbing and mysterious. And if you look through the entire painting as a whole, there's a calm and serene quality to it, sure, but I think interpreters who see this only in this painting, they miss the feel of it, they miss the intention when they emphasize Poussin's supposed rationality

and the clear lines in the symmetries and so on. You know, the same things, serene and indifferent stillness, can be said again of de Kirikou's paintings as well. And like those, this painting landscape was the ashes of Phokion. It's haunted. It's full of ghosts haunted by spectral reality. Other world just under this one because you look at this city in the distance in this painting It is right under right beneath the rock face jutting out of brute nature from right behind the city and there are groves of trees all around but you see the darkness of the forest and of nature encroaching everywhere Arcades and arches that are disappearing and mystery out of the frame and behind the trees and the grove of trees Nearest to the widow and her maid just outside the outermost city

Demarcations it looks like just outside the outermost city walls is a very strange dark globe Grove I mean what is going on inside there? It's very Sinister, I remember when I was a small boy unlike the lot of you who have been regimented by your parents I used to go play with my friends or often alone and there were groves of such trees in places where I played and I heard stories. I heard a story about a girl who went there to take a shit in those dark bushes and when she came out she was already schizophrenic. She had lost her mind supposedly because of something she saw there and she came out with gray hair and schizophrenic. This always concerned me and obsessed me. What did she see? And at times I went there looking myself. I believe you're a possible goblin. I don't know.

I'm not sure. Sometimes I found dead bird or other dead animal in such abandoned places in groves of trees. This was in park in middle of city and I used to give these dead animals burial. It was much reverence. And this painting by Poussin reminded me of that. These women, I sorry to use this overused phrase, but they're in this liminal space just outside the city is full of ghosts and demons, monsters, anything can happen but they are engaged in act of kindness and piety, of loyalty, they are collecting the ashes of the woman's husband and if you want the story, the historical background because it is technically a historical painting, you can read The Life of Phocion in Plutarch which I've recommended to you before which I remind you was the reading list of the American founders

And he has a short biography there, Plutarch does, of Phocion. He was a great general and a captain of Athens, a man of extremely upright life and severe a republican virtue during the decadent phase of Athenian history, you could say, in the 300s BC. He was unjustly accused and executed and he actually tried to stop war with Macedon, which the fool and faggot Demosthenes wanted to happen is celebrated by liberal society today, but Phocion is forgotten, but after an illustrious life of leadership, Phocion was unjustly executed by a demagogue-driven mob in a terrible trial, he was burned and his ashes scattered, and it seems at first glance in this painting that here at the forefront is this great injustice

and good people cast out of the city and from afar it looks like life continues just the same in the city. Not only does it continue, but the city in the background looks beautiful from far away, orderly, maybe even happy. So maybe Poussin, you would think he is showing the city or civilization itself as indifferent and beyond individual injustices and actually that it deserves to be beyond these, it deserves to endure, and it's beautiful actually to endure, indifferent to your individual suffering and injustice. I don't know, maybe some have interpreted this painting this way, I heard, but what gets to me isn't just the happiness of the city in this painting, but again the very menacing quality of the darkness of the groves, the stillness of the arches.

It's a haunted scene, and I think you have to see this painting together with another one. by Poussin is called Landscape with Hercules and Cacus. So who is Cacus? Cacus was a cannibal monster, okay? He's cannibal like Idi Amin from Uganda, but worse. Cacus is a monster who lived in mountain in Rome before Rome even existed. The area could not be settled by humans because Cacus lived there. He terrorized and ate the local people, but Hercules found him and killed him and made that site safe for human settlement. He made that site safe for Rome to be built. Like some poet, he says, I forget who, but he says something like, Hercules established the sites to be safe for city to be built. So this is very significant moment that Poussin is showing this painting landscape

with Hercules and Cacos. It allows Rome to be built, Rome, the city, the eternal city, the city, and also Poussin's chosen home. So you should look at these two paintings together, because actually landscape with Hercules and Cacus, it's for some reason quite hard to find a clear photo of this painting online. Why? Why is they scrubbing? What are they trying to hide from you? But you see in that painting with the Hercules, a big rock or mountain, and on top of it is a strong man with club naked, and he has killed a kind of monstrous giant man that he has dragged out of a cave in the middle of the rock face. And below are people, there is no city yet, but there is small group of people, half naked women, and they look in wonder. And others on the water in a boat,

it's very primitive scene before cities. And you could almost think that is this same rock as the rock that rises above the city in the first painting I talked about, in the Fauquion painting. From a strictly historical point of view, of course you would be wrong because the story of Hercules and Cacus is on the site that is to be Rome and is not in Greece like the Phocion painting, but I think someone who did not know the historical settings and saw these two paintings together, he would actually have the key to understanding both of them without knowing anything else because the ghosts of that act of violent foundation, of the cleaning out of monsters, their ghosts continue to linger on the site, to haunt the outskirts of the city in every

way and who knows what you will find in those groves who knows what Phocion's widow remembered as she collected his ashes from previous lifetimes who knows what she remembered but anyway I can't talk too much about this I don't like that Busan he shows these things very directly and intuitively you know not with words so all this spectral activity and even more he knows Kakos existed Poussin shows the demons and monsters of antiquity as having existed in casual indirect way He knows monster exist Buckling another painter a Swiss painter much later Arnold buckling He also show you very frankly and without any kind of zany wonder He show you very matter-of-fact scenes of centaur fighting centaur killing each other buckling paintings are something else

I love sea names getting raped by merman jolly merman and things of this sort and I believe such things existed, Centaur existed, they absolutely existed and I've gotten into physical fight with people who dare to claim they did not exist. Centaur existed, Satir existed. Discuss one other painting to you now and quite brief because I don't want to say too much. The painter Giorgio de Chirico, who lived let's say 1889 through 20th century, He believed he was a reincarnation of spirit of Heraclitus and also of Nietzsche. He believed this spirit transmigrates from body emanation to another and finally in him. And he too followed Schopenhauer in a very general sense in that he believed painting was supposed to reveal something new about the world in dream state.

He did not like for example impressionism or pointillism or such things because he believed It doesn't show the viewer anything substantially new about the world, but only some vague feeling or impression of light and such. And he believed instead that his particular task was to show the metaphysical aspect of the world, in other words, the world that exists imminently behind this one, the madness behind things. A very Lovecraftian idea. And I've asked people for a long time what they feel looking at certain of his paintings, In particular, those of the so-called metaphysical period. He composed paintings, these between, let's say, 1910 and 1920, around that decade. And I believe that at least during this time, the Kirikou was possessed by a high spirit and was inspired with something.

He was trying to make an opening. He was trying for opening. He tried to introduce something to mind, to the extent that some people who were later to become great painters or artists themselves, I forget who exactly, but one of them jumped out of a moving train car when he saw a particular de Chirico painting in a window exhibition, believing that here was the foundation of a new religion and the revelation of a new God. I'm sorry if this offends some of you, but it inspired him to devote his life to painting. Another time, De Chirico had a so-called premonitory painting of Apollinaire that you can look this up, that he composed this painting, and Apollinaire was a poet and a friend of his, and he put a certain something on this painting that looked like a target on the head of a

figure in this painting. This was before World War I, and exactly that spot is where Apollinaire ended up getting shot in the war in the head. And many other such unusual things about Dikirikos paintings, they are alive. Many of them have very old messages of things I'm not allowed to talk about, but you look at one in particular. I talk today, it's called The Soothsayer's Recompense, and it is a painting of an abandoned city plaza of some tropical or Mediterranean city with dark arches and long shadows. In distance you see a train pass by with steam beyond the brick wall, two palm trees of good fortune beyond an arch in afternoon sun. I don't want to describe the painting beyond this. It's very simple, cartoon-like kind of afternoon colors.

There is an unusual reclining statue in the middle of empty plaza. But to tell you, I mean that it reminds you maybe if you pass through industrial part of town on train or on subway when it's outside of tunnel and you pass through desolate side of town, industrial side of town, you wonder what is beyond the wall with abandoned factory or if you've ever spent the night in a construction site that was shut down or maybe forgotten. There are certain parts of the cities now that have been built and rebuilt and there are nooks in them that, in my opinion, make no sense why they exist. I believe these are ritual places. You walk far enough along train tracks, you come to certain giant silo in the middle of afternoon. You see things you're not supposed to see in warehouses, by port area also.

But look, the reason I bring up Dikiriko and this particular painting is that it achieves some things that you don't think of when you think of visual art maybe. It inspires in you a kind of frenzy, but a very particular kind of frenzy, a very particular kind of strong emotion, immediate ecstasy, a kind of ecstatic second sight, strange nostalgia for things you think you remember from a dream. The ecstasy and madness that painting and sculpture can and should inspire in you always has to be mediated by a dream state. This is what I'm saying. If it doesn't draw you into the near hypnotic dream state to begin with, it can't achieve the second purpose. The Kiriko paintings, and for me this one in particular, are important because they're brutal in this sense.

And maybe you're jaded, you're covered over with words and so many, you're obeying sophisticaries that you need to be jolted out of it by this very kind of brutal religious art because that's what the Kiriko's metaphysical paintings are. They hypnotize you, they scrub off word residues, they push you into ecstatic dream state, Apollonian religious condition of trends that precedes a frenzy. This is why I cannot agree with the kind of modern art that seeks to make a statement by being, for example, very shockingly ugly, because it doesn't manage to draw you into a dream state of some kind. It hasn't achieved its purpose. You can't just achieve Dionysian madness or excitement with painting in a direct sense the same way you could, for example, with music. It's a totally different path.

You can't just, for example, represent visual chaos and expect people to feel the idea of chaos. They would just feel unpleasant and turned off. That's all they would feel. They would turn away. It would be the same as if I tried to make you listen to music, but the instruments I use are clothes on chalkboard. Well, you know that there is avant-garde music like that or so-called music, but it's exceptionally easy to be unpleasant. That's not the purpose of art in my opinion, it's hard instead to inspire ecstasy and the ecstasy particular to the visual arts, to painting and sculpture have to first manage to hypnotize and to arrest you into a state of profound calm. This is what I've been saying this whole show.

Now it's true that painting also has other more pedestrian functions also, yes, but ornamental also, but I will insist that this is its pure form, the feeling of dream intoxication and religious devotion, that this is feeling is also in, that you're supposed to have medieval Byzantine icons, that they try to inspire you in this, but you forgot this feeling in different way too is what ancient Greek statues of athletes try to inspire. They try to drive you into ecstatic devotion and to translate state of second sight, statue of the Spear Bearer or the Diadumenos or the statue of Perseus Cellini that I put. I will be right back. Longer show and separate show to talk about this sculpture in my banner photo, very important sculpture, Cellini's Perseus, of Perseus

with Medusa Gorgon head in hand. It represents of course the idea of true manliness and true freedom and besides the physique represented is one of top physiques of all time. You just look at forearms, that's Celtic for you, it's ancient Celtic. But I must devote separate show to that sculpture and I intend also perhaps to talk Palladio, the architect, to two books that I wanted to recommend to aspiring visual artists, one of which is Benvenuto Cellini book, his autobiography, where he recounts wonderful deeds, including I believe the way he avenged his brother's murder by his own hand, and many other wonderful events that happened to him. There is a special event also there with how he built this statue of

the Perseus that is very important. But beyond that, it's very enjoyable to read about exploits of artists and his devotion to a life of sculpture, of power, and of destroying his enemies. It's a tonic for you if you want to become an artist. And the second book I wanted to recommend for you, I have already, but you must read Vasari's The Lives of Imminent Artists. This very good short biographies of great masters of the Renaissance by one of Michelangelo's own students. And you can start, for example, just reading the lives of Donatello and Michelangelo. These are all books long without copyright. You can find them in full online. And you can see, just read those two short biographies, Donatello and Michelangelo, and you see if you like it and you move on from there.

It's not boring art criticism, Vasari, art of the excellent artist, it's mostly historical vignettes and anecdotes about the great artist, much like Diogenes Lertius in Antiquity is a writer, he did his book with very short biographies about the past great philosophers and both these writers display for you images of men who are devoted with single-minded purity to this way of life. In Vasari's case, that of the artist, which can be a very great encouragement to you if you're a painter or a sculptor or an aspiring movie maker, if you want to be at the idea of these things, if you want to embark on art life, and here you would be able to go to a real fountain of life and to forget the fraudulent art world that I mentioned in the first segment.

And of course, the problem is there will be obstacles because the biggest obstacle is It's quite depressing because when you read, for example, just the two lives I recommended, you see what the end of tradition means. It's not just a word. It means that in their time, there was an uninterrupted line from master to student, and that if you devoted yourself to this life, you had other men around you who are to some degree or other just as devoted to these crafts, and you could apprentice and learn from someone who had learned in a direct line from the founders of these crafts there was a kind of manner bond, a society of men built around this ladder of crafts and this society of men devoted to higher calling. Something like this does not exist today, not really.

It would be made illegal in fact. It's mostly been made illegal by government act in America and in much of the world. Why do you think we make illegal? They don't actually care about art or these things, but it's been made illegal because a society that allows this for painters and sculptors allows it probably for others, and a society that has different groups of men devoted to tasks of this kind can no longer be a liberal society of diddlers and intellectuals and fraudsters and other lickspittles of usurers. Those men at that time also they relied on patrons whereas the only patrons that exist now are those funding the hordes of the left and on the right there are only very few billionaires who mostly don't care about achieving anything the way that the Renaissance patrons did.

Or otherwise in earlier frog Twitter days I could have named for you two or three at least probably more but two or three who could have become great video visual artists, satirists of the highest order, Cher, you know, Cher was one of them, his name was Cher, N-word in Cher, you know. I don't know, am I under FCC rules here? But they were given no support, they were hounded off the internet, so then they took an army job, and quite a good job actually from what I hear of it, but you know there is no such thing as libertarian heaven, and in the end this is how people who could have produced great humor and great cultural So products end up not being able to do it. But most of all, when I talk to you in book and elsewhere about the need to form powerful

groups with your friends and to embark on the path of power, you see what I mean. Because before there can be artistic and literary and philosophical societies of any reality, they're actually not allowed to exist now, you see, except only as parodies of these things. Because if they were allowed to exist, they would turn into something else. They would turn also necessarily into political societies. But before there can be any of this, there need to be the original, the real fraternities, the fraternities of piracy and power that retake control or sovereignty in these societies away from the hidden hands that rule them. And that has to be done first before there can be the re-establishment of any traditions

that are lasting and that mean anything worthwhile, that are devoted to any other higher calling. Otherwise you're on your own, which is fine for some, but there will be no tradition established, no lasting garden within the bowels of this beast, because it's always going to be trampled by the beige squadrons of the obese and the deformed. If they could, they would literally burn down the Louvre, all the art in all the museums. But this is what I mean. True art needs now to be protected. It needs physical protect.