I was thinking of making some phone calls. I think it's time to take Caribbean reasons to the next level. Just, you know, some friendly phone calls on air recorded for your edification. For example, I happen to know Evan McMullin's phone number. Don't ask me how I found out. But would it be amusing to call him on air? I could tell him, you know, some people punked some senators pretending to have special information on Trump from Russia. Others did seem to Nikki Haley. They made up a country. She was supposed to be foreign emissary or something like this. These people don't even know basic geography. It would be great fun. The people in government are not the brightest. I don't think I will call McMuffin, however. I don't think I will do this. There is no reason to nobody,

nobody knows or thinks of the guy anymore. He's disappeared. I mean, what kind of astroturf was that, by the way? The CIA in 2016 election running some 40-year-old unmarried, childless Jewish Mormon guy, a gay guy who they try to pry Utah away from Trump. Oh yes, look at McMuffin's family background. He's a Jewish convert to Mormonism who happens to be a homosexual. And then they try to channel it through their salesmen like low IQ Bill Kristol. These people learn this stuff from watching West Wing Show or I don't know, similar TV drama. It's all power fantasies. Bill Kristol was basically losing his shit, crying on air to Mika Brzezinski's show on MSNBC two week before 2016 election. Poor emotion control on these people. But you look at her, look at that cunt, Mika,

Mia Brzezinski, whatever her name is. is another piece of... I mean to try to tell you, turn the deep state intelligentsia into a hereditary thing. This is what they try to do. It hasn't worked out so well for the government class here, to try to turn these peons into a kind of hereditary aristocracy. They're very far from that. I mean, you know, Trump is president. Think about what that They couldn't stop him with all their astroturfing connections and even McMullin Even if he had pried Utah away as the plan was it wouldn't have mattered because it was not a close election Do you think Hillary wouldn't have contested it if it had been a close election, but even so McMuffin Well the Mormons when Utah were not stupid enough to vote for some role-playing Jewish homo Hello, fellow Mormons.

You know, Menaquin On 4, who I keep mentioning and I hope he come back soon, he got, he had to go away because of a meme about McMuffins that went viral, you know, Ann Coulter retweeted him. It went into the thousands where he had a photo of McMuffin in khakis doing the gay dork, you know, on one side and on the other you have an image from a movie, a handsome James Bond type I think was James Kvizel from some movie with a sniper rifle looking dashing and the caption was it was deep state reality versus expectations. A great meme but he got banned for it because Twitter being itself a CA astroturb operation, it protects certain people like McMuffin or like Rick Wilson or I'm guessing Rick Berman or others this other of this smear machine peons or handled by well who knows who handles

these people but I don't know I have to check with my attorney first if making prank calls on air is something that can be done you know I'm careful to check the legal aspects before even though I don't know what they can do to me right I can they come after me in the Islamic Sultanate of Suriname anyway can they come after me I don't know speaking of which Attorneys, I have excellent legal team if I should need it, by the way. And I'm not talking about Mark Randazzo, a porn lawyer. I'm sure he's a nice guy, actually, but... I mean, I have very competent, serious luyeres on my side, who... Brother, if you come after me, I will drop a sledgehammer on you, legally speaking, of course. Legally speaking. I'm talking legally here. Believe me, I have no qualms about being litigious.

I'm not like other alt-light people that you can push around. I have the time. I have the team. You try me, fatsoes! You go ahead and try me. A legal anvil will drop on your head if you try to mess with me. But yes, this show, we talk a few words about Venice, Venice Republic historically, and just some various thoughts also I had from watching recent shows. For example, example, Men in High Castle, you know, it's... I have this in mind. Miniseries, I've talked to you before, why not make a movie or a miniseries about xenophones and a basis? Maybe with Mel Gibson directing, I could write the script for that. I wouldn't give one inch to modern desires or tastes. It would be complete resurrection of ancient barbarism, but no, instead they have more Netflix series

on serial killers in this. I don't know. Look, I like some parts of this show, Men in High Castle on Amazon, and I'll talk about this a little bit. I know also that Gordon Ramsay, the cook, the chef, is doing good work. The English cook trained in French style. He's doing very good work spreading fascism in the world. I wish to work with him in the future. Please go to break. He's a very interesting city, and you know, I don't like just straight historical background is boring to do, so I recommended to you this book before by John Julius Norwich, The History of Venice. It's written like a tale, a movie. It's an amazing type of historical writing to read. He has cinematic imagination much like Runciman or Anthony Bivor, other historians I've recommended. Amazing to

me. People like this have not been called to be consultants for historical shows and movies but then you see something like the Borgias on HBO I think or Cinemax which I thought was a very bad show with overwrought cartoonish dialogue with somebody's imagining of what that history would be like than what it was and then of course Game of Thrones when real history is just as interesting more interesting than this and yet they don't bother to do that also anyway he's a He's a great historian, not an academic, someone who actually enjoys this material, and his son of Duff Cooper, who was himself a historian, a writer, and a politician from a long line of English gentlemen. So you know the best historian and writers are like this.

Essentially he was a travel writer, essentially, and his work is great because he enjoyed it. He enjoyed these places. He didn't just do it for a job. And that's right. say the dilettante makes the best stuff, because as Schopenhauer said, the animus against the dilettante comes from all those busy bees who try to turn ideas and writing and thinking into drudge work. And to them, it's a profession, a mechanized profession, a job. So they wanted to promote disdain and hatred for those who do it for their own diletto, their own delight, the dilettantes. That's why some of the best work of artists are actually their early works, where they did it for their own enjoyment, their diletto. But as time goes on, many of such artists, they end up doing it for their audience instead,

or as a job for money. So it loses that element of pleasure and excitement and delight they had in their first work. Their work suffers. It's something for any writer to be on guard against. I'm not in this to, as soon as this stops being fun for me, I'll have to stop doing it. but people who do it as a job, they see people who do it for enjoyment and delight as their competition, so they try to cast aspersion and disdain on that. But I was before around people who literally, like Nietzsche says, Nietzsche could not understand why a scholar would study Parmenides or Heraclitus or some Greek philosopher and not instead some Turk or whatever. I mean, they had no personal interest in it, no delight. I was around all such people. I never understood them.

I would rather have a job doing and being a bureaucrat somewhere in Dominica or in provincial Mexico stamping papers. It's better than turning life of a mind into a way to make money the way professors do like that. Something mechanized for them. They take no pleasure in it and it doesn't matter to them what they study and of course they're heavily constrained in what they can say because of that. But I don't know, maybe today that would be an improvement if such 19th century mechanized scholarship could exist. Because the study of history has instead been weaponized to sell you communism in its varieties. And Libertardianism is to me another form of communism. But I'll get to this another time. Ideology is completely useless in our time.

If you have to abandon it, it's a feminine, passive-aggressive way to try to manipulate people with words. Nobody believes in ideology. It's a form of faggotry also to self-identify using ideology. There is no such thing as an ideological state or a state based on principles or ideas or justice. So Venice is a good antidote to this way of thinking. It's not my favorite city or anything like this. It's not like I've long been a Venice fanboy. I prefer Florence, which is a city full of crazy Greek-type philosophers and artists, and Florence was a city artistically much more taken with the Greek model, it accordingly exalted the male physique, whereas Venice, it is the woman that dominates its arts and paintings, because Venice was a commercial, materialistic, woman-loving city.

But even being all these things, it shows you that such a republic can be, and indeed must be, a strongly nationalist state. And I'll get to why I'm saying this in a minute, but you know, it's a city that began, as Norwich this historian says, Venice began in fear. The north of Adriatic Sea, that northeast part of Italy where it began, where it is hidden in a lagoon, in a kind of fevered swamp-like lagoon, wetland, an inhospitable place. So why did people start to inhabit it? is because they became to live in terror of the barbarian incursions into Italy, starting maybe in 400s or so, you know, where the Goths and then the vicious wolfish Huns came. They were quite wealthy Roman cities in North Italy and Istria and Illyria, which corresponds roughly present-day Croatia or Albania,

and they got just crushed and pillaged by the diversity hordes of the Germanics invading. Actually, you know, I shouldn't make that joke, I don't like it, Because the Germanics, they actually did invade by force and by their military virtue, whereas of course the modern immigrants, so-called the modern migrants, they're not invading by force, they're being invited by political factions and by oligarchs in the West. So I don't like that joke so much, but in any case, the smarter among the inhabitants of these very wealthy Roman cities that were being pillaged and harassed by Germanic and and other invaders, including the Alans are interesting. The Alans were a kind of Iranid Sarmatian tribe that invaded along with the Vandals. But the smarter among these Roman inhabitants

of these harassed cities, they realized this is a poor area, this northeast Italy, where Venice now is, the lagoon. At the time, it was a poor area, mostly uninhabited, unlikely to be attractive to the invaders. And most of all, it's in this seaside place lagoon, and these people who are coming with these horseback barbarians are coming from inland areas, so they don't know the sea. So we will go on these islands and build settlements there. And the traditional date of foundation of Venice is March 25, I think, sometime in the early 400s. I forget when, but in the beginning, it was only a temporary settlement, mostly. Many refugees, they had in mind to try to return to their cities on the mainland after the danger seemed to have cleared.

And it's interesting because other Roman inhabitants of, let's say, Balkan Peninsula had similar attitude, except they evacuated to the mountains and became shepherds as a result of the Gepids came, and then another wave, the Huns, whatever, the Goths. So each of these wave of invasions would come, and the Roman inhabitants would flee to the mountains, and then the coast is clear, we'll return to our cities. But eventually, that became no longer possible. So the Roman inhabitants of the Balkans, they became shepherds sort of living in the mountain ranges and moving in between them. And the Romans living in Illyria and various parts of Italy and North Italy, they evacuated to the islands of the Venetian lagoon. And one of these cities included Aquileia,

A famous Roman city, a huge, rich city which is a bishopric, I believe, founded by Saint Mark himself. So it was a very important city in Christendom, I think, second only to Rome. And many other important cities of Roman Empire also evacuated part of them to Venetian Lagoon. And over time, these people realized the waves of barbarians just kept coming. The Goths, the Huns, the Western Empire actually ended, so you had Theodoric, the Ostrogoths, the Eastern Goths, set up a Germanic kingdom there in Italy, and then the Byzantines re-invaded Italy. So, you know, actually the Byzantines, of course, they were just the Eastern Roman Empire, and they called themselves Roman, not Byzantine. In fact, if you called the Byzantine Emperor Greek, that was seen as a major leismagistae,

a major insult because you were insulting his ecumenical and world-ruling character. So if a diplomat even late after the year 1000 AD, let's say, was stupid enough to refer the Byzantine emperor as just the king of the Greeks, he got thrown in a dungeon. But I call them Byzantines because you know them that way, so they retook Italy under Justinian and so on, and these waves and waves of instability and war and lack of peace on the mainland, it made more and more Roman refugees trickle into the islands for safety – into the lagoon – and it was not really a unified city in the proper sense until quite late. I say in moment, but even without complete political unity and political self-consciousness, they still somewhat understood themselves as the islanders, as peoples of the sea.

So that very early, during Theodoric's reign, the advisors to Theodoric, the Ostrogoths who was ruling Italy, they referred to them as a concrete people or association of communities that live by trade and who know the sea well, who sell fish and salt. You know, salt was their great source of wealth, their gold at the time. And who had to be treated with great respect because they were always more or less independent. And so no matter who took over in Rome, or whether there was a central anarchy, things always stayed more or less quiet on the islands of the lagoon, which was, you know, even to Italians it wasn't navigable, because this lagoon is very shallow at times, it's treacherous, so it was like a maze that you had to know all its quirks to actually access the islands.

But despite the different villages, the different villages and lagoons, they having at times a temporary character, and despite the fact that they were squabbling amongst themselves, they still had a kind of self-consciousness very early. And the Venetian ships, they were already a mainstay of Italian commerce. You could see them anywhere in Italy, even in the 500s and the 600s. And it reminds me of fools who claim that nationality is a modern invention. And like the Foucault people, they claim, for example, that homosexuals were invented by the modern medical establishment and did not exist before the 19th century is completely false. These are people who take a quarter truth and who make it into a big brain idea to showcase

themselves, much like the academics I despise or briefly discussed earlier, who try to turn ideas into a career and into a job, into drudgery. It's completely bleak. Again, I have more respect for somebody who turns themselves into a bureaucrat in rural Colombia, and who posts frog names on the internet. They have more dedication to life of the mind than your average academic. But all these big brain theories I mentioned, they're not true. You can read in national descriptions of the Germans, not only in antiquity with Tacitus, but in medieval times as well, and also of other European peoples, despite their lack of political unity, and despite the fact that in day-to-day life some may have had local

loyalties and identities that were more important to them than their national identity, or in the case of the sex thing, by the way, yes, sexual identity was not important to people so much as it is in modern times, but it doesn't mean that in, let's say, a Renaissance Florence or before that people didn't realize what a homo was when they saw one, they just used other words for them. And that may not have defined their lives, their identity, in the same way that national identity didn't define people's political life so much as it does today. That doesn't mean nationalities didn't exist. And this is like some people who are otherwise my friends. But for example, Nicolas Salo, he goes around saying that Europeans do not have a white

identity which isn't really the whole truth because in the past a white civilization was synonymous with Western or European or Christian civilization and the people, and I'm not talking about Niccolo here, but the people in particular who want to deny the white character in particular of Europe or of Christendom are not your friends, okay? So this is not a novel or merely an American thing to talk about white or a white nationalist This thing, Joseph Conrad, he talks about the whites. Europeans become white when they go abroad, okay? It's a colonial thing, but at the same time, it also exists in Europe when they contrast themselves to outsiders. But the people like the fed cats, the Federala Catholics, like Douthat, and the others who

ape him, who have a thing specifically, I don't understand it, it's their peculiarity and fetish, but this thing there for Africa, I'm not sure. It's really puzzling. I'm not sure, it's like, why don't they want to bring in, let's say these people who are immigrants, right, for whatever reason, they want more Catholics, but why don't you want to bring in millions of Argentinians, who are Catholics too already, nominally at least, but no, it's always Africa with these people, that's what they want, and they don't mean the Boers. So I don't know, to go back to Venice, you know, the Venetians, they had a collective type of self-consciousness early, and their retroactive understanding of themselves, their

foundation goes back to about 400 AD or something, although really it's a little bit later. So anyway you have these communities of refugees in the lagoons, this northeast part, so slowly they're getting larger because more and more Romans are fleeing the barbarian invasions. So then the last big barbarian invasion, more or less, the most lasting one in Italy, it was the Lombards. And the Lombards was a kind of Germanic Scandinavian, I think, people who had by the time of Justinian or so, they had settled in the Pannonian Plain. That's around present day Hungary, the Nubian Basin, and they were sort of in a holding pattern there. And it's very interesting why they invaded Italy in the 500s. Please listen to this, because this is another teaching moment in history, but this time

is about women, the wisdom and peacefulness of women, yes? So the Byzantines, they came back to Italy, they retook it from the Germanic barbarians, from the Ostrogoths, from the Theodoric, because Theodoric, the German Goth who had been ruling Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire, he was following the Aryan kind of Christianity and that's with an I, not a Y, and it's named after a guy who founded this Arian heresy. It was a form of Christian heresy. So the Byzantines are like, okay, we don't, this is the excuse anyway, we don't like these heretics ruling Italy, so we will retake Italy for the empire. And the campaigns to retake Italy were very bloody, they were extremely costly, they were more devastating in some ways than the barbarian invasions of Italy.

And Venice actually ended up helping the Byzantines do this because, you know, technically Venice was still part of the Roman, which is to say the Byzantine Empire at the time, although it was just known as the Roman Empire, as I keep saying. So after these very difficult campaigns, the general Narses, who finally defeated the Ostrogods near Vesuvius, near the volcano, he was already in his old age, this Byzantine general, Narses, And he was a man of great energy, and he was in the process of reorganizing the Italian peninsula. Very smart man, and he was a eunuch. That's right, castrated man, a eunuch. Not quite a tranny, but you know, he was a eunuch, and like Norwich says, a eunuch, much like an imperious tranny, is not somebody you want to cross.

You don't want to get on the bad side of a eunuch. So this section of show getting a bit long, let me get back to this next segment in next I need a break. I need some more Turk coffee. I'll be right back in a general Narcis was organizing Italy after the he finally defeated the Austro gods And he reclaimed it for the Empire. This was in the 500 AD here. He was already old 87 but still very very energetic man very smart and then suddenly He's dismissed the Byzantines, you know, they're a great Empire great Empire They're often looked down on by modern people and so forth, but that's slander. Gibbon, by the way, the historian and other Enlightenment historians, they had somewhat a lot to do with the depreciation of opinion of Byzantine Empire, but actually they're a very formidable empire.

They managed to last in the East for at least a thousand years, and this despite a bad position And basically, they had the worst strategic position you can imagine, with indefensible borders and frightful, powerful enemies and neighbors. But in their history, despite this incredible ability they had and incredible intelligence, maybe it's politically the most genius of any regime that has existed in history, the Byzantines. I have to call them that, given the difficulty of their historical position and how long they managed to last despite that and despite inner turmoil. But in their history, they have many brain diarrhea like this that I'm about to mention now on the part of some of their rulers. So they dismiss Narses, this Byzantine, this general,

and the Byzantine empress, Sophia, being a woman, they're so wise, right, the women? So she not only dismisses this very experienced, genius general with millions of connections and who knows everything politically that could be known, but so she dismisses him in old age and then she insults him, gratuitously insults him the way a woman would, sending him a golden distaff and inviting him to spin and weave clothing in the women's quarters in Constantinople. In other words, calling him a woman saying you're a eunuch. You know, it's what you see women do online now in politics, right? I mean, the stock insult they go to is, you have a small dick, you cannot get laid, my dick. It's always about my dick to women, you know? This is what they go to, you know, my vagina.

Yeah, you want some of that. I mean, it's like when you go out and this kind of average-looking woman comes, I've had this happen to me. They come up to me, I just want a drink, I want to be left alone, and a woman comes up to me with this attitude, like, yeah, you want my pussy, my vagina, my vagina's golden, right, you want it, right? So it's like, you know, I want to be left alone. But you see these attitudes they have, this is the stock insult they go to online politically, you see, or whatever side they're on, conservative, liberal, whatever. So this Empress woman, Sofia, she's like, yeah, I'm a vagina, you know, so she insults gratuitously this poor old guy, a Nazi, she's 87 years old. He's an amazing general, she dismisses him and gratuitously insults him, right?

So what does he do? And he responds, and this is a famous response he has, he will say, I will spin her such a skin that she shall not find the end of it in her lifetime. I will weave her a web so she will not be able to get out of it in her lifetime. And he did that. He sent off emissaries to the Lombards telling them, you know, you're over there, you're poor in the Pannonian plane, you're poor over there, but the Mediterranean is weak and it's ripe for the taking and it's a wealthy, defenseless area and I will show you how to take it. You're strong, why don't you just come here? It's ready for you just to march into. So that's exactly what they did. And they invaded, they took over basically the whole Italian peninsula because of the great wisdom of these Byzantine emperors.

With a few pockets left to the Byzantines, excuse me, they, you see, the Byzantine, the women, women rose the occupied government, they tried to attack my throat as I'm telling you this story now. So anyway, the Lombards took Italy and with the exception of a few pockets and they stayed there. the north now of Italy, still called Lombardy, and the Lombard kingdomlets of various kinds, they were actually, they lasted in the south of Italy very late. The Normans later, they ended up fighting and mixing with the Lombards in the south. So, you know, don't just piss off an old general eunuch like that, because this may happen to you, and more importantly, don't put women in positions of power. But during this time of the Lombard invasions,

is when Venice really grew a lot, because Italians, the Romans in Italy, they finally realized, you know, we've had enough, this is it. These invasions, these devastating destruction will never stop, and we have to make the islands or the Venice's our permanent home. And Venice at this time was pretty much a member also of the Byzantine Empire, even though later Venetians, you know, they always out of nationalist reasons, they denied that they had ever been part of the Byzantine Empire, or that they had any formal submission to Constantinople. But in fact, Venice was, although it was politically in effect independent, it was nominally part of the Byzantine Empire, and they had a Byzantine garrison of sorts even.

You know, they had to pay obeisance to the Byzantines even in practice sometimes. So they had a loose confederation then. They squabbled, they had tribunes to represent their interests, So a kind of proto-republic. Hold on for a moment. There's a reason I'm telling you these historical details. I'm trying to tell you how this city gradually grew up in response to events. So they had a kind of proto-republic of squabbling places that kept getting inflated by refugees from the Roman Empire. Smart refugees, right? Not big snooze. These were the smartest people from the Roman cities who evacuated to Venice. So then when Leo, the Byzantine emperor, he banned icons and iconography. This was in the mid 700s AD, okay? So he banned icons, there was something called iconoclasm, a movement.

They wanted to ban icons. And the local Roman garrisons in the cities in Italy that had remained with the empire, they all declared their independence at this time. Because they could not tolerate this movement of iconoclasm or the banning of icons and images religiously. And this is basically how the Eastern Empire finally lost Italy for good when they banned icons. And the local garrison leader in the islands, that in turn Venice, Ursus or Orso, he declared himself independent and he declared himself dux or doge in the Venetian dialect, or duce, leader, basically same title as Mussolini, right? And this basically, the doge, the duche, became the executive function in Venice for the next thousand years. And they had over 100 basically uninterrupted dukes, doges to lead them.

So Venice, all of its institutions, its constitution, actually, the way you think of it, they developed organically over time, slowly in response to new circumstances, new crises, which is It is why its government was so good and why it lasted for so long. For example, later when the Doge, at times when they got too uppity or too powerful, the Venetians designed laws and means of limiting their power because they were paranoid, for example, about direct hereditary succession. The way the Doge ended up being elected finally became extremely complicated with multiple assemblies chosen by lot and in a random in succession and this kind of thing. And I think actually in America as a public officials, many of them should also be chosen by lot today. It's better than what exists now.

There would be less opportunity for corruption, I think. So anyway, that's how Venice evolved, by circumstances and not by ideology or by insanity. And the circumstance that was always the most pressing was necessity and fear. For example, when the city was first seriously attacked by Pepin, the son of Charlemagne. The whole history of how it happened, by the way, is very interesting. I don't want to get into it now, but basically Pepin, the Franks, was invited in by the Doge and his brothers as a result of political intrigue. But the Venetians, even though the Doge had invited the Franks and the Frankish army was approaching from the mainland, the Venetians revolted against this. Anyway, they resisted.

So Pepin, the son of Charlemagne, he's there with his Frankish army, he tried to invade and he just could not because the Venetians barricaded the lagoons with spikes and they harassed his army with arrows and he had no way to get across the sea. And then the summer came and so disease started to destroy the Frankish army. And there's also a funny story here about how Pepin was hoping to starve the Venetians by besieging them from the mainland. And to show him disdain, the Venetians just ended up catapulting bread toward the Frankish army to show them how much food they had. But the point is it was a close call, even though they won, it was a close call and at At this point around AD 810 is when Venice really came together again as a city when

it had to fight an invader and all the factions came together so that although Venice existed before this, it's really at this time that the islands of Rialto proper were settled and decided upon as the capital of the lagoon and really the neutral and impartial seat of the whole polity. So this is where Venice, as you know it today, where the islands of Rialto were populated and decided upon to be the capital. So Venice was once again, maybe it was not refounded, but its character became more defined in response to this latest threat of Frankish invasion. It was through a series of successive fears that Venice and the Venetian people were forged. And then again, I'll just end this segment on this second example, but later when the

The Magyars tried to invade about 100 years later in the 900, okay? So they were complete, cannibal savages from the steppes of Central Asia. The Magyars invaded. And they devastated Lombardy and raids in Italy. But again at the same place that Tepin's Frankish army came to nothing, the Magyars tried to cross in the river Banges toward Venice, but they were completely annihilated on the sea because they were morons when it came to seafaring. And the Venetians were experienced. So at this point is when the Venetians decided, okay, we keep getting attempts at invasion. So they decided to build their wall. And it's important to hear what Norwich says about the Venetian wall here, which is something I've linked to before. But basically, you know, they said, we keep getting these close calls.

We need better protection. We're going to build a wall. And he says it's the wall that really made the city. So listen to this. I'm quoting John Julius Norwich now, who's quoting another chronicler, but he says the chronicler John the Deacon, writing about a hundred years after the event, meaning the Magyar invasion, he sees the construction of this bulwark as the marking the moment when the realty in settlement first properly became what he calls a chivitas. The term is untranslatable, a city in our sense of the word, although a very small one had existed there since the AIDS of Doge, Agnello and the transfer of the central government. But Pietro Tribuno's wall and the emergency that brought it into being gave the citizens

a new feeling of cohesion and community that was to have its own importance in the years to come." End quote. This is Norwich talking about how the wall made Venice, fear is good, fear made Venice into a full city, an emergency, or the Civitas as this chronicler says. So you know when the people attack us and they attack Trump for the wall and they say it's a monument to white supremacy, they're really correct in a way because what they mean by that is America, they fear above all that the American people should exist as a a self-conscious, politically decisive entity at all. That's what they're afraid of. Without that, there is no country. So I don't know, I just find it calming to study places like Venice.

There's so much more enjoyment to it, actually, you can take from autistic absorption in another time and place than any of the relevant lessons that you can learn. But of course, this is my show here, Caribbeanism, mostly political show. I did want to point out one or two things, which is, you know, there is this tendency on the part of many people and many of us to engage in this, to abstract thinking, to say that the modern problem is because of, for example, technology or that it's because of capitalism or of commerce or to blame the merchants. And I don't mean that in code, the merchants, but there are many on our side who do this, blame it on these very broad things, as if it's merchant society. To give you a parallel example, my friend Loki made this point recently, in the wake

of the 2008 financial crisis, all these people on the left and the liberal alike, they wanted to talk about capitalism as such, or the failure of the free market, supposedly, as such, or of systemic failure, whatever. And they never wanted to talk about the particular names and the faces of the people responsible for that financial crisis. In fact, the talk about abstract ideology and about disembodied institutions was a way to avoid that talk, and it was a way to clear particular people and particular organizations of the responsibility for the corruption and the disaster that is still ongoing, of course. You know, and they try to do the same today in so many different ways. Oh, I want to talk about capitalism versus socialism.

No, it's not the problem with capitalism as such, it's the problem with the people running country into the ground now. And it's the same here, you've been somewhat, I've been maybe at times guilty of this too, but just talk about modernity in the abstract or as if the problem is with capitalism or or even more fundamentally with materialism, or with commercial society or technology. And here what do you see? You see something very different. In the case you have something, what do you have? You have a commercial state living on business enterprise, a sea power always at forefront of sea and armament technology as it had to be, in love with wealth and deeply materialistic, right? In love also with women. You see the spirit of Venice in Titian in the painter.

It's a republic also that went to great pains to be a republic and to lessen the power of the executive in love with freedom. So according to political stereotypes, to current political stereotypes, it should be an arrangement that the so-called alt-right or nationalist would hate. Also it's founded by a variety of refugees in the beginning that kept expanding, of course, population in the beginning until sometime, right? But Venice was actually a thoroughly nationalist policy, polity, excuse me, this completely nationalist place. So I don't even want to say that it was a nationalist state despite all these things, but it was a nationalist state through and through, a traditional state, a conservative

state also, a nationalist in that the well-being of its own people was its concern above all else. It was a Roman nationalism, right? In the same way that maybe you would today before letting Boer refugees join the United States. But they didn't seek, later on I mean Venice, after it was actually founded, they didn't seek to include outsiders or to expand in that way like the early, I mean the imperial Romans did with expanding the citizen roles and so forth. And of course this is the biggest debate about nationalism today, whether a a state exists to serve its citizens, its historical population in particular, to which it must answer, you know, and our ruling class, if you want to call them this, I don't want

to call them a ruling class, they're rather an occupational class, and their answer to all this is absolutely no, that the state does not exist for this reason. And instead, the dominant ideology now of the establishment, they have a mythology of themselves as cosmopolitan and civilized, and they want to present this false choice to you between, well, you're either an autocratic, ethno-nationalist land power like Nazi Germany supposedly or whatever, or they say you're with us and you're with the cause of international free markets and markets and capitalism and civilization and, you know, they say Anglo commercial civilization, and Venice, which some of them, or what have you, they evoke as an example. And some of them have this kind of mythology as their origins. But it's nonsense.

Because Venice, whatever its foreign holdings, and whatever the foreign business interests of its merchants who ruled it, Venice existed for its people only. And its republican institutions developed in roughly the way I told you, as a response to circumstance and to fear. But in all that is assumed a people that responds to those circumstances. And the political and cultural ideas and institutions that evolve presuppose a self-aware people that seeks its own survival and prosperity, a concrete and limited people, no matter whether its origins were in a variety of refugees from the various Roman cities. That's fine. That's not what defined the city, however, in its being over 1,000 years. Instead it was this very strong

They would be called a rabid nationalism today and in general I think the mythology Told about this whole thing is rather backward because in other words if you look historically at commercial republics You have the Phoenicians not the Venetians, but the Phoenicians like Talib thinks he is right and by the way some of Some say that the institution of the Senate literally the Gerousia in Greek the rule of the elders the Senate That's where it comes from. The Phoenicians apparently introduced it to the Greeks. It's a Semitic institution, but it got grafted on to other Greek institutions to form the republic as a whole. So anyway, you have the Phoenicians first, then you have some of the Greek republics,

you have the Venetians that I'm talking about in this show, you have the Genoese, the Dutch Republic, and later the English. And what all these have in common is that actually they're particular nationalist states with institutions that develop slowly and organically in response to circumstance and the government exists to serve as a welfare of the people, the traditional historical people that live inside it. And sure there are conflicts within them between factions and between the rich and the poor and the aristoi and the plebs to some extent, but all of these are closed, nationalist states. They're not universalist empires with universalist ideologies. And by contrast, it's actually the land empires, the militaristic land empires, the autocratic land empires that are universalist,

whether you look to Rome or the Manchu in China, who had also a kind of universalist expansionist vision, by the way, as so did many steppe tribes who, just to go on this tangent, if you look at your average historical steppe tribe in medieval times, you can't imagine something more landlocked and militaristic than the steppe tribe, right? But they readily absorbed other steppe tribes, you know, steppe tribes are not much into ethno-nationalism generally, they usually have these big confederations where they incorporate others and they had, this is well documented, when it was known they had an ideology of massive expansion. As you can see, historically, when they take over states, they do the Mongols like that.

Manchu are the only historical dynasty of China that had this kind of expansionist world geopolitical vision like any other steppe tribe might have. But in the modern sense, you have then Russia, okay, which is a huge landed empire that actually shares very much with Rome, and in terms of how it treats its minorities, how it absorbs how it slowly harasses minorities until it slowly gets these kind of small minorities on their borders like the Ossetians, Russia has these on their borders, the Ossetians or others who became loyal minorities and then they join the Russians or the Russian imperial identity very much in the Roman manner and I mean to say all of these land empires I'm mentioning they're very much a universalist imperial peoples which is why it's so ridiculous by the

the way, to hear McMuffin and Samantha Power or these halfwits who don't know history, they try to slander Russia as white nationalists. When white nationalists say Russia, Putler jails them, he sends them to jail. I'm sorry to tell you, but that's just the case. These are hardly ethno-nationalist states, these land powers I'm talking about. But I mean because of the American example, which I will briefly talk about in next section, And because of the mendacity of the criminal class that has hijacked America, this whole model I just described to you is twisted into its opposite and people are told a complete lie in an inversion about these things. And the historian Victor Davis Hanson, who I otherwise much like, he ends up saying nonsense

like that Athens was an ancient America and that whole model, in fact, of Athens versus Sparta of the commercial, democratic, outward-looking, enlightened and liberal sea power versus the autocratic, traditional, hierarchical, fascist land power, that model has been stretched and twisted so much in weird ways. Because from modern point of view we're talking about here both Athens and Sparta were closed nationalist states who never really admitted foreigners to the cities and rules, and who were the foreigners, even the foreigners in Athens, the metics that they were called, they were the resident foreigner, they never really were fully accepted at all, even by the so-called Athenian liberals. And Greek states, democratic or aristocratic, all ended up having shortages of people because

of their extreme unwillingness to admit foreigners, and because of their very strange, in some some sense let's admit it, breeding practices, quite strange, but that is another story. They had shortages of men because of this, but in modern times with countries of millions of people, none of this really applies today. This doesn't exist, so you shouldn't listen to the hysterical females on either side who claim that too few people is a problem. In fact, many countries like Japan or Holland need much fewer people than they have right now because they're overpopulated. In any case, I'll be right back. Of course, much more to history of Venice than what I'm telling you on this show where I cover only the very beginnings of the city and on later shows I will cover other part

of Norwich book and other part of my own knowledge of history of Genoa and other republics of seafaring that I like. You can learn more about politics from history than you can from the stupid theorizing of online or elsewhere. But anyway, the point I make you hear is the blame should never be thrown in the abstract on commercial civilization, or on republicanism, or on materialism, which can actually be a visionary force. Materialism can be a visionary force that can inspire great art, and great things, and great ventures. Camille Paglia describes Western art as visionary materialism, but you must never allow people who want to shift the discussion and blame these things, or even the excessive love of luxury or of women. Because you can have a state like Venice

with all these things that was nevertheless a very nationalist that was actually more than nationalist, was traditionalist and aristocratic and that lasted for 1,000 years, which far longer than the American republic has lasted. So obviously the problem is something else, it's not these. But what is the problem then? I think when a people stops understanding who it is, when it stops being mobilized with energy as a self-conscious people, which that's never something by the way that arises just in response to religion, or to ideology or ideas. Nor is it simply based on blood, it doesn't just come by magic among people blood related. That's never enough. It's probably a necessity, but it's never enough.

But when they stop having a common historical self-understanding, and this self-understanding is always forged in response to crises and to dangers, when the people stops having that, they come apart, or they become loose enough, maybe they don't come completely apart, but they become loose enough that selfish people and selfish factions can begin to take over the state. So I think it's very telling from episode I just told you of how Venice wall was built, that Pietro Tribuno, the doge who built the wall, is said by other Venetian chroniclers to have made Venice into a city because of his defensive wall in response to the MAGA invasion and when people call Trump's wall a monument to white supremacy, when actually I think this is very revealing

because what these people fear is the American people, American unity and American self-consciousness and the white is a synonym for American. It was that way historically and everyone, I'm telling you, everyone in the rest of the world knows it, and certainly the enemies of America, foreign and domestic, they understand it that way. And they understand that without white supremacy, there really is no America, in the same way as there wouldn't be a China without Chinese supremacy in that land, or an Israel without Jewish supremacy in Israel, or any other nation in any nation to exist as a nation, of course, Its people and culture and its self-understanding must be supreme, energetic, mobilized. And this is one of the things I'm telling you is that America has always had a serious

weakness as a result of its dabbling in ideology and its philosophical pretensions of its founders who are not wise men and they did not found America. The founders of America are the American people who populated it in the 1600s, not the people who made the Constitution, who made a bad political system that they actually outlived. Because when Jackson came along, for example, Andrew Jackson, that basically was the end of the original founding regime, if you want to use these words. So it was not a good political system. It's always been at once too rigid and too weak and never really fully representative of what the American people really is. And it was certainly not the end of the American people, I mean, the Jackson regime, any more

than the end of the corrupt Fifth Republic would mean the end of France or of the French people right now. And I guess the question here is that historical self-consciousness of a people in response to fear, to crises and to circumstances, this is what forges them into a political entity. And Jackson was one of these crises in response to something else. And the experience of the frontier, that was something else that made Americans what they are. How can you be American without the consciousness, the historical consciousness, the experience of the frontier and the conquest of the West? And then the Civil War, this was something else that made Americans what they are. And it's interesting, very interesting to me how you have all these people, otherwise they worship Lincoln.

Lincoln to them is a god. But they get very angry if you ask them, well, how many people from your family or your ancestors fought in the civil war? Oh, they get so angry if you ask them this. It seems lost to them that there are many people still in this country, America, whose families fought in that war, whose historical self-understanding includes that war and that experience. They grow up with it. And that's not transferred to you simply because you have American papers, or because you're born in America. And I find it, I just, I find it, isn't it just so beautiful when a Sicilian unibrow like Judge Napolitano or a shtetlbilly deformation like Robert Reich or Elena Kagan uses we to refer, oh, we fought the Civil War for this or that, or we fought World War II, or such things.

That's always so elevating to hear, but the American people, they were forged in those experiences. And if you didn't grow up with those memories passed to you in your house, and some people have other memories, for example, of the Puritan experience in the Northeast. And if that's not part of your upbringing and your identity, what really are you if you're in America? Because it's not enough merely to believe in the post office, or to say you believe in this or that principle. That's not enough to form a nation. So what you get when you try to form a nation with that flimsy ideological veneer is you have confusion. And you have a mass of people living on the same territory, but only a minority really are Americans, and the rest are confused. And they don't really know what they are.

They're this one day, they're that the next day. They are what the media tells them they are that week. And it's possible the Civil War is responsible for this. I don't know. I've heard it described the Civil War as the breakdown of the Anglo consensus in America, which is what allowed all the waves of immigrants from the 1880s onward to come in, you know, the so-called Ilis Island fraternity, which I think overall changed America for the worse, and it might even be the source of its confusion. I don't know. It's possible to argue, for example, that the Irish, the Jews, and the Italians, that never really assimilated. They assimilated to a watered down version of America, maybe, but never really to the American people. So their historical experiences, what they grow

up with from youth, that's not the experiences of the historical American nation. And not just them, but others too, of course, and nearly all recent immigrants who have nothing whatsoever to assimilate to anymore. If you're a recent immigrant, what do you assimilate You are supposed to assimilate, I guess, to office culture, to office manners, to the lilting voice of the upper middle class college faggots, to NPR, and you have to pick from the two column menu of woke or libertarian, libertarian neo-con ideology. And that's not something you assimilate to. How can that be something someone assimilates to? That's just something you pay lip service to during the day. But when the people doesn't know who it is anymore. This is the point.

Then you have a creeping takeover of the state by the Strokes and the Samantha Powers and the Clinton types, the hillbilly mafia types, and all the unctuous, effeminate, self-righteous hicks, the liberal hick shit-lips like Comey and others who quote Niebuhr. And these, of course, are just the marionettes of factions and industries that have maybe a one or two year horizon at best of vision and who are interested only in short-term plunder and how to squeeze dry whatever they can. If you are in charge of a country like this that was confused and you were confused, isn't that something that you would want too? Because it's just a territory of static wealth and of dances who can be ponzi-skinned.

If anyone complains about this, you call them a landlocked, land power, autocratic, nationalist, Nazi, whatever, you, all this word salad, you paint yourself as an enlightened, cosmopolitan hedonist who just wants to bring the masses an ethos of joy and freedom and whatever other word salad they spew, it varies by the day. No, the problem isn't any political systems really. It's not any of this. It's not the cultural orientations even towards commerce or materialism or any such broad thing. And whenever you let people turn it into that, into these broad, high philosophical discussions, many are even unaware that this is what this is about by the way, many of these ideologues who are pushing it. But when you let them turn it into that, you're playing into the trap of the most cynical

two bit mafias and trash hawkers in history. Because that's what this is about. That's the only thing this is about, fleecing the resident of this American territory like a sheep, charging him $70 minimum for a hotel in the middle of nowhere, charging him $300 to $400 minimum in a city unheard of, that people put up with this crap. You all know right about Trump and immigration. Just to give you the example that you all know about and understand, how when he basically unpersoned from the moment he declared he was running, he was unpersoned when he said immigration was his platform. And this was why he was unplatformed, and all of us immediately supported him from that moment that he declared he'd run, and that's why he was demonized. Macy tried to boycott him, and billionaire as he was,

They were going to completely destroy him if he didn't win. And he went to bat for this. He doubled down when he didn't have to. He could have apologized, but which is why many of us still respect him. And I hear the wall is finally getting built, but you all know why, right? It's got nothing to do with human rights, why he was attacked for his platform of immigration, and nothing to do with inclusivity or kindness. And everything to do with the fact that these people want to make extra profit. They want their pool of cheap labor, and to some extent, cheap votes. And you will recognize that as treason when these people and their spokesmouth in media promote immigration for this reason, because they want money and money this year. I mean, long term, they'll get hung by this,

their own policies, but they don't care. It's short or short term, and you will recognize that. But mostly it's cheap labor, slave labor. That's why they want this. And Trump threatens them making a few more dollars off that. So he's demonized in these high-talking ways when they try to obfuscate with passive-aggressive ideology and the like. But the mistake you make is when you do not extend this kind of thinking to everything else because it's not just about immigration and it's not just about Trump. Everything else in American society is about this today Because that's what it's all about. That's all political problems today. That's what they're all about. They want to sell you this or that kind of cracker or toothpaste today. Tomorrow, they want to sell you insect meat.

But what you don't know is that they've already been doing this, basically. They've been selling you literal poison that they've used for paint thinner 100 years ago, soy and vegetable so-called oils. They sell skim milk, which was a byproduct of the dairy industry. And I think historically, actually, skim milk, it's only really used in, for example, Iceland or East Europe for some cultured dairy product. Never in liquid form, but they repackaged that too. They repackaged skim milk as a health product. So it's like, here, eat this. Take this down your gullet, loser. Here, take this rotten wheat. Take this fake cheese. Take these putrid apples remade as juice. It's good for you. Take it down your gullet, loser, and if anyone complains about this or exposes them, he's

a Nazi, he's a devil, he's an essentialist, that's all this is about. Whether it's to sell you trash food or trash clothing or other trash or tomorrow it's some other industry. In other words, it's a gang of gamblers and crooks who have their con schemes for that year promoting something. That's basically what this whole state is. Bobby Fischer said it. How do you get something for nothing? That's what America has become. That's what happens when a people isn't strong, is not insistent on its ancient rights and privileges. They do what I've told you, and even worse, they're making it so that your inherited privileges are something obscene, that you have to be embarrassed about and to give up so they can make you live in a war camp.

Which is basically what they've already turned your so-called cities into, right? Because when they kicked out the whites, the Americans, out of their inner cities and they became no-go zones and they've put you in a war camp, you have no more common life in a city anymore, you can't organize. But that's what you should blame the people who do this, the settlers and everything they said about flooding America with opiates and the way they used politicians as marionettes to do this. Monsanto and the agribus and the chemical industries for flooding the country with literal poison. I'm sorry to bring myself up again, but when somebody like me, and I'm a small account, I complain about this and I have anti-xenoestrogen in my byline and I start to get some attention

and they send all that low-level, low-IQ flunkies to try to smear me in every which way to pretend it's about something other than making a crooked dollar that week. But that's just a small part of it. I'm telling you, it's all like that, all like the Trump immigration thing. That's what I'm telling you. That's the disease of this country that you confuse instead for modernity or for commercial society or such things, when in fact Venice would have executed general that were betraying the people and the city so they could take a signature working force, for example, some French backed fake firm and in this case, in the American case, that's what you have. All the generals betray the United States so they can go work for Chinese or Saudi or

Qatar or whoever backed industries at the end and they're complete traitors and you have people who are pretending to be one thing but it's really about importing gas or something else from Canada or it's Canadian food cartel pushing some idea or some faction who's in American media because it threatens their bottom line that year. Look into Ezra Levant, right? Or it's some guy who gets all his money, right? It's some guy, his family gets all their money from Chinese imports. All their money, 100%, comes from Chinese imports, but he tells you he's a nationalist and that you should abandon Trump because Trump is not nationalist enough. Oh yes, Trump betrayed nationalism. You have to abandon him, right? They don't tell you their family makes 100% profit from Chinese imports and he's telling

you to vote for Yang or somebody else like that tomorrow who will give them a tax break. Oh no, Trump betrayed us. I mean you realize it's about this with people like Justin Amash who has Chinese backed industry and Chinese backed investments, but why not about others? It's all like this. I'm telling you, pretty much every approved faction, every voice, many even on the so-called dissident right or whatever, they are there because they're fronting for this. They're fronting for a food cartel or an energy cartel or some other petty interest like this. And people in frog Twitter, people like me, they're not owned by anyone, which is why we're hated and harassed all the time. But this is what America is now. This is what American discourse is. This is the free press.

These are pigs in a pigsty. And they're upset because for the first time, they're being called out on being pigs. But pigs is too good. The pig is actually a friendly and smart animal. These are hungry cockroaches who have to be understood as such. Basically, this whole locust, cockroach, so-called ruling class, but actually occupational class of America and much of the West today, who will have to be these People all have to be flushed like a turd, and I only wish Trump was the dictator they fear because that's what America needs now. A Trump, Putin, but much more than a Putin. It needs a Hercules who will clean out all the accumulated shit at the top. Please go to break. Just want to say a word about this show. A man in high castle from Amazon.

I guess I'll make next show of next Caribbean rhythm about the TV episodes and popular culture movies why not maybe if I'm in mood I have to talk about what I moved that week not about what I announced before but I was watching this show where the Nazis and actually win World War two right and the axis wins so Japan takes over the West Coast and Nazis take over the eastern half of the United States so from the point of view of people who made it it's It's a complete dystopia, right, it's the worst thing that could happen from the point of view of many people actually, but they end up making it look quite good despite themselves. So yes, they talk about camps sometimes and the murder, mass murder, but they don't really

show that too much, so instead what they show you is this prosperous and orderly society of clean, good-looking white people, which I guess they mean to smear that and to make that look bad by association with the Nazi label and instead is the opposite, they make the Nazi label look good by association with that because I think they really made a mistake on a reptilian level, it's like, wow, that, that look much better than what's around you right now, you know, you're expecting me to say, by the way, when I say much better, maybe you're expecting me to say the hollowed out Rust Belt or Appalachia that is decaying and is dystopian with the opiate thing and other decay, or maybe like the conservacons might

say California and San Francisco with homeless and shit-filled streets, but I'm not even thinking about those bad things. Actually if you go to a normal, prosperous, supposedly American city now like New York or Boston, and on the street I think it's just a disaster, it's so depressing, it's a genetic disaster first of all. You look on many streets in the Southeast also, it's a genetic disaster, slovenly depressed obese people, mystery meats on the streets of Boston, a very quick change in 10-15 years. And it's not good looking mystery meats, it's not like, oh that's a good looking brown, it's like short dwarf-like people with fucked up asymmetrical faces waddling around and Resurrected races brought out from Hieronymus Bosch paintings, carnivals of the deformed out of the Middle Ages.

It's a scene of utter desolation, much like England has already become. You go, you know, it's like a scene out of East Europe public bathroom in a train station. I can't even describe it to you, so I don't know. In the back of your mind of whoever watches this, it's like, well, this Nazi thing I see on screen, maybe you know intellectually you are supposed to look down on it because it's Nazi and because you're supposed to hate it because they're murderous, but it looks much better than what exists around you right now on the reptilian level. You realize that it's no longer the United States of the 1980s, so I think they really miscalculated with this show. But more generally, this is what I want to say on this segment because I think it shows

the limitation of horizon of thought of the writers and of people today in general, the limitations of their political imagination when they try to cast, it's this thing, this dualism thing, where on one hand they have what they think is the Nazi or fascist society of their imagination and the Nazi mindset or spirit, you could say, and they interpret that as a life of order and of discipline and of higher united purpose. To them, these things are bad, they're very bad, whereas on the other side, they want to contrast this to how they imagine the benefits of liberal society where they say, we may not have that public energy and that cleanliness and that unity and that devotion to a higher purpose, but we give you instead freedom and humaneness and mercy or rather, you have freedom

from being killed by your government in the name of something, we give you material prosperity of a different kind so that you have this kind of laid-back life. You have a vibrant and truly diverse, in the best sense, experience of life that comes from allowing different people to live and flourish and so forth, different kinds of people. And at the lower level, the stupider among them, they mean just racially, of course, But the smarter ones, of course, mean also in character and aspirations and intellect where we allow individual difference and purpose to flourish. Individual projects, they say, so-called, where you can make your life as you will. And in this show, they try to show why this is better than the so-called life of discipline.

And the way they try to show this is the son of the leader of the American Reich, a man in high castle. He sacrificed on eugenic or pseudo-eugenic grounds in the Nazi dimension. Of course, this is a perverse understanding even of Nazi eugenics, where I think he would have been sterilized, not killed, right? Much like the Americans, you know, they also did sterilization, right? But then in the other dimension, the same boy is shown as having been healthy and therefore that the biologically determinist understanding of the Nazis was wrong. This is what the showmakers are trying to say. And not only that, but what they try to show through all this is that life in the normal dimension. Those of you who have watched it know what I mean.

The show, not everyone has seen it, it moves between parallel universes or dimensions. One where the axis won, one which is our dimension where the allies won. But in our dimensional world where the allies win, the guy who was a Nazi leader, he's not a Nazi leader. He's just a salesman and a humble man. So it lacks the power and grandiosity and order of the higher purpose of the Nazi-American dimension. And these people who wrote the show, they think they're being wily. They want to say that the allied dimension, it makes up for that. Because here as a humble man, he may not have that discipline and crazy grandiosity, but he can actually be happy, and his son is not sacrificed for some insane and false higher cause, they want to say.

So you know, I'm going with this because I've heard liberal so-called theorists and apologists and philosophers say these same things in a thousand different ways for a long time, and they go pretty far with this kind of thinking as a result of anti-Nazis, whether they're left liberal, so-called conservative, or neo-con, all of them necessarily fall into this same conclusion that it is higher purpose itself that is the enemy. It is discipline and order themselves that are the enemy. And of course, some few of them try to turn around and say that these things restricted to an individual life are good, so to your own life only they might be good, but if you think that through what they're saying, it doesn't really make any sense because it implies

a severe restriction of an individual operational space and horizon so that you know what they really mean in the end is your discipline for the sake of becoming an interior designer or whatever is good, but anything too much more than that is bad because you run the risk of becoming a fascist and authoritarian and therefore in need of remedial counseling of some kind. So now I'm taking such people of course at their word and I'm not considering the reality of it, which is that they are tools for the gangsters I mentioned in the previous segment of the show. But let me go with this for a moment, what they're saying and what the makers of the show Man in High Castle are saying. Because these people in rejecting Nazism so thoroughly, they actually have rejected half of life.

They're rejecting not actually real Nazism, but metanazism. They're rejecting too much. They're rejecting half of life, half of nature, half of the world as it is. They must, therefore, reject also the body, except in so far as it is a modest or fat body. They reject what I represent by the body in my account, in the photographs I post, in the things I insult people to. Although I guess they would make maybe an exception if I posted non-whites. But why would they do that? because they consider, maybe correctly, they consider non-whites as being less in vitality and power, therefore less dangerous. Because that's what they fear. They fear life as power. They fear vitality as violence. So in rejecting Nazism, they reject biology, they reject nature. They reject any kind of human hierarchy,

at least in theory, and thereby any kind of higher goal. And if pressed on it, they will claim that what they really reject is only a higher collective goal. But in fact, they must reject higher goals of higher individuals as well. And in fact, they must reject the higher individual as such. To them, the individual becomes a homogenized gray silhouette or entity. To them, the higher individual must not exist. And this includes, by the way, somewhat paradoxically, but not really, the Randians, the Ayn Rand followers, who get Like the Neocons and the Liberals, they all get very hot and bothered if you point out that all social and political life must ultimately be based on force as a matter of reality, not of wish.

But all of these share so much in common. Their interpretation of Nietzsche as ironist, for example. They just so wish to interpret him as that. But maybe I discuss the particular delusions of Randians, who are a species of communists, by the way, like the Neocons. ones, maybe I'll discuss this another time, because all of these, you must understand they represent by various convoluted means, of course, the argument for the normalization of the lame and the biologically defunct over the biologically well turned out and superior. It's all of this is to go to my friend Spandrel's words, it's a form of bio-Leninism, which is a more fundamental form of spiritual Marxism. Even though it's not easy to see, all of these kind of ideologues I mentioned, they

get along so well with one another because they agree on that more fundamental ground of bio-Leninism, the biological revolt of the inferior against the superior, which includes Randianism, by the way, but I will take their so-called thinking in this show, I'm taking it too seriously because it's really crap thinking, and the only reason it reaches public propagation of any kind is because the gangsters who I mentioned before, the gangsters and gamblers and Ponzi schemers who run the United States now, they find this kind of thought useful so they propagate it in the controlled media. So why do they do this? Because look, the alternative to Nazism, as in this show Men in High Castle or as the the liberal ideologue understands it. The alternative to that is not, as you may imagine,

this world of freedom and of individual self-fulfillment and vibrant diversity and easiness and sort of laid-back life by the beach. It's not. It is the world of you as a slave. It's the world of the work camp and the insect burger. It's that they're trying you to eat the locust and shove it down your throat. That's what you get. Elysium, that movie, that's what you get. But worse, that's the end of all this. Not the world of easygoing plenty, an easy bourgeois small time outings at the park with your family for ice cream. That's not what you're getting. That's sort of a limited hangout of some of them. When you have demobilized people with no unity and no strong historical self-understanding, what you're getting is a mass of weak darks and losers

are easy to manipulate. They're people who you can take their son and tell them that's not your son, that's now your daughter and I get to diddle him. You can take their weapons, you can disarm them, you can take their gyms as they're trying to right now in Virginia and as they try to do everywhere soon. You know the ancient Greeks, they didn't let slaves use the gym for a reason. They can tell you this country isn't your country, it's whoever we want to let in. That's the Americans. We decide who's an American. You have to let them live with you and you get to live in a latrine. They get to shit on your street because human rights. We can feed you fake food. You will wear fake clothes. You will have fake furniture that will lower your son's IQ by 20 points. Here's $5. Go buy yourself

a pound of mayo and baloney for a feast, guy. That's what they tell you. That's the world you get? The whole idea of some laid-back demobilized public life anti-nazism is a fiction. It's a lie promoted by gangsters who want to hawk you their wares, take your stuff, want to take your wife, want to put you in a hovel and to turn you into a sweatshop peon. You have to understand, desire, vitality can never leave this world or life. You must understand that when you give up power, when you give up self-organization, you let Paul Singer and people even worse than Singer, whose names you don't know, you let them into the void left over and they quickly creep over and take over whatever Nazism is. I don't know. I don't care about Nazism.

But anti-Nazism of this kind sold in this show and sold to you by liberal ideologues and neo-con ideologues, next they will tell you, you know, just to give you an example of what I mean, they will tell you that Henry Ford and the Nazis, because they wanted to give workers good living conditions, that is Nazism. That you taking time off and paid vacation and health leave is Nazism and white supremacism and you have to accept living in a favela and give up your privilege and work in a sweatshop because otherwise you're being a white supremacist. So you see what this is? This kind of anti-Nazis and so-called, it is an ideology of slavery. And what you're hearing right now from liberals and neo-cons and so forth is the preliminary ideological ground to it.

And the whole distinction, not just in the crappy Man in High Castle show, but in what What this reflects in American discourse in general, this whole distinction is a con job. This exaltation of this fake anti-Nazi liberalism is an ideology meant to prime you for slavery, to promote anti-life, a lower form of life. What do you think a lower form of life is, dummy? It is not the comfortable bourgeois having ice cream. It is the slave, liberalism, neo-conism, libertardianism, ideologies of preliminaries to slavery. And they hate me and people like us because we're finally reminding people of the power of life and of vitality and of ancient strength and of Greek strength, which is where all true freedom comes from. As the free man is a warrior and is a mobilised people of warriors.