OK, I'll read something for you now. Please listen to this. I am reading. I am much more interested in a question on which the salvation of humanity depends far more than on any theologian's curio, the question of nutrition. For ordinary use, one may formulate it thus. How do you, among all people, have to eat to attain your maximum of strength, of virtue in the Renaissance style, of moral in free virtue? My experiences in this matter are as bad as possible. I'm amazed how late I learn this question, how late I learn reason from these experiences. Only the complete worthlessness of our German education, its idealism, explains to me to some extent why at precisely this point I was backward to the point of holiness.

This education, which teaches one from the start to ignore realities and to pursue so-called ideal goals, a classical education, for example. As if it were not hopeless from the start to unite classical and German into a single concept. More, it is amusing, only imagine a classically educated man with a Leipzig dialect, this some kind of hick dialect, I am interceding now as reader, I am continuing to read. Indeed, until I reached a very mature age, I always ate badly, morally speaking, impersonally, effortlessly, altruistically, for the benefit of cooks and other fellow Christians. By means of Leipzig cuisine, for example, I very earnestly denied my will to life at a time when I first drenched Schopenhauer to upset one's stomach for the sake of inadequate nutrition.

This problem seemed to me to be solved incredibly well by the aforementioned German cuisine of Leipzig. He said that 1866 brought about a change in this respect. He's referring to the union with Prussia. We don't need to get into that now. I continue reading. But German cuisine, quite generally, what doesn't it have on its conscience soup before the meal? In Venetian cookbooks of the 16th century, this is still called alla Tedisca. This means in German style. He's complaining about German food and he's very interesting. He referred to soup before the meal, which as you know, this is standard style in restaurants today, but even in his day, in 19th century, it was sometimes considered this insipid German style you would serve this thin soup before the meal.

I don't like this either, but in any case, he continues, he says, overcooked meats, vegetables cooked with fat and flour, the degeneration of pastries and puddings into paperweights. to this the virtually bestial, perennial drinking habits of the ancient, and by no means only the ancient Germans, and you will understand the origin of the German spirit from distressed intestines. The German spirit is an indigestion. It does not finish with anything. But English diet too, which is compared to the German and even to the French, a kind of return to nature, meaning to cannibalism, is profoundly at odds with my instincts. It seems to me that it gives the spirit heavy feet, the feet of English women. The best cuisine is that of Piedmont.

And he continues from here with some very interesting passages about alcohol, the drinking of alcohol, of tea versus coffee versus cocoa, and many other interesting observations from The book Eche Homo which this episode is about and I strongly suggest to you this book Eche Homo. This is show Nietzsche. I think this time for philosophy style topic show. I think I have not made one in a while and yes there is no guest today, the international playboy who I announced on the show on Twitter, but here is not reliable because such people you have to give plenty of latitude, they are rightly busy, he is after all international playboy so he will come on maybe next time and we talk pussy, we talk whores. Is this okay?

You know one wonders about how in a Balkanoid culture, you get at least this kind of overtly macho man who sit around the cafe all day and drink rakia and talk about banging pussy and talk about fighting and this and you go to East European city and you over here even teenagers just talk about how they want to find a gypsy to beat up and you know I do not endorse this, this is just nature observation show like National Geographic and sometimes I like to observe hairy Slavic ape. Is this okay? But the point I try to say is you get this is actually in war the Balkanoids generally do not do very well historically. Now the Croats are an exception. Croatians have long record as a warrior people, back to the Middle Ages and they were stereotyped

even back then about them that they were cannibal savages and a stereotype about them in World War II is consistent with from 30 years war that they were cannibal savages. Very interesting. Is this true? Ask Nick Sello. In general, the Balkanoids don't do that well in organized battle, whereas the supposedly effete cultures of Northwest Europe, like the French for example, they do quite well in war. You might not think so from the propaganda, Joan of Goldberg and NRO spread about surrender monkeys and this. But actually the French have a very distinguished record in war making. And who knows why this exists? Why somebody like French or North Europeans who do not come off as so overtly macho as Balkanoids but they are very good at war whereas the Balkanoids are not?

Who knows why this exists? Many variable could explain it. Maybe for example the French working class men were as tough as overtly as any Balkanoid at that time and for example they fought very hard in the horrible carnage of World War I and it's little known but the French SS Charlemagne divisions, they were the last ones guarding Hitler's bunker, you did not know about this. So England's role has always been to stop the destiny of Franco-German reunion. But in any case, I doubt that this is the reason because the character of a culture is determined by its aristocracy, not by the people. And anyway, the most direct explanation for this apparent contradiction I point out is that individual unruly manliness of the type you find in Balkanoids and certain other peoples,

but that is maybe not so good for organized mass warfare where you need to subsume your individual spiritedness somewhat, and therefore the more conformist North Europeans, the more law-abiding and efficient, they make better soldiers in mass armies because of this. So I'm not sure, you know, but maybe. And on this there is also amazing Nietzsche quotation as well, one of my favorite passages, where he discussed his view of the Italian city Genoa, which he visited a number of times, And it leads to this beautiful contrast he makes between the spirit of the north and the spirit of the Mediterranean. And I will read it for you now. Let me read this for you. It's very interesting. Let me read this. Genoa, I am reading from Nietzsche now.

I have looked upon this city, its villas and pleasure grounds, and the whole circuit of its inhabited heights and slopes, for a considerable time. In the end, I must say that I see countenances out of past generations. This district is strewn with the images of bold and autocratic men. They have lived and wanted to live on. They say so with their houses built and decorated for centuries and not for the passing hour. They were well-disposed to life, however ill-disposed they may have often been towards themselves. I always see the builder, how he casts his eye on all that is built around him far and and, likewise, on the city, the sea, and the chain of mountains, how he expresses power and conquest with his gaze.

All this he wishes to fit into his plan, and in the end make it his property, by its becoming a portion of the same. The whole district is overgrown with this superb, insatiable egoism of the desire to possess and to exploit, and as these men, when abroad, recognize no frontiers, and in their thirst for the new placed a new world beside the old. So also at home everyone rose up against everyone else and devised some mode of expressing his superiority and of placing between himself and his neighbor his personal, illimital madness. Everyone won for himself his home once more by overpowering it with his architectural thoughts and by transforming it into a delightful sight for his race. When we consider the mode of building cities in the north, the law, the general delight

in legality and obedience, this imposes on us, when we thereby divine the propensity to equality and submission which must have ruled in those builders." He's speaking of the north now. Here, however, in Genoa, on turning every corner, you find a man by himself who knows the sea, knows adventure, and knows the Orient, a man who is averse to law and to neighbor, As if it bored him to have to do with them, a man who scans all that is already old and established with envious glances, with a wonderful craftiness of fantasy, he would like at least in thought to establish all this anew, to lay his hand upon it and introduce his meaning into it, if only for the passing hour of a sunny afternoon when for once his insatiable

and melancholy soul fills satiety, and when only what is his own and nothing strange may show itself to his eye." Isn't this a very beautiful passage from Nietzsche on Genoa? Very nice, though. But the point of this aside is there is a Nietzsche quote for almost any subject because as one of ultimate philosophers and prophets, the last philosopher, he is a world of his own. He is the prophet of our age, the man beyond who no one since his time has been able to see. Everyone who has thought since then is a footnote to him. And so rightly he has called himself the founder of all modern thought and all modern spirit. And I will say more on what this means in a moment, but although many modern strains of thought, they try to claim Nietzsche as inspiration or source.

But in fact, the only right interpretation of him is the direct, explicit, and naive one. That Nietzsche is a right-winger, a man of the far right or the hard right. And that the real right, the hard right, is the only alternative to the modern disease. A disease in which both capitalism and socialism, which are twins, they're both complicit symptoms. And that salvation lies only in the return to the primordial hierarchy of nature. Nietzsche is herald of this new age, which they desperately try to suppress since 1950, since their artificial win of that time, and they try to lie about him, and so you should never read any academic or so-called philosopher to understand Nietzsche, by the way, but only his own words. They speak to you so directly, you need nothing else.

But out of a bad conscience, out of not being able to censor this prophetic man, they've We've tried to co-opt him and to make a very edited and falsified image of him the support for parts of the New Left and other nonsense. But Nietzsche has heralded of this age as, you know, the first frog, the first frog philosopher. As you saw in that opening passage I read where his focus on nutrition and diet, on place and, you know, air, waters, places, he actually continues later on with a passage about this, the importance of location and what the climate is effect upon you, on physiology and on the body. His focus on this, on the body, it makes him our father, so it is our spiritual father and we're his only legitimate children. And I will say more on this in a moment.

The first philosopher of the body or the first one in a long time, but who knows, the contrast between the fighting styles of people, as I said before. The Afghans are good, actually, both at being hyper-individual egotists and also at fighting in groups so that the Pashtuns, they're one of the only peoples who are always able to face Europeans in close-quarter combat and give very serious resistance. Most other peoples that European encounters abroad, they avoid close-quarter melee combat or the clash of formations. But this topic is very complicated and there is a famous story about the French cavalry, they were facing the Ottomans and the French, you know, at this time they were all dressed in very ornate costumes and with the wigs and the powder and a very fancy dress and makeup.

So the Ottomans, the leaders were reported to have said, who are the little girls? And the French massacred them, completely slaughtered them. Maybe I've seen this story before, you know, but so things are not always as they appear and the Japanese also, they love makeup for their warriors and fancy dress and actually the Persians were similarly, they laughed at the Spartans at Thermopylae when they saw that they were grooming themselves and doing their hair and trying to look good for their death and all this and then the Persians were shocked by how quickly they were brutally slaughtered by these men they had laughed at. It seems to be a worldwide phenomenon. The Ariki nobles, the Ariki are a transpacific ruling class of the Polynesians, excuse me,

the Polynesians, not to be confused with the Peloponnesians, although I think maybe the two words are related, but the Ariki nobles, they like to douse themselves with coconut oil and to wrestle, so the Ariki nobles of Hawaii are recorded to have, they were also much larger and taller and more muscular than the rest of the Hawaiians. Just think of that, doused in coconut oil. But look, where was I? Look, I talk about several things at once, but this is actually only show on Nietzsche. I was only explaining to you why I cannot have show on international pussy studies this time. My very good friend, international playboy, is otherwise his previous engagement at this point. Now let me then continue this next segment with some hidden thoughts on Nietzsche, the

last philosopher and also the first frog-thinker, the first prophet of the body, and what this means. I will be right back. In the kitchen, woman as cook, the ghastly absence of intelligent thought in taking care of the nourishment of the family and the man of the house. understands nothing about what food means, and she wants to be a cook. If women were a thinking creature, then as cook for thousands of years, she'd surely have found out the most important physiological facts, while at the same time she'd have had to take ownership of the art of healing. Because of bad female cooks and the complete lack of reason in the kitchen, the development of human beings has been held up for the longest time and suffered the worst damage, even to Today, things are a little better.

A speech for fashionable young ladies. And this from Nietzsche, a book beyond good and evil. You should read this one too, of course, but very funny passage. And you can see the concern with diet and physiology runs throughout the whole life, really. And this is very important, this fundamental Nietzsche insight that I talk to you today. And you may have heard recently much talk of the body in academies, in journalists who copy that kind of talk to get a head pad from academics and to show off, including the low IQ mimickers of human speech like Toure or Ta-Nihisi Coates or Tennessee Coates as he's also known, who prattle on about the black body and this and in their case they're just aping academies. I don't know that they understand what it means but, you know, much of the so-called

focus on so-called the body has entered now popular discourse and it was by way of Foucault and of Agamben and other post-modernists and then yokel academics in America, they want to be French and this so they copy that and in this case I should repeat to you to ignore and to read only Nietzsche himself and not the academic or intellectualized interpretations because they never understand him and because again since 1950 his thought actually has been forbidden in fundamental ways. So the only thing that seeps through you through secondary sources is highly distorted and they would have actually done away with him if they could have, but like every titan of thought the problem for them is he had already too great a weight on literature, on fiction,

on the arts in general and because it's always been artists most of all who really understood Nietzsche and so because they could not ban him without banning let's say half of great literature and art produced 1900 to 1940, then they either tried to trivialize him by claiming he was joking or ironic about his more explosive statements or they tried to trivialize him by trying to pretend that he was fundamentally of the left and what appeals to the left from Nietzsche supposedly is his criticism of morality, of course, of the sources even of Western morality and of Christianity. And this last thing you know when it comes to attacking Christianity, it attracts not just free thinkers and atheists but also certain ethnic narcissists with an axe to grind against white Christians specifically.

So who could that be? Okay but these things have appealed to the left and they've tried to detach his attack on morality from the rest of his thought which is not really possible. I say more on this in a second and of course it should be added and repeated again and again that Nietzsche's attack on Christianity is a bit spurgy, spurge-like, maybe inspired by like Asperger's syndrome on the one hand and on the second he repeatedly says it's It's not personal and that believing Christians have always been well-disposed toward him and is actually a very interesting subject maybe for another show. But aside from this, if his thought got to you at all, let's say, aside from these sources, it was maybe through some kind of cliché, be an individual, don't be one of the herd

type of slogan, which this kind of has appealed especially to free-living American style life coach individualism with its platitudes of encouragement, but again this is distortion. And in this case of the left, the way the left distorts him, in both cases it's irrelevant in other words, it has the function of name dropping at the party and this, it's irrelevant. If Nietzsche's insight really was for example that morality does not exist, that it's merely an expression of powerful interests, that you should reject it in favor of pursuing your own desires and this, and they usually mean sexual desires by the way, this is not just, it's something, not just something the modern left believes, but I should say

Alan Bloom, he has a book, Closing of the American Mind, I think this is where he says it, but he points out that, about Andre Gide, who is not of the modern left today, but before he, but I think it's this thinker, he says that he interpreted Nietzsche in this way as well, and Alan Bloom points it out, you know, it's like using a cannon against a molehill. Because if Nietzsche had said this, he would have been an irrelevant thinker. It would have been neither new nor interesting nor true. And mobilizing Nietzschean ideas to attack sexual morality, I mean, is more like, you know, these people want to get off and also add a patina of the prestige of philosophy to it. So like I say, it's irrelevant. It's much like dropping a name at the party to show off, you know, you do this anyway

but you say, but also this guy say, this guy with the famous name say it is cool. So you know, and it's also in some ways self-contradictory if you think about it because truly hedonistic people don't feel the need to justify what they do to anyone. So you know, this is fed into another unfortunate tendency in America which I think I mentioned before but a book like Ethical Slut, there's a book called The Ethical Slut and it could have only appeared in America, in other words, if you want to be a slut, okay, but why do you also feel the need to convince yourself or others that you're being ethical? Why are you trying to use, also in other cases, Nietzschean words to do away with traditional morality? Why does that matter to you one way or another?

And again, usually the focus when they employ Nietzsche in this sense is on sexual because such people would never, for example, excuse the violence of the strong against the weak with Nietzsche and arguments, which would actually be more relevant. But again, using those words betrays a kind of neurosis or bad conscience about wanting to feel moral, or at least not wanting to feel immoral. And look, the really interesting part of show is, of course, Nietzsche's own thought, which I will get to in a moment, but because so many of you might have already come into touch with a distorted image of him I need to quickly do away with the leftist establishment lies about him that you may have encountered.

So the really more insidious leftoid interpretation of Nietzsche, which is related to the one I just said but it's much more political and insidious, and it recognizes in an implicit sense that he was the first philosopher of the body or as I would put it the first philosopher of physical eminence in a long time, at least. But the really more insidious part is they believe that traditional morality is a kind of limiting discipline, oppression, excision, or determination of the body, by which this word the body, they do not mean what Nietzsche meant or what the body might mean to a perceptive normal person, but they mean a kind of primordial blob, a kind of goose or goo, you could think of it in conceptual gurus, upon which traditional custom and morality and Western morality including

that derived not just from religion but from philosophy or partly some of the sciences, but that this somehow both oppresses and defines the body. Indeed, this leftoid interpretation considers these two things, oppression and definition of the body, to be the same. And I'm explaining in short the leftist idiocy now, not Nietzsche, but this is what they They believe really in everything that's human is a kind of undifferentiated blob life or a yeast even. They don't think of it that way but a blob in both body and spirit actually that is equal, it is homogenous and infinitely malleable and that any attempts to form this blob or define it within boundaries is oppressive. So you know there is a quite interesting Twitter account before, maybe she will come back,

The Jewish feminist lesbian, some people found this funny, had in the bio in the description no borders, no genders. And this is the modern justification for the distinction of man, both physically and at nation level. The erasure of gender, reality of sex is the more appropriate word, which is consequent on the fact that the left has a decentered personality that is on the verge of a breakdown, which is the condition of the transsexual, of course, but it all refers to this huge distortion of Nietzsche in which, again, their fundamental assumption in everything is this undifferentiated blob they call the body. The body for them has nothing to do with nature, with biology, with anything. It's this blob, they think, of this bio-matter, and then they misapply Nietzsche's criticism

of morality the way they told you. But the fundamental moral and even fanatic orientation that they all share, which you You see on full display now is the so-called woke revolution and this never leaves them, it never leaves them although they don't call it morality, right, because they don't want it to be subject to the same kinds of analyses or genealogies, but you could say even this view maybe ultimately goes back to Rousseau because Rousseau similarly posited a primitive man before, let's say, the problem of society was set up as he understands it, but primitive man was equal, simple, and infinitely malleable, and these two assumptions of homogenous equality on one hand and total plasticity of nature on the other, these have been preserved by all modern leftists of all kinds.

And it's an interesting, profound, maybe metaphysical question whether these two qualities of equality and malleability, whether they are associated by nature, so to speak, or whether just they They were incidentally shared by leftists as unspoken and unquestioned moral desires, but that is for another time, you know, it's too long of a question. But such is the left's distortion of Nietzsche, because they do not see that in doing away with morality, if you really do it, it doesn't lead to a distended and equal blob life, but leads to rather the reassertion of the body or the primacy of the physical, which is actually highly differentiated, highly hierarchical, that the body is a physical life as you see it directly and not as the left wants to imagine it.

That biology is a harsh ruler, that the lion, for example, or even the hyena, it wants and it lives not because of directions from reason or opinion or learning, but from a spirit in the blood, so to speak, and so that Nietzsche's criticism of morality is always oriented toward this to reassert the primordial hierarchy of nature in some sense. And Leftoins, they only read a Nietzsche book, Genealogy of Morals, and they misread it, even that, read for example essay one, chapter five I think is very interesting, but they misread even the Genealogy of Morals and they do not really read the other books and they They believe they can deduce from the genealogy of morals a general method for deconstructing

let's say a philosophy, a moral code or something like this but again they miss the point entirely because Nietzsche's form of critique of genealogy is always directed toward nature in this way I just said. I simplify but it is this. He was history's first frog Twitter frog and in this regard I want to recommend to you not the genealogy of morals but that you begin with his late book. I want to recommend to you his late book again, Ecce Homo, that maybe you start with this book if you have not read him before. It's an unusual way to start maybe because it's a short, mostly lighthearted, very funny Very often autobiographical book, often again high humor, very witty rhetoric, and it doesn't seem very profound philosophy in the ponderous Kant or Hegel sense, not to speak of academic

verbiage, postmodern sense, it has none of that, but it doesn't seem profound in the ponderous, even Plato sense at first sight, but in fact everything is in the kernel in this book. The supremacy of the body and the meaning of this for life, for politics, for the future of mankind, for the emptiness of moralistic thinking. And it's very interesting that Giorgio Di Chirico, the painter who I discussed on episode 15, this was Nietzsche's favorite book of his, his favorite book by Nietzsche, and he believed he was reincarnated spirit of Nietzsche and Heraclitus who had transmigrated, he was born in 1889, and if you look at Kirikou's so-called metaphysical period, which refers to the paintings he made roughly between 1910 and 1920, for example, Nostalgia of the Infinite

or Mystery and Melancholy of a Street, you can look these up. And I believe in these, you see, or look up Garmon Parnass, and in these you see a direct and kind of intuitive sense of the spirit of Nietzsche. You will see maybe you will be struck in imminent sense by part of what I mean here because in showing you the world from multiple perspectives, in showing the world as it is but that you have forgotten from before birth, in showing you this, de Chirico does not show you a kind of undefined blob on which it's up to the viewer and this that only social and political life can define and determine, but no, he shows you something very uncanny, very powerful. He show you the imminence of that one thing that you call it Heraclitian fire or you call

it the will, whatever you call it, but the fatal X that runs simultaneously under things as you see them. And it is opinion, it is social life, it is morality actually that try to make you forget that unforgiving, demonic, fatal world that try to put a veil over it, that try to paper over its deadly hierarchy. So the post-moderns, you know, they have Nietzsche and the truth then somewhat backwards. In other words, it is morality, Western morality, in particular, since Socrates, it is one long attempt, in part, but one long attempt to forget the fatal and tragic character of nature to make things actually safer, tamer, more equal, more homogenous for a lower kind of man until finally it has made it so that in our world this second type human is born in

great numbers and starts to stomp its feet that this Western morality that has produced him and that still is lying around, that still exists, but that he starts to complain this Western morality has not delivered their safety fast enough. It has not delivered paradise fast enough. And so what you are seeing now with the so-called woke revolution and certain other leftist revolutions before is a protest against primal nature actually, against the body, against its distinctions and perceived injustices, and it's not made by Nietzsche, but it's almost the caricaturist intensification you can think of, of the same calamitous tendencies Nietzsche diagnosed in modernity. A fanatical moral protest against not just even especially traditional morality, because

you see actually in many cases the leftoids are too ready to adopt the accessories or image of that for themselves and to wear it as a dead cloth of morality. But actually it's not a protest against morality but against nature and biology, against the body as it is in birth of woman and in nature as they see it as being immoral and that it must be replaced with a moral nigger diabetic blob. And again, you know, it is as the justice of the spicning cycle as I say before but But I've also actually called this the HFCSICU cycle. A lot of words, but this is the high fructose corn syrup ICU cycle. It's just a way to make vivid what means the Spicknik cycle, the path downward, the degeneration for man. And I will be right back to discuss more of this.

And still by Yukio Mishima is maybe a most profound reflection on physical life, physicality, athleticism, also by a man of the mind, an entirely, completely Nietzschean book, is the story of Mishima's transformation through bodybuilding and how he learned through this, I much simplify, but his best book on such things by a man of the mind. But he began through this to ground, you could say, or in any case it changed his life, his way of thinking, the orientation of his spirit. He came to realize much about himself. He came to ground this thought in a kind of imminence and he grew up, you know, as an intensely sensitive, artistic, even neurotic boy possessed by all kinds of grotesque, maybe even in some way beautiful, sublime fears.

But I'm saying to you it's precisely in such a type of man who is most easily given to over-intellectualization, is most comfortable with that, but it's for such a man that an An activity like bodybuilding is extremely important, most needful, and he explained to you why in this book, and of course it doesn't have to be bodybuilding. You could do judo, for example, and I remember actually now there was an American State Department official who challenged Putin to a judo, and normally I would approve of this because leaders should challenge others to mortal combat, to settle disputes, but what motivated that State Department apparatchik was not this. It's just this over-civilized American occupational class, which is mostly yokels by the way,

but to advance they have to self-deter and to use office flower language, and they live in this extremely pinched-face, neutered, restricted, hyper-Victorian almost world, but because it has no grounding in religion or any higher vision of virtue or anything at all really, other than the requirements for advancement in life, it leaves this big intolerable hole in their being where they become very self-conscious, insecure about things like masculinity or physicality or power or images of power, so they have to in some way to, they start to have delusions of power, you see, I have that number, they're the type who engage in cartoonish displays of, you know, their image of malleiness like inviting Putin to a judo match, a very embarrassing behavior for a state department official.

But I know these type of people which is why my account and the pictures I post and some things I say are actually very strong trigger, it triggers them so much. But yes, that state department official challenged Putler to judo and judo is an excellent sport by the way for a manlet like Putin. are the most revolutionary principle in world history, some people say. So anyway, Mishima focused on bodybuilding, which is maybe more than other sports. It's an excellent way for a man of intellect, especially a man of high nervous energy, to confront the primacy of the physical, of nature, and of its requirements in all ways. And all this is with relation in Mishima to transformation, in other words, to feeling for form and for beauty.

And he talks about the deep relation between his physical confrontation with Sun and Steel and how his intellect and spirit develop and this is from Nietzsche's insight and I'm saying if you want a post Nietzsche commentary on the body, read this, Yukio Mishima's Sun and Steel and do not read the intellectualized postmodern academic crap, but insight on primacy of the physical which, like I say, permeates all realization of nature and not just of man's personal life and insight, but also on morality, on physical matters and everything else. Excuse me, on political matters and so forth. And now to illustrate better for you, you consider, for example, a negative or you could say an inversion of Miss Shima's path of ascent, consider a negative or degenerate version

of this that helps you understand this insight and think of the case of a man who is sick, who has degenerated physiology and habits, who is incontinent, who is a glutton and who instead of trying to right his situation, he ends up instead making justifications for it or what you call cope. I don't like this word but someone who tries to not just justify himself but even to make a political or moral point of it, to universalize it. And you see this in fact activists, of course, but unfortunately we've been on Twitter and so on at least over the last year able to witness the cope or really the breakdown of such a creature or maybe more than one who probably has, from what I understand, unrealized tranny desires of associated creatures and who maybe in part out of burning resentment

against me who wish to encourage rather the abandonment of the path of physical culture, but I suspect actually in large part they genuinely have tried to moralize and to justify their physical and spiritual sickness. And you know nobody begrudges a man who is in a bad condition but who is aware of it and tries to improve and tries not to have it affect his judgments and his mind. But everyone hates, for example, a fat activist bitch who encourages girls to deform their bodies with obesity and the like, which ruins, really, the lives of young women, and also of the society by corrupting the sexual market. That's maybe a discussion for next time. But this person I mentioned is an easy example. I only use him because you are familiar with his case.

I refuse to boost him or his associates by saying their cunt-like names. But many of you are familiar with this and could see a desperate human and you could see in action over here how his ugliness really invaded all of his judgments about life, about people, about the world. So in other words, a case study, and this is a small example of a much bigger point in nature that physiology is primal and that especially if you're not aware of it, if you're not in a relation to it where you can notice its pressures on your reason, really everything you think and say and value will be a reflection of physical states, of you could say, for example, metabolism, of digestion, of health and unhealth, of whether the thinker body is in a state of free ascent or of restriction and of descent.

And so, for example, he frequently marks Carlisle by saying he was a man of bad digestion and dyspepsia, and his entire thought is a reflection of this, Nietzsche claims it's about Carlisle. Now this is all the more significant when you realize Nietzsche himself had terrible digestion problems his entire life, horrible ones, and indeed by chance and so on he was actually of very frail health. He eventually died, not of syphilis as some morons claim, but because of a genetic disorder that had also killed his father around the same age, and in Etch-A-Homo I believe he calls this Carlyle a spiritual swindler and at other times attributes his hysterical philosophy to problems with metabolism that he never realized and so on.

But again, the difference with Nietzsche is that he did confront and he realized those problems he had, but he confronted them both physically and spiritually. And by the way, if I can go on a tangent again for a moment, there's almost an industry of treatings. I believe Joachim Koller is one who wrote a biography of Nietzsche or was it Rudiger Safranski. I don't remember, they both write stupid things, but most such people have uneventful, boring lives and they write things no one will ever remember, but they like to point out with some glee that Nietzsche was supposedly not a heroic overman in his personal life and he doesn't claim to be by the way, but they harp on the fact that he was sick or often in poor health or that he was financially poor and so on even and I don't joke about

this. a refutation of Nietzsche I once saw by a journal whore in an article who complained that they went to Switzerland and they saw Nietzsche's room while he was a traveler in Switzerland and that it was some kind of pitifully small attic room apparently that he was renting from an old woman and they were harping on about how this was very sad and how he realized and so forth that you know but what you need to know about such people I mean think of what I just I just told you, who would judge a great thinker by that? What you need to know about such people is their idea of the good life is incredibly vulgar. It's something akin to those OnlyFans prosties who post pictures of their tasteless houses as if they'd achieved something.

And that even at the highest level of so-called intelligentsia, even among leftoids, all they care about is whether they have house, whether they eat and drink lobster risotto. They care about the same things as the Only Fans Whore and this, and of course they pride over drinking, for example, bad wine they think is higher status than Bud Light. But fundamentally they are vulgar, disgusting people, which is why they try to judge Nietzsche in this petty way. And I've known so-called professors who outside their specialty had the knowledge of a Oaxacan human leashblower. They had complete lack of curiosity outside, you know, a decade or two in the 18th or 19th centuries as if you can specialize in that. And outside of it, they knew nothing.

They might think even that, I've met many people who thought that ancient Egyptians were Muslim or had, you know, they had no real sense of chronology or anything. They cannot name major world capitals or they think Bratislava is a kind of cheese. I don't know, whatever, but that's the American and much of the European even intelligentsia and somebody like Ben Rhodes, who is himself a moron, but he worked for Obama I think and he said about journalists, you know, they said journalists today that these young people who know absolutely nothing so they accept what we tell them, okay, and ultimately all such people they care about is only they care about making it and their definition of even Even what that is is very paltry and makes me nauseous to think about.

But anyway, so such people take it on themselves to smirk at Nietzsche that he was physically sick or a loser or poor as this while they, you know, were some kind of slob who lived the kind of life and have the kind of aspirations I just told you. And you know the absurdity of that kind of judgment, quite the sight on the fact that this man was literally a prophet who inspired great artists and who will probably in the future be literally worshipped as the source of the foundation of states, if not in fact of a new world civilization, while they are, by contrast, shades to be forgotten. But quite aside from that, Nietzsche was actually, remember, born with a genetic disease that made his life very difficult and that eventually killed him, and he had horrible neurological

and digestive problems and migraines his whole life, and was practically blind at other times, And despite this, he managed to adopt a light of vitality, of travel, of 8 to 10 hour daily hikes up a mountain, he got himself eventually to where he could do that daily, and yes of weightlifting. He transported weights with him in his travels and he did not give in to his degeneration and physical problems and he did not let them become a source of a faulty understanding of the world. them instead become a source of insight into the dependence of all thought on physiological state. And he solved most actually of his physical problems for the time allotted to him. And for example, as this autopsy, medical students who witnessed this autopsy said that he was ripped, he was a jacked man.

This is true, I do not make it up, look it up. He lived in Swiss mountains in Italy and he hiked and lifted weights. He mentions this, that people who are born, let's say, degenerate in spirit and body, like Caesar, they nevertheless have the potential to become great if they train that out of themselves and that they most of all need a regimented way of life with long hikes and discipline and this. And he managed to do that for himself and I'm tired of rules and nobodies trying to one-up him in these vulgar ways because actually, even in the day-to-day sense, again Nietzsche live the life of a free and vigorous man despite enormous obstacles. And to repeat, sit as little as possible, give no credence to any thought that was not

born outdoors as one moved about freely, in which the muscles are celebrating a feast as well. All prejudices come from the intestines. The sedentary life, as I have said once before, is the real sin against the Holy Spirit. It is true and he lived this, he lives this, and it has meaning well beyond the personal. Consider for a moment now the political meaning of part of this sort. Just to illustrate for you how much it can be extended. Think of it this way, where does morality come from? I don't mean just in the most general sense, but this or that particular morality. The morality of the ancient Iranians or of the Chinese or Japanese morality of Ainu moral code, Jewish morality, Muslim or whatever, where do these moral codes come from? And the last two should be your answer.

They come from founders of religions or founders of nations like Moses, like Kyrgyz, Rousseau and Machiavelli, they also talk of such men. The highest type of man, you could say, the legislator. The man who founds religions and peoples that last thousands of years. Now try to think this for a moment, objectively, from natural point of view. It may be, you know, a religious man, okay, then you have to believe these men, some of them were divinely inspired, which by the way, in the end, I also believe, all of them to have been. But that is not enough, there is something else. These are men of genius who are not only divinely inspired, but also managed to convince and persuade nations, usually with magic or what looked like magic to the audience, and they

were men of genius in that they erected systems of morality that once adopted, whether legalistic or otherwise, but they were systems that lasted. They lasted for eons and they did not do just murderous flash in the pan like the Soviets for 70 years and then disappear. There were surely some of those in the past, but of those maybe we do not hear today, they disappeared. But these lasted thousands of years, and they understood human nature. In other words, they were perceptive geniuses. In other words, to do this, they had to stand outside morality. To find a moral code that lasts ages, to find a people in other words, you need to be able to stand outside that moral code and all moral codes. I'm sorry this offends, but okay, so this, the moral code itself is grounded in thinking,

maybe in part divine, but in part from the genius of the founder, and therefore this highly depends on the disposition and character of this founder. And since all thought is ultimately the spiritualized expression of a primal physiology, in a way I roughly tried to illustrate to you earlier in the segment, if the founder is a man who who let's say is of ill disposition and of dysgenic metabolism, who does not realize this and who then universalizes a faulty valuation of life or a false and darkened valuation of his people's destiny, or who managed to seduce them into a difficult point of their history, managed to take advantage of that difficult time in their history and to seduce them into elevating the sick and the degenerate among them instead of the healthy and the

strong and the ascendant, this would have, as you would guess, tremendous consequences for nature and for the future and for life. Because what is morality or a people in the end, but also let's say if you successfully establish this moral code and it indeed lasts generations, then this will no doubt affect the biology of this nation. This is what I am trying to tell you. What is morality in the end but this? Its ultimate expression is in the biology of a nation that has ascribed to this morality for many generations. Now as to the things like the Roman and the Russian empires which are multiracial and are meant to be perpetual also, put that out of your mind for a moment because that's really a secondary effect and not possible without this verse that I'm talking about.

very complicated matters that I cannot get into right now. But if just let's say you successfully establish a nation or a tribe, see Nietzsche's passage from Zarathustra on the thousand and one goals, right, the thousand and one tablets. One nation sets shooting straight arrows from horse and telling truth as its highest test, the Persians. Another sets honoring mother and father, the Jews. sets command and obedience, the Germans, the Greeks, the ambition to excel over all other men of all these goals. If you are a legislator and you set this, if a society genuinely exists and is perpetuated in this way, then think it through of how it worked. The most capable men in these societies will gravitate towards these goals, will try to achieve them, will try to live this way of life.

They will get praised if they do well. They will go into obscurity if they do not. And some will do it better than others, and such men will sire children maybe more than others, or whether that is because they will have bigger families with one wife, where the children survive more and are honored more and have more children themselves, or because the society rewards these things and then also through bastardy or second wives or even informal wives and such, many bastards. But the point is that inevitably, if you do set up a nation based on one of these high visions, high moral visions and high goals, it will have a biological effect on the future of this nation eventually, unless it breaks down. It will inevitably have a biological effect and so in a way that spiritualized bodies

that the founder conceived in his genius that was implicit in the moral code he established, It will eventually become a real body, real bodies in the future as the nation self-selects itself in that direction, breathes itself in that direction. Some will do so more successfully than others, but this is what happens. So you can see very profound meaning here of a few things, the primacy of the physiological both in the conceiving act of the founder himself, of his perception of the physical condition of the nation he is targeting, but also implicit in all political and moral life of a people, and ultimately the meaning of a political state and of a moral code is the quality or type of man it produces, right?

And second, you see, idea I mentioned, I think show number 69, but also before, that clear-mindedness in matters of sex and breathing is ultimately the most needful and crucial step for a founder of states of a religion or of a moral code because the most important part of all that is what does courtship look like? What does marriage look like? Who get to have children? How are these children raised? What kind? How many children will they have and with who? And the question is even somewhat more complicated than our own HPD thinkers would have it. They only begin to approach this because Nietzsche emphasizes it's not just simply this side side of it, just the breathing and the blood, but how it is received by the environment,

and I mean specifically the physical environment, the climate, the air, the food, the diet in other words, the water, the exercise and type of exercise such organism gets and how this in turn affects breathing practices also. And these are the most important matters in the life and development of a people and a nation. the high thoughts, the philosophy, are a crown to this or a reflection of this only and perhaps a further inducement to it. Art is an expression of a certain kind of life and in turn also propagates this life maybe literally as a kind of high-class propaganda. But such is at least true in a traditional and healthy society anyway, in an organic people people founded by a prophet or a founder of nations and not in a modern vampire state.

And to say a bit more on that, I will be right back, I have Brennan with me, again he tried to do my nails, I asked him please stop and I have to tell you while I record this show I am wearing headphones with musics so I cannot hear what's going on outside but I apologize if you hear a random sound of any mole or something, I am somewhat in wilderness and surrounded by sounds that scare me from outside, including perhaps the resident cattle getting to fight. I don't know. In any case, I will be right back. I go to have hot cocoa. I'll be right back. The question may be not so much of moral relativism in the way you're trained to think about it, but of morality relative to physiology or the dependence of morality on biology, and

its ability in turn, however, to direct part of the course of selection, in other words, the way custom is used in the service of life, and this is immensely important for Nietzsche for the obvious reason that he saw the moral code of the West which had sustained it for at least 1,000 years or so or longer, that it was disappearing, and even in his age it It was disappearing. Marriage, no more foundation for it. He was saying that marriage as an institution in his time was already over. It had become based on a caprice like love. There was no more belief in it, no more belief in the family even in his age, no more belief in God, nothing genuine. As Dostoevsky say, without God, everything is permitted, right?

You all know this phrase, but a vast moral code, in part maybe originating from Jesus and the Bible, in part originating from Socrates and so forth, it was in both directions breaking down. No one believed in it anymore, not with any genuine fervor or clarity, and he predicted in the wake of this what actually happened, the experiments of barbaric brotherhoods and the socialist experiments, he calls them socialist specifically, that would kill millions and millions and that would fail, and he knew what was coming. Dostoevsky also knew, read book Demons, and he knew wars were coming. He predicted they would come around 1915 and this breakdown in immorality that had sustained the West was happening at the same time that the rise of the West to global status, that

technology had allowed mankind or the West specifically to become global and the struggles that would then follow would be global and geared toward dominion of the earth. But what would follow later after the near-term nihilistic convulsions? This was the big question. Would it be the perpetual age of the last man who makes the horizon and spirit of mankind small which you can read about in the prologue to Zarathustra and which I've slightly changed to the bug man which is worse? Or would it be the foundation of a new moral code that was founded in full understanding of what morality actually has always been for, and that would be directed consciously and scientifically towards the flourishing of higher life.

And so in this gap time, so to speak, where traditional morality was breaking down, and he knew time was short, and it's shorter still and all day if it's not already too late. But he knew time very short, so it was important to him to make clear to whatever great minds might arise in the remaining few allotted years to make clear to them the necessity of the establishment of a new moral order based not on humanitarian misunderstandings about individual rights and ethics and this, but on a biological understanding of the needs of life. And so I say this because, first of all, it's a way to understand his amoralism as well as his attacks on Christianity. It was not, you know, he wasn't doing it for the purpose of getting women journalists

to celebrate their liberation and being butt-hexed on public social media, and it was not personal attack on Christianity to him, but to make clear, rather, to potential founders of new moral orders that the source of morality is outside morality, to not misunderstand themselves and their task. And now it is true many artists were attracted to Nietzsche, and I've mentioned a few, It was not only Junger, Selim, Mishima and such, but many even on the left, and many apolitical ones, of course, and many wonderful writers were Nietzscheans like Robert Musil. Freud is just a footnote to Nietzsche as well, and so on and so forth. But none of these men, no matter how distinguished, were ready to undertake the ultimate task.

And Alexander Scriabin, who I play his musics on this show all the time, but he believed himself to be a new prophet of a new age, but he was assassinated before he could end the world with his grand Mysterium performance. It was set to be put on the Himalayas, but in world politics, it was only a few men who followed this path. Danunzio, my favorite, maybe Stefan Goerge, and if the two of them had succeeded, maybe it would have been a wonderful thing, but of course there was Mussolini and maybe most Most of all, Hitler are the ones you know who took up this calling, though it did not work out in the end and I don't want to get, however, into humanitarian and liberal arguments about whether they were evil or what else, but they undertook at least the most needful

task and they failed, but Nietzsche encourages this because it is needful. You have to think big. And I mean, even if you are Christian and I have many friends who are genuine believers, get along quite well, but you can't look at the state of churches today and the state of the mass of believers even and simply think that the re-establishment of any old status quo is possible or simply a return. It must be even for a Christian, it must be a new foundation and to this end, this why Nietzsche directs people not to immorality but to perhaps some people to amoralism because that is part of the requisite orientation to undertake the great task. And the second thing to understand from this and the point really maybe of this episode,

maybe I try to say here at the end again, is that you judge a society or a political state by the type of men it produces and you judge in the same way a piece of art or music or any great production of culture and especially of philosophy or especially of moral philosophy You judge it by the type of life that it comes from and the type of life that it inspires. In the case of a political state, what I said is easy to see. For example, who would think that you judge the worth of such an adventure as a political state that you judge it by the tonnage of butter produced? How many tons of butter per year? And this was, you know, part of socialist propaganda. countries where we have made so many tractors and we have made so many bushels of wheat and pounds of butter and so forth.

As much as GDP is part of its twin capitalist propaganda, or that you judge it by how many buildings get built or what kind, or even by the number of people it can churn out and by how well it can preserve their safety or fill their stomachs, none of this means anything in the end. Ultimately, what matters, it's not enough even to say human happiness is formed. But if this is to mean anything, it is the type of man it produces. How intelligent, how physically beautiful even, how powerful in body and mind, how graceful, how courageous is such a man, how creative and so forth. And that is the value of a state, whether it can do this and ultimately the value of a people. Nietzsche is right in saying a people only finds redemption in its petty lives and struggles

in the production of one supreme genius, that really a people is just nature's circuitous path to a certain type of great man in each case. But in the same way you can only judge a piece of art or philosophy by its relation to life. In other words, please think of this. Imagine a world where there was no real art, no literature, no philosophy, not even any profound conversations. And those are very rare now as it is and at all times may be. But imagine a place where men lived lives, however, of adventure, excitement and exploration. So again, no works of the high mind exist like I say before, but men lived vigorous lives of excitement and where they look, thought and act in magnificent and free ways. Could such a place exist? I think so.

I think such might have been the heroic Stone Age, at least at certain times. For certain times it is a great thing. But now imagine the opposite. Imagine a world where everyone or almost everyone actually produced good art or where good art was produced by some. Maybe even great paintings sometimes where there were fine examples of philosophy and great amount and lesser but refined thought and commentary of all kinds and criticism where high mathematics and theoretical physics was thought up. So this is certainly not our world, but imagine one where such things happen, but where everyone lives in pods or in restricted pens like hogs in a modern hog factory, and where the only lives actually lived are restricted, repetitive, and predictable, where men are domesticated

and meek, where the typical specimen produced is of subhuman and ugly form, where it has There's petty daily thoughts aside from these great productions that say there's only petty daily thoughts and petty and despicable deceptive behavior toward others. And no prospect for things to change to something better either. All of that cultural and scientific philosophical production just exists in itself, not as the foundation or pointing to a new way of life, but just really in the end you could say a mental product or a mental exercise. And I'm not going to even ask you which would you choose between these two options unless you are mentally ill. And how pathetic and sad is the second option I mentioned.

In fact, the misery of that existence would only be intensified by the production of those fine things which, anyway, by the way, it would be impossible for them to come about in that world if you think it through. But in this thought experiment I hope you have the beginning of answer of what is meant by in the service of life. And I say this in full knowledge, for example, when Schopenhauer, he says, Cervantes, as a prisoner in jail, he was put in jail and he wrote Don Quixote in jail, Cervantes. But he was a happier and freer man than most other so-called humans who are not in jail because he was a genius and he was happy producing this book, Don Quixote. And that's true, but it's true only as an exception even within the life of one man

and only with the prospect of a jailed life not becoming the global norm. But is it really a thought experiment that I said in the second case or is it something our time is approaching faster and not slower now minus the conditions, minus the productions of great life? I mean that life in pods with no future, which is why in my book and at other times I ask you to reject all calls, to over-intellectualize, to reject things like pursuit of refinement of literary soul or whatever. You are being encouraged in that direction by a variety of liberals and conservatives who will tell you, oh, well, life might very well suck, but you should pursue these private projects of mental refinement or so on. And I guarantee you they would not know what that means if it hit them in the eye.

If your life in a pod would be made any better if you were writing a poem or something, think of it that way, would it? For the similar cause, think of it this way, from the fake religious who tell you that going to church and that belief is enough, that you should be happy with this mediocre open air prison, that you should never dabble in a reactionary evil thought that might upset things as they are, but you should be happy with this liberal mediocre open air prison, but they aim really just to put religious bells and whistles on it and decoration on your subjection and to make you happy with it, to say, well you should retreat into this quietistic life of religious veneration and you should be happy with this liberal open air museum you live in.

They are not genuine Christians, they are fundamentally Marxists and the funny part is that this second hellish society I mentioned, the second option, that is actually Marx's end state. That is the heaven and nirvana of the socialist. It's very strange, right, but if you think it through, even if you had, let's say, comfort, freedom from work, if you had a spacious house or whatever, instead of a pod, if you had a full belly, not of bug meat, but of real steak, and Marx's paradise were achieved, where a man paints in the afternoon or in the morning, he's a fisherman in the afternoon, whatever he says, that hellish meaningless life, but in fundamental way, it would still be like the world I described before, because it would be, as I say in my book, a space

that is completely and totally owned, that all possible directions for growth you'd have are banal, pre-approved, pre-determined, and of really no consequence, where all thought and all art itself would be of no consequence as well, but merely like a crossword puzzle. be living in a glorified nursing home or a pod, even if it's glorified pod, and that's your choice now between the soft and the hard globalists. And one way or another, both are the end of life as life. And so this is why Nietzsche is right when he say the opposite, that all real culture, vital culture, that means something only as a means, this something in context of ascending or descending life. That is its only value. And therefore that the body, the physical primacy is a foundation as well as the end

of all culture, all thought, all politics, not the other way around. So I will end now with a beautiful package, excuse me, passage, yes, package, where he make this very clear, he make his purpose very clear, how the foundation of higher culture is actually the physical, the diet, the habits and regime and exercise of life, the nature, the body in other words. So I'm reading now and very interesting Nietzsche code to end episode, Beauty No Accident is from Twilight of the Idols. Beauty No Accident. Beauty is not an accident. If I may editorialize before I start reading, people who talk of accident of birth are morons and this is why, they're liars. Beauty No Accident. I read now. Even the beauty of a race or of a family, the charm and perfection of all its movements

is attained with pains. Like genius, it is the final result of the accumulated work of generations. Great sacrifices must have been made on the altar of good taste. For its sake many things must have been done, and much must have been left undone. The seventeenth century in France is admirable for both of these things. In this century there must have been a principle of selection in respect to company, locality, clothing, the gratification of the instinct of sex. Beauty must have been preferred to profit, to habit, to opinion and to indolence. The first rule of all, nobody must let himself go, not even when he is alone. Good things are exceedingly costly and in all cases the law obtains that he who possesses them is a different person from him who is acquiring them.

Everything good is an inheritance. That which is not inherited is imperfect, it is simply a beginning. In Athens, at the time of Cicero, who expresses his surprise at the fact the men and youths were by far superior in beauty to the women, no homo. But what hard work and exertion the male sex had for centuries imposed upon itself in the service of beauty. We must not be mistaken in regard to the method employed here. The mere discipline of feelings and thoughts is little better than nil. It is in this that the great error of German culture, which is quite illusory, lies. The body must be persuaded first. The strict maintenance of a distinguished and tasteful demeanor, the obligation of frequenting only those who do not let themselves go, is amply sufficient to render one distinguished

and tasteful. In two or three generations, everything that has already taken deep root – the fate of a people and of humanity – is decided according to whether they begin culture at the right place, not at the soul as the fatal superstition of the priests and have priests should have it. The right place is the body, demeanor, diet, physiology. The rest follows as night, the day. This is why the Greeks remain the first event in culture. They knew and they did what was needful. Very good. This is Nietzsche's kernel, if you think on it. But you must read it and think on it and read Ece Homo to begin with. This is what I recommend. But I have much more to say on this. It's too long show now. I will continue next time.

Until then, Brennan, come here, I will, Brennan, come here, I will, it's time to beat you. Okay, until next time, bap out. Brennan, when? You are my love, my love of grace You are my love, I love you You are my love, I love you You are my balance, I love you You are my love, I love you You are my love, I love you You are my love, I love you 🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵�