Nader Jandar Padar Saik That's it. That's all I know to say in Persian. It means, first thing means your mother is a whore. And the second one means your father is a dog. Padar Saik. Apparently the worst insults in that language. And this first thing I bothered to learn in any language. It's the insults. So now do I have to talk to you about this Iran bit problem, I don't know. Why, why should I have to talk about? Everyone suddenly a Middle East expert. Your opinion matters. No, it does not matter, not usually. Everyone is expected to say something. Oh, I am here too, you know? I didn't feel moved at all to talk about this and there won't be any war with Iran, okay? There will be no war.

And people are freaking out, all the cab drivers in the third world now, where I am, I just switched countries. All the people in both these third world countries, they watch the news, they hear radio, all have strong opinions now, but the third world war will definitely happen, okay? They know this. Are you that bored? Why don't you go pray for an asteroid, please, instead? If only Barbarians could purify us. I would hope for this, but I think and I hope some of you are the barbarians I hope for, and I mean that in a good way. I know some of you are. I have said this before it's only kind of nerdoid of white ethnics from Brooklyn who think that the barbarians are the Negroids or the spicoids, but the real barbarians are the middle class and working class combat

combat trained of white men in the military. They are the ones who will pick up the pieces after chaos. So I welcome chaos, but there will be no World War or even war with Iran. You know, I like soldiers and many of my listeners and people who love my book are are soldiers, they're both veterans and active duty. And their feelings on this, I've been asking around, they're very mixed. Some of the younger ones, actually, they are looking forward to war. They want it, you know, because that's why they enlisted, that's why they joined in the first place. Soldiers are not Boy Scouts. They join for adventure, they don't join for high ideals, you know, that's just the myth. Others, the bit older soldiers or the veterans, they know this will be just another gay police adventure.

It's not an adventure, a gay police action. So they're against it. They don't want to fight another desultory police action so that Biden or Kerry can get a lucrative contract to ensure the security of the Israelis or the Saudis, who are people who take and they give nothing back and then other soldiers I know are upset because their comrades were killed by Soleimani and these bastards in IGRC or I don't know how you do it I don't know I'm not good at acronyms but they were killed by Soleimani so they approve of this particular hit but they are very wary of what lies ahead they do not want war either so I'm just telling you what I hear you know I just tell you what I hear from soldiers I wish they would not complain I wish someday when they can that the middle ranks not the top brass

that's been completely homified but the middle ranks the captains and the colonels will just take over America one day and they will give Trump actual dictatorial powers I wish for a five days in me scenario you know this old movie five days in May but this time where the military wins, where reasonable people take over and they arrest hundreds of ringleaders. You know I wouldn't be a Stalin, I wouldn't be even a Pinochet, I would just say 300 to 400 arrested, all legally of course and this what Trump I hope will do in second term just arrest 300 to 400. I can give him list of names if he wants and then Trump who is installed as autocrator. I dream of running my own Ancient Problems Research Institute attached to the White House

with my own archaeological team and a paramilitary team also. And in that case the Egyptians, they would no longer be allowed to hide the DNA results from Ramses and others like they still do now. And the Greeks, of course, the Greekoids must stop hiding mycenae and other DNA study results. They're hiding them, they put them in, they hide them in toilet, they try to flush them down the toilet, ancient bones, they try to hide them in closets because they don't want you to know what the mycenae grave circle test results will show. In any case, I will be right back to tell you on this show, in this show I have actually some sorts mostly on politics on Iran on politics in America and a little bit on the Zoroastrianism and I will have to delay longer talk of Qatarism and of

dualism and of also Venice history to next show and some other interesting topics my show getting too long sometimes sometimes people say I will run out of topics but now is the opposite I have too many things to talk about, but I tell you on this show right now the only solution for America is to completely leave the Middle East, to disengage, to abandon, to leave immediately. There is nothing to win there. Be right back. You know that America has five times more investment in tiny Belgium than in all of one billion big India, or it used to be this way a few years ago, but look there's a The reason why America has interest in a West Europe, where it's still roughly same ratios I just told you, in Europe and in part of East Asia, in particular Japan and such, which

by the way, Japan is technically smaller economy is in China right now, but you know, many things that you think are important from China, they're actually finished in Japan, or at At least it used to be this way before, the highly elaborated electronic devices. China does not do that so much, so Japan actually has much bigger economies than it appears. But this is where America's interests lie, of West Europe, and not so much in goat-fucking-sotadic zone of the Middle East. My priorities are different anyway. America has enormous domestic problems, and Trump, he got elected for this. So I'm not so much concerned with whether a move abroad is right or wrong. So merely to emphasize foreign matters, to adopt the imperial frame and to talk about

these things, to make this your chief concern is a mistake. As my friend the bureaucrat says, I agree with this. To argue, for example, Kazu's belly, whether it's a just war or whether this attack was justified, who cares for this wankery? Your opinion matters. Please choose from the menu. Do you denounce? No. Please. Stop this. This is why I don't talk about this. Fundamentally, I believe in a total disengagement, especially from that area, the Middle East, the Negro East. Total disengagement from the Middle East, extension of Africa, is what I've wanted a long time. And I follow Luttwak, Edward Luttwak, in this. I will mention him in a moment. But there is nothing to gain in that area of the world, especially now that America is self-sufficient in oil.

They say if you move out, well, the Russians or Chinese will move in. Suddenly everybody, geopolitician playing chess, okay, so let them move in. Let them bleed. That area has no solutions. There is no victory there. This Edward Luttwak line, I agree with it, that nothing works there, neither carrot nor stick. Russia, for example, during the Cold War, tried to be nice and failed. It was rejected. He said it prompted a paranoid rejection by the Arabs. They don't want you to be nice to them. That doesn't work either. And then others tried to bully them and to bomb them and that doesn't work either. And they failed, not because the locals are so tough, but quite the opposite, there is nothing to be done there that would justify the cost of occupation,

which for a democracy must always be very great the cost of that in all ways. That whole area from Morocco to India, it hears minus the oil, okay, but it has less economic output than one Finnish corporation, the Nokia company. Again, this is Ludwig Klein, so it was true when he said it a few years ago. So I think Nokia has come down quite a bit since then, but you get the idea, it's still the same, just pick some other company, not even very big company. More books were translated into Spanish in 2006, I think, than have ever been translated into Arabic. One middling Italian university like Turin, he says, has a more intellectual output than that billion mass of people, which is, by the way, and I'm not saying this following

to be anti-racist, you know me, but unlike others in our sphere, or in the burger-right sphere, I have nothing much against the Arab people. I don't have anything against them, in fact, I admire their ancient warrior culture, I admire their warrior religion, they're actually not good fighters, but they still have the ethos of warriors, and I admire some of their bloodlines of their nobility that stretch back to antiquity. I admire their extreme laziness which I share and let me tell you about my immense laziness another show maybe but I also I admire their courtliness and the love of flowery rhetoric but their civilization which was always a middleman civilization even in antiquity they carried the trade between Orient and Rome but this civilization has nothing to offer the modern world.

They're impoverished, they're backward, and they can be safely ignored. Iran is not Arab, but it's also a basket case. Lutvak makes fun of them, says they're very good at designing electronic donkey saddles. If you go to Isfahan or these cities, they have very sophisticated saddles with flashing lights and electronic, maybe USB port on them, but they don't do much else good. I do not trust them when people say that they're good at nanotechnology or nuclear technology. I don't believe that. Just leave them be. They are not a threat unless you're dumb enough to get booby-trapped in their mountainous country. By the way, speaking of Ludwig, you should watch his interviews and his talks on YouTube if they have been scrubbed too.

He has a few interviews on this show called Conversations with History and these are worth He has also other speeches. He is an entertaining talker with bravado Italian middle european charm Mixture of the two but just ignore as a depressing academic sitting on this show Conversations with history and the nerd alloyed who's questioning him if you get past those Edward look back himself is a pleasure to watch but you can learn a lot from him and Also from some of his book read all his also his books coup d'etat and on the grand strategy of a Byzantine Empire and his book on China and another book on I think a grand strategy of a Soviet Union if you want it's a bit technical but you get a good education from an erudite man and he

follows it's a kind of realism in foreign policy so it's a cure to neocon idiocy and to Samantha Power idiocy but as he explains it's not big R realism It's not a formal school or ideology. He follows things where they may lead, he does not follow ideology. But anyway, he advocates for this near total disengagement from the Middle East. He actually does say that you should strike people if they threaten you, but do not get involved beyond that. And I hope this is all that Trump plans to do, to keep it to surgical violence strikes and not get anything more, do not start war there. But because it's a place with no solutions and no gifts for others either. That oil, and I'm not talking loot right now, this is me, that oil should have never been

given to the Arabs by the way, who still do not have the technology to drill and to refine it themselves. They rely on Western engineers and such. What an absurd piece of cuckery on the Anglo's part to give that oil to the pea-stained Gulf sodomites. But now that you've given it to them, there's not much that can be done. A girl sodomite man, he looked a bit like Borat, you could say, but a girl sodomite man, he once tried to put his hand on my thigh in the open air in a market, an Arab man touches you. That's a good screen name for any of you who want it. He tried to tell me about the customs of his land and how all of his friends, they all that gave for pay as adolescents and he told me he couldn't because he was too

ugly oh my god I called the ADL immediately on him yes now I engaged in extreme violence on him I told him I will use violence on him but where was I so yes you know the I knew general William Odom is this doxable info if I see it I don't think so because he knew a lot of people but William Odom told me something similar. He said the retard-lying neo-con rats who made comparisons as a matter of course between Hitler and Saddam and leading up to the Iraq war. This is very absurd because Hitler was leading one of the major industrial powers of the time, maybe the major one of all in some sense at the time in the 1920s and the 1930s. These are pipsqueak countries now they're talking of Iraq, Iran, Syria, no economic powers, they pose a danger and a threat to no one.

Now they're trying to say that Iran is this grand strategy power that's taking over the region and its civilizational, existential threat, it's crap and it's the latest iteration of Hitler for this in the burglar imagination. If you're interested in this, look into Michael Ledeen, L-E-D-E-E-N. He's been pushing this Islamofascism Iran line for a long time. You know, you can bullshit people quite a bit when it comes to talking about ideology, which is why I avoid ideology and I tell you to also, because this is the kind of thing it leads to, this craziness. It doesn't matter what Iran is, Iran is weak like Iraq was, like Syria is, and the only threat it poses is a regional threat to certain nation that believes it has a right to exist.

Which of course, when you say, oh I have a right to exist as a nation, it sounds reasonable. They say, oh what do you mean, you're saying it doesn't have a right to exist, you're saying you want to exterminate it? No, that's not what people are saying. This thing about having a right to exist, until you think it through and you realize that once you grant a nation a supposed right to exist, it means other nations have to provide this right to exist. It has to provide its security. It's the kind of thing a loud-mouthed, effeminate murderoid says, a whiner, of course. So, well, I don't want to talk about this, but that particular nation should be reminded that Khrushchev came to the United States and elsewhere. Khrushchev threatened to wipe out America off the map

at the UN, and it's up to a country to defend itself and to provide for its own security. A nation exists if it is able to, and a nation that's not a whining, effeminate basketcase does not complain about this eliminationist rhetoric that places like the Soviet Union even engage in. It doesn't mean anything. The world, however, does not owe any other country a security guarantee for its existence. And in fact, in this particular case, the only justification I can say for Israel's existence is that it might be, as the Arabs in the third world claim it is, it might be an outpost of the West and a forward defender of it, okay? The little Satan to America's great Satan. That's what Iran claims, right? So let Israel be that.

If it's the West's crusader proxy, it should be able to take care of itself. And it should be able to take care of Hezbollah and Iran on its own. That's why it's there. Otherwise, it's totally useless to America. What is all this military funding for? But anyway, you know, the Soleimani hit, this hit on mob hit on the Soleimani guy everybody's talking about. It's neither here nor there. It's hard for me to be for it or against it as a move. Because many of you, let me put it this way, many of you think the neo-cons and others in deep state that they're trying to get Trump into a war with Iran, which would be a disaster if he would lose the election if he did that. But I think you're missing something. I think that was in fact an intermediate, there was an intermediate step.

It was not their plan to get Trump in a war. Their plan was to get Trump to look like Carter. It was not the neocon or derp state plan to get Trump into a war there. Jimmy Carter had the Iran embassy problem with the hostages, and he lost to Reagan because of this. Because in fact, as it happens to be, I think it's been accepted now, but it was a few people convinced Iran not to release those hostages that they were holding at the embassy, so that Carter would lose the election. And those people are the same ones, by the way, some of them involved in the Russia hoax. So Derp State, you see, they were trying to engineer an Iran embassy, 1975-79 situation on Trump, where the same thing would happen with the Baghdad embassy now.

People would be taken hostage, and Trump would be embarrassed, he would not be able to get them out. Not out of the question that they even coordinated this embassy breach with Soleimani, because he did work with the CIA before, for example, in the Battle of Herat against the Taliban, which the Iranians also hated. So Herat, by the way, is an ancient Persian city. It's now in Afghanistan, but I think it was one of these cities that was totally wiped out by the Mongols, if I'm not wrong. But that's just speculation. You don't have to accept that. But it's without question in my mind that they were trying to back Trump into a Jimmy Carter situation, where Iran would keep those hostages in Baghdad embassy until after the election, which Trump would lose if he allowed this to go on.

He would completely lose that, no question about it. He would completely lose the election. And it would be also the biggest and gayest neocon teaching moment, okay, to provide their worst teaching moment that they could hope for, where they could say, you see boys and girls, this is what happens when you let isolationism, isolationism left or right, you get Carter or Trump and America has humiliated a bride. See this is what they would say to you, not only would Trump lose them, but any sensible foreign policy for the future would be discredited, at least for a while, because in their minds And they would have provided this example to America that quote-unquote isolationism doesn't work. Of course Trump did not run as isolationist. This is simply what they smear him as.

I saw a tweet from Maggie Haberman saying, well, Trump was saying he would bomb ISIS and he was also saying he would pull out of the area. And so this is according to Maggie Haberman now, she was saying, well, he ran both as an isolationist and as an anti-isolationist. This shows their lack of imagination. You have to choose something on their menu, on their scale, and of course Trump wasn't either of these things. I just hope he doesn't get embroiled in the war, but in that sense I think Trump did what he had to do to stop a Carter situation. So I can't blame him for doing that, but that begs the question of why he got himself in this terrible choice in the first place, because in the bigger sense, this situation where Trump is now is the end result of a cycle of tit-for-tat reprisals.

And I don't know who started it or that it even matters. And it may even be that some of the prior attacks, for example, on Shiite or Iranian militias were carried out without Trump's orders. And by the way, I think a lot of that happens in Trump administration. happen that he does not order, or he orders things and they don't happen, and he cannot admit that, in part because he is too proud to admit that, in part it's ego, and in the other part because, well, what good would that do? He would just look weak. And of course that would be a sort of teachable moment for the American people to understand that the presidency has been captive, but I'm not sure that it would be worthwhile. I think Trump has his reasons why he doesn't want to admit that the presidency is essentially

a figurehead position with some powers that it can only exercise sporadically and unexpectedly. Like maybe he did in this Soleimani thing. I do not believe this is the doing of others. I think this is Trump's doing to try to extricate himself from a terrible position that he was put in by derp state. But you see, this is my concern that just by being there, Trump is caught in a cycle of events that are the making of our enemies, and I mean in this case the dirt state. So this is why I favor only complete disengagement. And I agree with my friend the bureaucrat, who says this entire frame of thinking where we get into arguments about whether this or that particular foreign move or attack is right or not. That's what I mean. This is not my priority. I'm just against this entire

way of thinking where I'm supposed to take sides on this. We need the wall. We need to see the settlers in jail, at least. We need to see more deportations, reindustrialization, and so forth. And in the end, your enemies are the people who lost California to America, which used to be California, the most prosperous province of this country, and now it is lost and your enemies are the people responsible for that, they are not the Iranian donkey saddle manufacturers, they are not even the Chinese, sorry if this offends by the way my Persian friends, I do have some Persian friends, I love the Persian people, and that's the other thing by the way, I do not want to see a war with the beautiful Persian people, They're a handsome Aryan people with beautiful cat-like womans

I like their history and their culture and I was learning their language for a bit actually So let me talk about them next. I need a break now for heavily sugared strong coffee But no, I don't think there will be a war anyway. Be right back. Let me say now about Trump, you know, I don't often talk politic This is a not political show, but sometimes I must talk about this I think Trump will win 2020 elections. There is no way right now he will not win, given who the Democrats are running, unless he does something idiotic like start Middle East war or grant some sort of amnesty or something like this. But barring that, he will win and in fact their candidates are so bad that he could win even with that kind of a disaster decision.

So I wonder why the never-Trumpers don't run somebody like Mattis, you know, the general, the so-called Marine General, the role-player, the cat boy to the Theranos robot girl. They could peel off some of the Ned Flanders suburban Republican burger votes that way. I think they might do that, actually. They might run Mattis or some other general, but aside from things like that or a terrible decision, Trump will win even in the case of economic recession and even though I felt for example that if he doesn't build the wall he will lose or he will deserve to in any case but the people the Dems are running are so demented that he could very well win even without the wall, okay? I mean if you're going to run about big boot gig, I think even without the wall and with

the economic recession, Trump would win against him, okay? And of course I know people on all sides right now who disagree on how much of the wall is in fact being built. That's another subject, I don't want to approach it yet, but I think Trump will surely build the wall during 2020, and I've always thought that he was saving it for 2020 as an election year show, but I think he wins 2020 because the only non-crazy the Dems have is Biden, who I'm not sure will be the nominee, by the way. But Biden, you see, he's tainted by Obama. And I want to say a word about that. Forgive me if I repeat myself, but I think people on both sides misunderstand why Obama was elected, and this is relevant to Biden's prospects, should he be the nominee. I think Obama was elected

because of the upper Midwest white vote. I think that's clear. The people that he then slandered in West Pennsylvania as bitter clingers and such, but they are the ones who voted him in both times, not college professors, not even so much the urban vote. But I think he even misunderstood that. And the reason they voted for him, the reason the Midwestern white working and middle class, working class voted for him was because he seemed the first time in 2008 to be like Trump. People did not really care about the leftist things and McCain was very bad in any case at educating people about that. He did not attack Obama on those grounds. Or the people who knew about it, they tried to look the other way because he appeared to be the guy who'd stopped the war and who would punish Wall Street.

And that's really the thing, that's really it. They said, this is a black guy, he's an outsider, he's an outside black guy, he hates the man, he hates the Wall Street guys, he's not a racist lunatic like Farrakhan, he's not that kind of black guy, he's not a clown like Jesse Jackson. So we can vote for this outside sort of normal black guy who will attack Wall Street for us. So we're going to vote this sort of orphan black guy he'll take it to Wall Street, he'll stop the war, he can't be any worse than John Caine on immigration, they figured. So let's see, they said. So of course they got none of that. They got immigration disaster in his second term, they got race insanity, he turned out to be a horrible racial demagogue, he's married to some tranny.

And then in 2012, in 2012, you know, they were faced with Romney. This is before Obama went totally haywire in his second term with Ferguson and all of this. But in 2012, somewhat before that, they were faced with Romney. From this point of view I'm talking about here was one of the worst choices Republicans could have made, right? He's literally the guy who raised your father's pension from central casting, you know. But Obama was just, he just completely choked on the main task that he got elected for. So either that or some like sailors say he was a CIA doofus, a lazy guy who just let his henchmen run everything. So this is why derp state, they want low IQ robots like Rubio, or they want senile compromised people.

They always choose frontmen like this, whether it's in political positions or political movements. Let me not get into that now, what they're trying to do. I'll leave that for another time. But so the people who elected Obama for this purpose, and who got so upset by his betrayal, they turn to Trump, I don't think they will go for Biden, who to them represents Obama's disaster years, where he rescheduled fentanyl so that China could flood that whole area. You think they don't remember that and Biden associated with that? Don't get me on this fentanyl thing. You know, you think about a 19-year-old or 20-year-old who's found by his mother passed out dead in her bathroom, and the heartache that causes and multiplies that by so many

times to see the disaster that was inflicted on America, in large part deliberately by these people who flooded with fentanyl. So forgive me if I'm not very concerned with Iran and your delusions of playing on a chessboard and that you're Metternich, or you're playing the great game, please stop the role-playing. You see the disaster inflicted on your country. Find the people responsible for that. And speaking of which, not that he's responsible for anything, he's just a salesman and a talking mouse, if a particularly depraved one. But you take somebody like Bill Kristol, so he goes in front of the world, he's caught on camera saying the white working class is decadent, And this guy who is... Bill Kristol is the picture for a regression to the mean.

His father, Irving Kristol, is sort of smart. Bill Kristol has Obama's pedestrian intelligence. He's actually a moron, okay? And he's a legacy case and he attacks other people in a white working class, some of who work two or three jobs, low-paid. He calls them decadent, a guy who never worked for any job. So, if things are so bad with opiates and despair, he says in this video, that the white working class needs to be replaced, this is his conclusion, if things are so bad that they need to be replaced because to him this is what America means. He claims that you bring in fresh people to replace a decadent or complacent class. This is his words. So you have to wonder about what kind of person abandons a class that may be in trouble in his country, a class of people.

Take a step back and ask yourself if a Japanese guy, wouldn't that be odd if a Japanese talking head, I don't know, do they even have that, these blowhards in Japan talking heads on TV who went on camera say that they have their own problems with drugs by the way before in Japan. You actually had people passing out, I heard, on Tokyo streets. And imagine if one of their Japanese pundit, if they had such a thing, if they went on TV in Japan, they said, yes, our working class people are decadent, they are dying and we should replace them, we should not help them. What would that sound like? And if that guy came from, let's say, an immigrant family to Japan, would the Japanese tolerate this? Doesn't the comparison show you what crystal is, beyond the words, beyond the fake language

about ideals? How are people with this attitude that I just spoke about arguably American? How is this American? Just compared to the case of Japan, would you call that guy Japanese in any appreciable way? I mean, how stupid are you that you fall for word salad about ideals? How sheep-like is the middle-educated American that they fall for these kinds of ideological bullshit? I don't know. These guys are telling you, we want a class of people native to this country dead. So anyway, you see, given this craziness that's exploded on the never-Trump side, which of course everything I've just talked about includes the entire woke left. I mean, they don't even hide this as Crystal does now. He sort of tried to retract that, but everyone on the woke left, they think this is a great thing.

What I've just said, they're running on this. AOC is running on this. The Democrat Party cannot escape this direction of things where they're talking about glorying and the death of people. So I mean Jim Webb, look up Jim Webb. Some of you don't remember him from the first election, but he's somebody on the Democrat side who could run against Trump now in 2020, and he could maybe win, okay? It's not hard. He could win against Trump, but they can never do that anymore. They cannot run Jim Webb, and Biden is not Jim Webb. Biden is tainted by Obama's years of disaster, not to speak of the fact that his eyes and his teeth and his mind are falling out of his head. His body is falling apart because their blood shipments from Acapulco are drying out.

Trump did cut their meat shipments from south of the border, you know, that's why they're a bit upset at him. So the polls, if you want me to mention, I just saw the Harvard-Harris polls that, you know, Trump was supposed, this is not from the poll, but this is from mainstream pundit knowledge that Trump destroyed Republicans in suburbs. But this Harvard-Harris poll that just came out, it doesn't show that at all. It shows both the Republicans and Democrats, they lost somewhat in the suburbs to people who identify as independent, but they both lost equally and not that much to that. But otherwise, in the lean Republican, lean Democrat breakdown, Trump years haven't really changed anything. So it's even in the suburbs between Democrats and Republicans.

It's just that in the cities, the cities have become more solidly Democrat, while the rural area is more solidly Republican. And of course someone would say, well, okay, the suburbs have stayed even in the number of Republicans who identify that way in suburbs, but Trump will lose the college-educated suburban Republicans. Even though they identify as such, they will not vote for Trump, this would be the argument. But I don't think so. In 2016, it's true he did very bad with this group, relatively speaking. But the big reason, I'm telling you, a big reason is they thought, this kind of people thought that he was a crazy, and that he was a crazy liar, he would start a war. In particular, that was their concern.

I know he ran as anti-war candidate, but I talked to many people in this kind of profile, including even veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, who they did not like Trump because they fell into this genteel class of college Republicans, okay? And when I told this guy, well, Trump is the only anti-war candidate, why don't you support him? He was a veteran, veterans don't like stupid wars. He said, well, I don't believe anything Trump says. He says he acts nuts and he will start a war and this was the belief. And I found people actually all over the world in that kind of demographic profile, the sort of college-educated, I don't want to say cuck, but the college-educated guy who reads economists or reads newspapers, watches TV, they all believed Trump would start a war.

And a big one, I mean, they thought he would start a war. But Trump so far has proven to be the opposite of that. So he proved himself to these people. So I mean to say he did not fulfill the fears of the college suburban gop Ned Flanders-type. And I think this time they'll turn out to vote for him as they would for any other GOP president. They just won't necessarily tell other people they're doing so. But again, the Harvard-Harris poll came out. They show Republicans in suburbs they stay Republican. But for Trump to win this group, he must absolutely avoid starting another stupid war, which in the case of Iran, America would take huge casualties in case of a ground invasion of Iran. It's not Iraq. Everyone I've spoken to in the military thinks America might lose 10,000 soldiers

in the initial invasion. But look, he'll win. Trump will win. gives a crap about 70,000 mere vote margin in the upper Midwest. This is what gets repeated, they say only margin of 70,000 votes, yes. But the win in 2016 was actually massive when you look at it. It was 10 points up in Ohio, 10 points up in Iowa. These are states that other Republicans have always struggled to win. And the reason he won the other Midwestern states is because it bleeds over from Ohio. It's not just, it doesn't stop at Ohio border. He was very close also in Minnesota, which I think actually he will win this time. I would argue actually that even last time he won Nevada and New Hampshire and Minnesota, but for voter fraud, which I hope he's trying to do something about this time,

but don't believe the black pill about demographics. Not everything is a function of race and of demographic change in this direction. We saw that in 2016 where a small change in rural turnout and a big drop in urban turnout, that's what determined and who will the blacks get excited to vote for this time anyway, by the way, who will they do it? I think not even Biden, okay? But those two small knobs that I just mentioned, they were turned and the polls were all wrong because of those two small changes. the small change in rural turnout and the big change in urban turnout, anything can happen in that sense and demographics does not purely determine that. In any case, enough of this wonkery, I don't know, we will see. For now, back a little bit to Persia, next segment of show.

The Persian people, I like their language, I was learning it for a while. Did you know Persian became the universal language, a little bit like Latin, of the entire Middle East, meaning the whole area between, let's say, east of Anatolia and China. You know, it was spoken in Central Asia by elites. The Armenians have many strong ties to Iranian culture, and it was the language in which Indian princes, for example, they corresponded with each other in Persian, which is why the earliest manuals of the British East India Company, they instruct their agents to learn Persian to learn to write in Persians but the Persians in their beginnings how did they come about on the world stage let me talk just moment about this the

Medes they were called the Medes they appear maybe let's say around the year 1000 BC a little bit after and they were the first really to make full use of cavalry before then there was a brief incursion by another step people called the Cimmerians, not Sumerians, but C-I-M-M, but cavalry was not really used before then, it was chariots. And that's a whole other topic. In fact, why don't I do the next show, at least the first half of the next show just on this, the development of cavalry warfare and before then the meaning of chariot warfare And how these happened because you didn't really have the cavalry, meaning horse-riding warfare before 1000 BC.

And people who study Indo-European history, they don't know this, they forget this, they never knew this, they don't know military history at all. They make ridiculous claims about horse riders at 2500 BC and such, which didn't exist at the time, not in any militarily significant sense. It was chariots back then, but in any case, so the cavalry as a tool of warfare appears around 1000 BC, and the Medes are the first to build an empire on the back of that. In fact, that's why they built this first huge empire. There were other Middle Eastern empires before then, but nothing like what the Medes built, nothing of that size. They were the first, which is why they struck terror in the world when they first appeared.

They built quickly this huge empire because for a long time, no one could withstand a cavalry charge. A cavalry charge, I'm not going to say it's easy to stop it, but there is a straightforward way to stop it. If you hold your ground and you point big spikes at the horses, horses will not run into a wall of pikes, okay? But it takes a bit for people to get to that point, to know to do that. And even if you know that that's true, it's one thing to know it intellectually, it's another thing to believe it and to really know it because it's hard to hold your ground when you have a cavalry charge coming at you, it's psychologically devastating. Just imagine it. It makes me think, by the way, of people who read artiste and read, let's say, game knowledge

about women and intellectually know the nature of women from reading artiste or Schopenhauer, But end up being weak with women in any case in their actual private lives because it's one thing to know things, it's another thing to believe, to really know them and to put them in practice. But in any case, a cavalry charge, a wall of horses coming at you with big strong men on them, it's psychologically devastating. Just think about it. So for a long time nobody could stand against the Medes and their cavalry. They were seen as God's wrath on the world. This is how they came on the world stage. So in fact, all of Central Asia and much of the steppes was populated by Iranians, Iranians, people speaking Iranian languages, like the Persians.

That doesn't mean that, for example, all of the Central Asian Iranian, Indo-Iranian people were racially the same as the modern Persians, but they spoke Iranian languages. Scythian and Sarmatian, for example, were dialects of these. Italians were steppe Aryans, essentially, who migrated into the Middle East. And that's a whole thing I'll treat next time, perhaps, the extensive communication and contacts between the steppe and the Near East, which always happened, these contacts between these two areas. Many people who like to pronounce on Indo-European history forget this. In fact, they never knew it. They're ignorant both of Near Eastern and of military history. Razib Kun is like this, you hear me Razib? I'll talk about your ignorance next time.

Razib Kun, he blocked me because he didn't like it when I showed him that he and Gregory Cochrane were amateurs. They talk nonsense, they hit on blogs, they know nothing about the history of this area. Nobody can argue with BAP, you see. But since the Persians, they come in and they make this huge empire and ever since, by the way they have been ruling a multi-ethnic empire, I think modern Iran is at most 50% Persian. They've got Azeris, Turkics, they've got Arabs, Balochis, and others too, but including black, they've got some kind of weird black Iranians, and I don't know if they are sub-Saharans imported from Africa as slaves a long time ago and they maintain some kind of community, But if they're descendants of the ancient Elamites who used to inhabit the north part

of the Gulf of, I was going to say the Gulf of Mexico, but you know, I'm having a kind of tunnel, there are portals everywhere, I mean the Gulf of Persia. The north of it is where the Elamites lived, and the Sumerians said the Elamites are black ants, and I believe that they are the black skin, but they were a Dravidian people. And I think it's possible that some of their descendants continue to live in Iran, in that part or other. But the point is this whole crap you're hearing now about evil Iran, fascist Iran from the burgers, racist Iran, the neocons and the various, there's no nationalists spreading this propaganda. It's people resentful of the Iranians' actual proven ability to hold together a multi-ethnic empire and to build coalitions. They're very good at that.

And I'll go beyond this. What the mullahs, the Shiite mullahs, are doing, and don't get me wrong, I despise by the way this Islamic rule because I believe Iran should be Zoroastrian again, but what the mullahs are doing for a while is quite moderate when you compare it to the expectations and to the claims about what they're doing. Rhetoric is one thing, what they actually do is another. After the Soviet Union fell, for example, it was said that the mullahs would try to do all kinds of things in Central Asia and to spread Iran's influence and power there and into the Caucasus, which historically these two areas, Central Asia and the Caucasus, were areas of Persian influence and rule. But in fact, Iran was not expansionist.

It was very restrained and moderate in those areas when it could have tried to do much more. listen to the rhetoric, but in practice, this regime is concerned with preserving itself. That's its main concern. It's not really quite a revolutionary regime. And within Iran, there is not a revolutionary flavor. It's more like the Soviet bloc in, let's say, the 70s or the 80s, they've entered this kind of Brezhnev phase where they're buying off their middle class with some benefits. And if Iran seeks a nuclear weapon, which I don't know if it has the expertise to get, but if it seeks a nuclear weapon, it's doing this for self-preservation. That is its concern. And you, too, would want a nuclear weapon for self-preservation after seeing what America did to Gaddafi.

Tell me what you would do when you see a guy give up his nuclear program, as Gaddafi did in good faith and then Condi Rice and McCain and others on photograph shaking hands with Gaddafi and then America and NATO murder him in the vilest way. Any nation that wants not to have this happen seeks nukes. It needs nukes now for self-protection and this is why Iran seeks them, not to drop them on Israel. The ruling class of Iran right now is anything but apocalyptic, quite the opposite. believe the rhetoric about them. This is why I don't think, at least in part, I don't think there will be a war in particular of this because the flowery display of aggressive rhetoric is something quite different and it's designed to mislead and agitate.

You know the closeness between Iran and Russia is another anomaly because historically they've been at each other's throats and they had numerous wars in the 19th century that Iran lost, they were competing over parts of the Caucasus that Russia actually seized from Iran, places like Azerbaijan, and areas around the Caspian Sea also. But recently, Iran and Russia have been drawn together in an unnatural alliance, not even an alliance, in a natural kind of partnership, but they've been drawn together only through American hostility. And America used to keep itself strong in the Middle East in the following way, by keeping one foot in Iran, one foot in Saud, and one foot in Israel. That's right, three feet. Get over it.

But the Iran connection was lost in 1979, and then the American ruling class, such as it is, it's now bent over a barrel by the Saudis, and its relationship with Israel is hardly more respectable than that. Let me be polite and leave it at that. So tell me what the upside is for the American people to be involved in that area anymore. Things that are much too distorted at the moment to be rescued. America's traditional way of exerting influence, it's gone, it lost its means. It's drawn Iran into Russia together. Now it's drawn Russia and China together because they're idiots. And I think the best we can hope for is that Trump doesn't start another war. But if he does that much, he will far exceed all the clown show of the last 30 years. They all started wars.

Obama started Libya, he basically started in Syria, I won't get into that. But as for Iran itself, let me change subject now, for Iran itself, the best outcome long term would be the fall of this mullah regime and the return of the Achaemenid Zoroastrian empire destined, destined to rule. This is according to John Bolton, now not me, don't blame it on me, I heard this on a dinner, John Bolton he declared Persian people are destined to rule from Mediterranean to the Indus river. He said the fires of Ahura Mazda will burn in Canaan once again. Yes, John Bolton said this, he's, I don't know how to interpret that, but I want in closing segment to tell you a word about Zoroastrianism, okay? Because no joking, it's a very interesting

religion. I think people misunderstand maybe why Nietzsche chose Zoroaster to be the messenger in his great book, Thus Spake Zarathustra. Because this religion, Zoroastrianism, which by the way, not coincidentally when I talk of Nietzsche, keep this in mind, Zoroastrianism is likely also the root of Judaism and Christianity. I know I'll get killed for saying that. But I think it is. But it is the first religion to effect a transvaluation of values, so to speak. What does that mean? It's the first religion to make a mistake, a certain faithful mistake. What was this mistake? Okay, so Zoroaster was a priest of Mazda, who was the god... Mazda was the god of sedentary farming people. I'm greatly simplifying here.

But these were people, sedentary farmers in, let's say, Iran, North Iran, South Central Asia, they were being terrorized by wild steppe warriors from Andronovo and Sintashta. And these are basically places in South Kazakhstan. And the genetic tests there show R1A haplogroup and a genetic profile very much like that of the ancient Germanics among the Andronovo and Sintashta warrior people. So these were basically ancient Germanic speaking an Iranid language in sort of the steppes of south central Asia. And they were organized like all early Aryan peoples were, in manor buns, these were fraternities of warriors and such. So that you know some, by the way, some historical peoples we know of, for example the Heruli,

the Herules, were supposedly an ancient Germanic tribe that had some dealings with the Romans. And yet they were not a tribe. I believe they were this kind of fraternity of warriors. And I think this is true in the case of many historical peoples who are called peoples, but are nothing of the sort, rather the equivalent of MS-13. So in any case, this is what many of these central, these Iranian central Asian groups, that were essentially, they were nomadic warriors, they were preying on sedentary farmers who lived a little bit to the south, and they worshipped the god Mazda for protection. And even when they were with peoples, they were ruled by an aristocracy such as this. So I'm talking now about the Iranid warriors.

Even when they were actual peoples and not essentially, let's say, a gang, right? But even when they were people with women and children and a tribe such, but even in those cases, they were ruled by an aristocracy such as I described, described, organized along these lines of warrior brotherhoods and many of their cities so called such as Sintashta and Arkaim, they were not step cities so much as they were giant bronze weapon factories. That's what Sintashta was, okay. So in all this I'm summarizing you some of the views of this Russian historian and archaeologist, An ancient historian and archaeologist, very well accomplished, whose name is Ileana Kuzmina, K-U-Z-M-I-N-A, who wrote a big history of the steppe and of the origin of the Indo-Iranids

of the steppe, who were the precursors of them. So they're wolf peoples, okay? Yes, so these warrior groups, they're preying on these sedentary farmers of which Zoroaster was a priest. And this is the thing, this is what I'm getting at. Zoroaster, Zoroastrian, he designed his religion to praise the weakness of the farmer who was being bullied by these steppe warriors. And he designed this religion, Zoroastrianism, to redefine the warrior spirit and the warrior religion of the nomadic martial Aryans as the devil and as evil. That's what Zoroastrianism tries to do, to anatomize cattle raiding and the nomadic warrior lifestyle of the Aryan that was preying upon the sedentary farmers that worshipped Mazda.

And this is ultimately the origin of the dualistic type of religion that I mentioned in the last show. The kind of religion that led also to Manicheanism, to Gnosticism, and later forms of it in Europe including Catharism, which is a direct line of descent from what I'm talking about here. But in the meantime, all of this has been confused by time and has been hidden from Nietzsche, however, he understood it perfectly. He understood the man who made the first inversion of Indo-European life-affirming, noble, aristocratic vision. Violent vision, I'm sorry to tell you, it is a warrior vision and you cannot turn it from that into something else. But Nietzsche understood this in Zoroaster and he understood this inversion and Nietzsche tried to tackle this problem at its root.

So Zoroastrianism today, I mean, is quite a bit different from this. I'm not saying what I've said so far is relevant to the Iran political situation that we're talking about. In fact, I think Iran would do well to return to Zoroastrianism as it's been practiced recently. And I'm not sure if people know, for example, that Iran was over 50% Zoroastrian maybe two or three hundred years ago. That's right. It could still return to that. It still has many Zoroastrian rituals, and of course, it celebrates New Year's Day on March 21, which is very significant. They have this kind of completely Indo-European ritual where even Shiite clerics, they meet in these flowering valleys and they dip these kinds of long lettuce in honey. It's a completely Aryan ritual that they've kept.

But anyway, I will continue this next time. I will do it on Friday. a discussion of ancient cavalry versus charioteer, and of course the subject that I keep delaying, cathartism, I mean, the truth is I'm just afraid to discuss it, I've received death threats over this, and not so much death threats, but threats to be kidnapped, to be tortured by women, there are certain fictions, you see, they don't want me to talk about this, but I will next time, no matter what others say, I will talk to you, cathartism, And of course, the history of Venice, which is not related, but as I keep promising you, but I must delay it again because I am currently being threatened not to discuss these subjects. Please see Stanley Kubrick for more information. Bap out!