Caribbean rhythms episode 73 is this show on what I called hidden history of France. I was feeling escapist and In such mood. I often like to think about France if you study 17th century the 1600s of France it is one of the peaks of all human history It is I believe the peak of France and also one of peaks of world history and of mankind This show, however, is not about this. Maybe some other time. Now I discuss a hidden history of France, and I have to preamble apologize to you if I use softer voice on this episode, but I am yet again apartment cuck, and so I am afraid of tense relations with my neighbor and where this could lead to some situation like Schopenhauer who pushed a woman down the stairs, and he had to pay restitution to that old cow his whole life.

I do not want this to happen, so I have a softer voice, and then second, this will be a rather longer show with, I will read for you some passages, so you will accept, I hope, softer voice. In the study of France, you can have full view of European and therefore Western culture, and you know there's a reason that non-Europeans look up to France and hate French style more than other Euro countries. For example, you go Egypt, Egyptians, Arabs, they look up to France, and it's not only because of French colonialism in that part of the world, because also Iran, never colonized by France, but with English and Russian influence was much more important. But they too look up to France to extend to, they use the French word merci for thank you.

And all Europe aspiring nations on the periphery of world, on the periphery of Europe itself, East Europeans, Russians, they all look up to France most of all. This is why Russian nobles, boyars, and Polish nobles and other East European aristocracy, They would all leave their estates or plantations, call it what you will, but they would leave it in the care, for example, in Poland under management of a usually Jewish arandator, it was called, a manager, and they would spend their whole time in Paris and many such things all across the world. I'm sure you can think of other, Buenos Aires, for example, boasts of being the Paris of South America, not the Berlin or London of South America, and this is for a reason.

because all of the new France is source of highest, most refined form of modern European culture in the arts, in manners, and to some extent also in the sciences. France still has claim to mathematics and high sciences in many ways. So anyway, you don't need to become a frog worshipper to enjoy this show, but I am strong of beliefs that you should love and respect the subject you study, because only then will your brain really put in the effort to understand it and you cannot go wrong with trying to understand France and its whole history you will through this if you dedicate yourself to this study you will know all European history because it's also every major political event or development France is at center or very much involved somehow

even if you look for example Norman conquest of England of course is come from France, and then the Angevins that followed the Angevin dynasty of England, that you could say piggybacked on the Norman Conquest, and which was so important for the making of England and of modern America, even as it is, King John, right, he was an Angevin, King John of the Magna Carta, the Magnum Carter, with all this talk of Anglo-Saxon, you know, right Right now, it's important to remember the American political traditions come from such events, from Magna Carta. As far as I'm aware, this was a development in Anglo-Saxon and Norman history and not in the history of Rajasthan or of Minsk or of Thailand. As far as I know at least, I don't know, maybe I can be educated by Twitter academic personality,

but this period is also a formation of modern English, the language, as we speak it now. And it's interesting that the Saxons of England, on hearing this language spoken at the court of the Angivists, the language we speak now, they called it French. So basically to a Saxon, what you're speaking now is French. And the old Anglo-Saxon itself is actually very close to Icelandic today, maybe even mutually intelligible, which is interesting. My Danish friend, Europe Esperance, he says instead of Latin as a common language of Europe, The North, which after all was never part of a Roman Empire, but the North should instead adopt Icelandic because of its closeness not only to Old Norse, but to all the old languages of the North which were related.

So I think this could project a League of the North Sea, all speaking Icelandic, and another Latin League in Europe. This would be more natural than the fake and gay European Union. Anyway, so I mean to say you look at any major political event I talk on this show before for example Charles of Anjou The other, excuse me, in the other direction in the 1200s He was also an Angevin and he was trying to found a Mediterranean empire and almost succeeded a Universal Empire under the rule of the church and although he failed Charles of Anjou failed in the revolt of the Sicilian Vespers, this failure, even as a failure, it had great consequences for the development of national identities in Europe and so forth.

So wherever you look, whether it's the Hundred Years' War or the Thirty Years' War or the Age of Revolution and of Napoleon, France is at center of all political events. The leading power of Europe, long as the most powerful realm in Europe. And it is fitting because it's, after all, the center of Charlemagne's empire, and therefore it's the center of the birth of the West as we know it. I happen to agree, maybe now with Oswald Spengler, that the West is a new civilization, however much it may have been influenced by Rome or Greece. But it's a new civilization that began around the year 1000, let's say in the wake of Charlemagne's great empire and France is its center and around as a year 1000 with the kickoff of the crusades,

which is also French or French-type nobles and groups, are at the center of the crusading project and therefore in this Spanglarian understanding is the birth of the West. Or if you want to go back a little further, the resistance of Charles Martel et Poitiers, which checks, by the way I will not pronounce on this show with a correct French accent because I think some pretentious and after After all, I am Russia a peasant, I cannot do it. But Charles Martel, which checked the mudslime advance into Europe, and yes, of course, it's not yet France, but Frankish identity is here again at one of the possible births of Europe, however you want to date it, at the definition of Europe's boundaries at a crucial point.

And because of Crusades, as you know, the Westerner, the generic name for Westerner in the Orient, even as far as Thailand, if you go, is Farang from Frank. So in any case, I cannot give you an overview of French history on this show. It's not its point. You could have an entire season podcast, a history of France. But for this, if you want an overview, I recommend again a book by John Julius Morwich. In fact, it is his last book, a history of France. It's a recent book. He died after he wrote it. And it's simply a history of of France, so I'm not sure if it's his best work, but like all of his histories, it's well-written, dramatic, and it's a good introduction. And he mentioned, I think, with the Greek setting Marseille, they settled in Marseille

because Marseille is old Greek city-state, and it is fine to begin, perhaps, a story of France with this, but it's not really relevant to history of France proper. They left no trace or influence to Greek colonists who founded Marseille around 600 BC. Whereas what I talk on this show, it's my own take, you could say the deep history of France, the biological history of France, which is also unfortunately the biological history and the fate of Europe. So I'd call this maybe the hidden history of France, but it's not so hidden. Much of this was known to reactionaries of, let's say, the 19th to early 20th centuries, when so much was discovered about nature and life. But then it was hidden again by our filthy, lying, liberal, democratic, fake societies with their fake religion after 1950.

So many things from nutrition, which the principles of right nutrition were also discovered, by the way, in the 19th century. for example, that you should avoid starches and that a diet of animal fats and protons is good for you. But that was forgotten as well. But everything was forgotten, nutrition, the nature of money, the character of all biology and life, to all aspects of history, the most remote history of Indo-European conquests. The theories were all forgotten. Much of it was known in detail to German linguists and military historians before 1930, but then Then it was obscured again. I'm talking now, of course, of theories of origin of Indo-Europeans, and Gregory Cochrane, who is a blogger who some of you read, but he's just a confused man who does not even

know the debates on such matters as the history of the Aryans, and he stupidly thinks the post-war theories of Maria Gimboutas are something revolutionary, when in fact they were designed and precisely to hide the character of the Aryan expansions with so much politicized nonsense about old Europe and female-led this, I don't want to get into it right now, I might discuss on show in last segment. But in any case, many of these insights of true science are only now being rediscovered, but tentatively, and with a lot of grabbing in the dark, many missteps, a lot of convoluted attempts to hide them under pretty lies. What do I mean? Let me give you an example. state of population genetics when it approaches these questions of antiquity, of remote antiquity.

It often comes to conclusions similar to those of late 19th century physical anthropology to the work of Kuhn and so forth, but it has to do so in clumsy step-by-step and roundabout way because as a modern population geneticist, for example, you cannot go to Wales and pick only the very shortest, squattest people with scrunched face, maybe they live in southern Wales and such types, but you cannot just pick those and in a naive way to do a study just on them and their families and this, it's not allowed. So this leads to many temporary, I hope, temporary misunderstandings, these limitations of the, let's say, modern rediscovery of hidden 19th century knowledge. But yes, much of what I tell you on this show is recovery of the thought of Nietzsche again,

but especially of Arthur Gobineau, who agrees with Nietzsche in very important ways. And Gobineau is known today, of course, as the father of racism, so-called, in a very sinister PBS way they have, you know. But I've heard him be called the steampunk father of racism. So this very racist show, sorry, turn off Protect Your Women and Children, don't let them listen. Like much else from steampunk era, Gobineau ends up being more right than the monkey cataloguers of today who study the same subjects he did without having his historical learning or his verve and passion for the matter and so on. So I will try to tell you history of France as one of the old deep story of racial groups that composed the French nation in layers, a nation that Gobineau calls actually an ethnic fiction.

does not believe that France is actually a real ethnic group or a real race. Now some of you may have heard of something similar argument, for example, if you've ever read Hannah Arendt, who is a nothing thinker, you should never waste a day reading her. But if you had to read her, she points out theories current, apparently during her time, that the French nation could be explained by the division between Franc and Gaul, and Therefore between the Celtic peoples and the Teutonic conquerors, the Franks being the axe-wielding Germanoids who spoke probably something close to Anglo-Saxon actually, and you can intuitively divide them between the mild elements of French and the austere ones, define these how you will, with Gaulish, or the Gauls, the Celts being one and Frankish

being the other, and she mentions this in a kind of wow, just wow way to dismiss it as an absurd kook history, but I don't know if it's so absurd. I was talking long ago about this with a friend, and this was, you know, actually a relatively liberal Jewish friend, and he said, why does Hannah Arendt dismiss this? It sounds very plausible. Well, plausible or not, I also happen to think it is wrong, but for very different reasons than Miss Arendt, Heidegger's groupie, does. I think Frank Gall is a kind of red herring. is an older and much more important cleavage in the French nation and I will be right back to discuss this it is time for cigarillo so you see what I do for you I've decided to start smoke cigarillo in break so as to improve my voice for the show I will be right back

Je ne sais pas qui marais vous soir. Je t'es regarde comme première fois. Bonnez moujour d'aime. Je ne sais plus grande que des mots. Tu esse est belle histoire. Je ne sais très jamais de lire. Je me facile des mots fragiles. C'est tête bien trop beau. Mais sont l'vire et c'est fini. Le tendinir c'est fa non ci. Mieux peu bien les enfrieux sur ma poumez jamais sur mon coeur. So, no, I do not believe as a main, let's say, racial cleavage in France is between the Gaul and the Franc. I think it's much older than that. And the Gaulish-Francish difference is not so useful to explaining very much that's interesting about French history or culture. But if you wanted to focus on a recent, which is to say, let's say, historical era as opposed to the veil of prehistory,

but historical era difference of great importance, it would be between North France and South France, or between, on one hand, as a very Romanized, Latinized part of France, and the Frankish, or I would say Frankish-Golish one of the North, as these had within recorded times different languages and very different cultures, political arrangements that were different, social customs and so forth. And in the south, you have a very well-known province. And why is it called province? Because it was the first Roman province outside of Italy, the first province of the empire. So look, this actually another way in which you can say France is central to European history, first conquest of the Romans. But OK, so because of the very old and established Roman

settlement, you find very beautiful Roman ruins there still. For example, in the city of Nimes, one of the prettiest cities in all of Europe, although now it is infected by the blight of the mud peoples who have been imported into Europe since the 1950s and 60s without the consent of the people and have especially flooded southern France and that whole region. So I should maybe make a disclaimer here, because in talking about Europe's ancient racial divisions, I'm aware these arguments can be misused to say, well, since the Phoenicians visited North Germany and England at some point, since the Basques are of different stock and since Europeans are so mixed, you know, the Vandals and Alans and this, which

in a way is true, in a way, and Camille Paglia, for example, is right when she point out that all across the world, each people you look at is very homogenous in eye color, skin hue, hair texture. But in Europe, and I mean in historical Europe before, let's say, 1900, you have this very great diversity in all of these physical features, which is one reason artists had such rich material for paintings and sculpture. I mean, she's right. For example, you look at ancient Greek sculptures and they almost fetishize, you could say, the hair. The boys have rock star hair and different hair textures and styles. And this is not something you could do in the Orient or in Africa where it's all one thing, you know, same hair colour, same hairstyle, same hair texture, same eye

colour and so forth. But this mixture of local European and Eurasian species in the European Peninsula notwithstanding, whatever took place thousands of years ago is irrelevant and cannot be used as justification for modern mass immigration, which is done only so that a few oligarchs and the cartel can get slave labor wages, or so that left-wing politicians can buy votes and can use internal divisions for their own ends. But it's interesting what will happen because the effect of this influx of mutually hostile peoples will lead, of course, not to greater universalism, and universalism has always been part of European spirit and European culture in a certain way, but that will be destroyed. This will only lead to

intensification of the pettiest and nastiest kinds of nationalism and of racialism and to the devolution of all Europe and maybe almost all the world then to something resembling Bosnia. But so in any case to return to France, aside from the infestation of ape people recently, You have very beautiful Roman ruins still in Nîmes and all of Provence and the French natives I mean the natives from there from that part of France the oxytowns the Provençals They have a different physical look from the Parisian and the north French still Certainly from the Norman and the northeast French slightly and a different attitude and this is always at least since Roman times it's been part of the Mediterranean world, in other words. In attitudes, in religiosity, in cuisine,

style, the foods they eat, in everything Provence is part of the Mediterranean. So if you want to use a relevant racial and cultural cleavage within the French nations, this is a very important one and can actually explain two major cultural developments in French and European history, whereas the, you know, the Frank Gaulish one is, it cannot, but this one can. First of all, the Albigensian Crusade which I mentioned before which was carried out against the of course Albigensian or Cathar heresy and this heresy had taken root also in North Italy and the Rhineland for different reasons but the stronghold was in southern France and why is because the French nobles there they resented being ruled by Frankish lords from Paris and again they spoke different language

Roman culture had never left and that area had a much more sensual and pleasured, loving Mediterranean way of life, whereas the Frankish North, you know the Northman, even before the coming of Lutheranism or Calvinism, the Northman is just more austere by nature. He's just wired that way. Sometimes, not all of them, but very often they are. And I talk this with Scott Laughlin when I do Nietzsche show, and I was asking him what he thought about the passage I read from Twilight of the Idols, and he told me that Scott Laughlin told me, you know, Bap, Nietzsche was a spurg. He had aspergers and he did not understand Christianity. He thought it was practiced like it was in books he read, where he sees that this saint says that,

or this one engage in mortification of the flesh or practices. But these things did not matter for day-to-day Catholics in some ways that the Vestal Virgins, maybe for the Romans, did not mean that the Romans as a whole were into virginity or asexualism, and moreover Nietzsche was mad at his pinch-faced, puritan, Lutheran minister father, who in current year, right now, he would be very much a member of the non-Christian, shit-lib, no-workout, pinch-faced anti-sex league, basically because he's a fucking German, you know, and many of them again are wired this way for austere mentality, and I think it might be true German pagans apparently did not even fuck their slave girls, it's austere people, right, and the South French were that of a different racial

stock and they're not like that, they did not appreciate being lorded over by these types so it was actually the local nobles in Provence and surrounding areas who supported the Cathar heresy as a way to secure their independence both from the Frankish French of Paris in the north and from the church since Catharism was a very anti-clerical religious movement. They hated the Catholic priests, and it's very interesting if you tunnel for a moment into the way this faith worked in the South, Catharism, because it's a bit paradoxical at first sight. Forgive if I repeat myself from previous show, but 73rd show I'm bound to repeat things occasionally. I may have said something about this before, but Catharism, which appears at first sight actually to be extreme form of puritanical Christianity.

But what it did, it threw in the face of the Catholic clergy, their luxury, their corruption, their hypocrisy. And this, it contrasted with the Cathar perfects, with their way of life. In other words, the perfects were the holy men and women, the sadhus of the Cathar faith, who lived lives very much like the Hindu sadhus, lives of extreme poverty, of self-renunciation, chastity, vegetarianism, and meditation. And so much so that the Franciscan and Dominican monk orders, they were actually formed to copy and combat the Cathars, to provide in other words a Catholic version of Cathar purity. But they were, the Cathars I mean, they were very effective at convincing the people that they were the true carriers of Christ's teachings.

And in fact they were the continuation of an uninterrupted line of early spiritualistic Christianity. this is true, they were, that had survived in Europe outside the control of the mainstream church and they had preserved, for example, very ancient Christian initiation rites where you put the Gospel of John on forehead open and you read the first 17 chapters. And on the other hand, they may have developed in pockets of Europe, the Cathars may have found a foothold, in other words, in pockets of Europe where again, for various political reasons, Even paganism or pagan sects had survived and had continued under a Christian outward form something That happened from time to time surfaced from time to time and it embarrassed the church greatly

But in any case whatever they were the weird thing is that although this very pure and ascetic interpretation of Christianity Because the standard for holiness and religiosity is raised so high Most people are then by definition unable to live up to it So the attitude then was if you cannot be as pure and holy as a perfect Christian as one of the perfecti You know one of their sort of priest class and so on That as a member of the laity then it didn't really matter what you did in other words Fornication orgies even sodomy all of it was equivalent to whether you were married or not. It was all the same you were either Perfect pure and chaste or not, which is why this sect got as a reputation for for libertinism and why again bugger is the old word for sodomite it comes from bulgar because

the cathar pope so to speak was living somewhere in bulgaria or at other times in bosnia it was a survival from the east of a manichean or agnostic heresy but the point is it's not that all cathars or the provincals were engaged in mass sodomy although the propaganda against them said they they were, but they were not, but that under this somewhat paradoxical convoluted justification, you can see how it would justify at a lesser intensity, it would justify a life a little bit more given over to sensuality and at least relative libertarianism as against the natural austerity of the Germanic north man. So you know, to speak of this, the French are often attacked for this, right, even today for being luscious and lecherous as this. But I don't know.

The Frenchman, for all of his erotic irritation, he just likes to take his pleasure with women in a relatively normal way, even if he's, for example, a philanderer or has many womans and so forth, or a woman is a slut, which the French woman can do in an elegant way, but it's not something to be copied if you're not French. Whereas when the two-tone does it a sexual liberation the Germans they do not do normal thing They like to put tight leather outfit and urinate in each other's mouth, you know So please two tons and sections do not attack the French. Okay. Let me now start also with the other people who make Similar accusations against the French. Should I talk about the Weinsteins? Listen, Jonah Goldberg who attacked the French as a cheese eating surrender monkeys when by the way

They were some of the bravest fighters who defended their colonial empire But you want me to start on the Weinstein and those kinds of habit? Why is it that people's with actually very austere a neuro wiring and moral codes that match this predisposition? Why is it when they get into well, you know, they get into this it's always leather Outfits and this and exposing yourself to a Guatemalan maid and other paraphilias Why? The French at least do it with more joy and they're more normal about it. But anyway, so you can see how the Provençal barons support of this schismatic agnosticism of the Albigensian heresy or the Catharism. At once it served their nationalist independence desires from the Franks, from the church hierarchy also,

and it gave some religious cover or legitimacy to a freer and easier, mad way of life, you can say, more suited to their biology. And closely related to this is our other Provençal innovation, the troubadours. This is the second great thing you can explain with the North-South divide in France. The amazing Provençal poetry composed by warrior and knight bards, the troubadours. A tradition that also went by the name of Gaiacenza, Gai Saber, the gay science or the cheerful wisdom. is why Nietzsche named his book this, because he believed this Provençal poetic culture that developed, let's say, 1100 to 1300 or so, that it was really the foundation or preservation of Europe. It's an extreme statement to make, but he believes this, and there is much in

this judgment that's very profound. It will take its own show to discuss this, but a hint you can find when he say that they, the troubadours, invented love as passion, which he calls the European specialty. Very interesting, Nietzsche focuses on this as the European specialty, love as passion. And there is much in this if you think it through. Why would Nietzsche say this? But he finds this in Provençal culture as the root of all European fascination with the romance and the passion of romance and also in this root or a salvation of Europe itself. So if If you want to read these poems, you can see Bernhard the Twentadorn and Bertrand the Borned. These are names of two great famous troubadour poets. Although I'm not so sure about good translation,

but if you speak any modern romance language, you can read them quite easily. It reads almost like a generic romance language. But so this cleavage between North and South France, which surely is not just cultural, political, but ultimately is a racial one, it's persistent and you see how important it is to explain developments not just in French history but in the fate of all Europe and the West Nevertheless, like I say, I believe there is an older and prehistoric cleavage and unfortunately a more important one to explain some very bad things and I will be right back to discuss this This is a dream come true This is a dream come true To march in the forest To be more normal To be more normal to these creatures To be more normal to these creatures To be more normal to these creatures

To be more normal to these creatures To be more normal to these creatures To be more normal to these creatures To be more normal to these creatures To be more normal to these creatures Welcome back to show, the major cleavage in France is between Arian and Pre-Arian. And unfortunately most of France, as well as Germania, are Pre-Arian predominant regions, which I believe accounts for most of the problems of modern life. The left and communism are biological phenomena, in other words, arising from the fact that a pre-Aryan element in blood has gained upper hand, so that there is a return to socialism, to prehistoric feminism, and a corresponding breakdown in the state structure in the manly virtues of war that are the origin of states as well as of all differentiation in social

structure as well as in human spirit, and therefore a dissolution of the possibility of higher culture as well as any kind of truly penetrating science, not to speak of liberty. Is this why I sometimes talk that there are only two or three real white people left in the world and the bureaucrat is one of them. But the cause may be easy to see if you look at Europe before 1500 BC when it was a swamp and backwater in almost every way, that is, before the patriarchal and conquering, sky-worshipping Aryans arrived. And I don't want to repeat just more of what's in my book, but I call this the longhouse culture for a very good reason, which is that although, for example, longhouse architecture survived into the Aryan era, so for example, like my friend Survived the Jive, he points

out the viking lord. He lived in a longhouse and only the bravest warriors who formed part of his guard or manner bond were welcome to stay, to dine and drink with him there and to stay overnight and sleep. But this is a real change however from let's say the pre-Aryan era where private property didn't really exist, where life was communal pods or, excuse me, bunks essentially in a longhouse with communal family lifestyle, and there was a total change in architecture in temperate area Europe with the coming of charioteers and Aryans, where you see archaeologically a layer of destruction, the longhouses disappeared mainly as a form of village organization, and you start to have individual houses for individual families, scattered at some distance

from one another, as if the occupants wanted and needed some privacy, much like Tacitus In his Germania he describes the way the German tribes built their huts in this way, far from each other and without a plan. And of course in Tacitus' book you see also he casually mentions slaves. So these German tribesmen, a villager, the ancient Germans had slaves, and who were these slaves? Some were surely other Germans who were captured in battle maybe, or cowards who could not face the courage in single combat. like in ancient Sparta, you would be dropped from the citizen roles if you did not fulfill your duties in battle, and you would become, let's say, a resident serf farmer. But I would say in many cases, they were the pre-Aryan population, the slaves of the Germanics,

that had been the pre-Aryan population that had been enslaved or already in serf. And if you look at almost the whole of Europe before the coming of the Aryan race, it was What I'm telling you now is this kind of cloying village surf life. As you should look at, the famous example is the Tripolia culture, it's called, of northwest of the Black Sea. Might be at 5000 to 3000 BC, something like this, which was raided, probably, and destroyed by Yamnaya or similar ancestors of the Aryans. But they lived in absolutely massive villages, this kind of old Europe, you could say, a farming culture, right? So they lived in this thickly settled, actually very high population density, full of this kind of longhouse arrangement that I say,

and they were unskilled in the arts of war, which isn't to say, as modern feminists want to claim, that they were peaceful or mild hippies, because I'm sure they had human sacrifice in this, but they were just not good at organized warfare. So why am I saying all this? Because by By the 19th century, with the coming tide of democracy in Europe, a few insightful lone men, you know, I told you this knowledge was not hidden in the 19th century, but actually it was only very few men like Nietzsche, but not just in Gobineau and a couple of others, who came up with these very insightful theories. It was not common knowledge at the time, as you may have been told. But they noticed that the political development, this coming of democracy and anarchy, was

only one ultimately a development of biology, both because the slave classes had multiplied beyond control in the modern era with, but also that the Aryan blood had been mixed with the pre-Aryan, which had always happened to some extent before, but now it was the longhouse socialist spirit that started to dominate. So you say what this explains in France of French history, well, in most of French history, The pre-Aryan class explains absolutely nothing for the simple reason that whatever is notable and great in the history of a people, whatever is remembered, therefore, has always been a product of its aristocracy, whereas the people is the same everywhere you go. So all its greatness and what is distinct and special in French civilization and history

was the product of its predominantly Aryan ruling class, much, if you look, for example, a racial-facial type is preserved most of all in the men of the species and not the woman so much, if you look at the faces, in the same way the character of a people is preserved in the aristocracy and not the people. And I will talk to you about how Gobineau, the great racist writer, in the moment I will talk of him and how he supports these insights I just told you. But if you want to see what Nietzsche himself discusses this, you can look at a genealogy of Morals, essay 1, chapter 5, which I may read for you, in fact, why not, I will read it for you, it's a very important passage, and I'll read it but I'll make some asides

because it's a bit dense and it discusses the origins of words in Greek and Latin, but he say, with regard to, I'm reading Nietzsche now, with regard to our problem, which can justly be called an intimate problem and which elects to appeal to only a limited number of ears. It is of no small interest to ascertain that in those words and roots which denote good, the word good, the origin of the word good in other words, we catch glimpses of that arch trait on the strength of which the aristocrats feel themselves to be beings of a higher order than their fellows. Indeed, they call themselves in perhaps the most frequent instances simply after their superiority in power. For example, the powerful, the lords, the commanders, or after the most obvious sign of their superiority as, for example,

the rich, the possessors. This is the meaning of Arya, and the Iranian and Slav languages correspond. But they also call themselves after some characteristic idiosyncrasy, and this is the case which now concerns us. They name themselves, for instance, the Truthful, and this is first done by the Greek nobility whose mouthpiece is found in Theognis, the Megarian poet. The word esthlos, which is coined for this purpose, signifies etymologically the one who is, who has reality, who is real, who is true. It comes from the Greek word to be. And then, with a subjective twist, the true as the truthful. It becomes this. At this stage in the evolution of the idea, it becomes the motto and party cry of the nobility, and quite completes the transition to the meaning noble, so as to a place outside

the pale, the lying, vulgar men, as Theognis conceives and portrays him, the common man is the liar, until finally the word, excuse me, until finally the word, after the decay of the nobility, after the nobility is gone, the word itself is left to delineate psychological nobility, noblesse, and becomes, as it were, ripe and mellow. In the word kakos, one of the Greek words for bag, as in deilos, another Greek word for bad, which sounds to be similar to the word for slave, but he say in the word kakos as in delos, the plebeian in contrast to the agatos, that's another word for noble and good. So he's, let me start from beginning, in the word kakos as in delos, the cowardice is emphasized. In other words, the bad man is presented as the coward.

And this affords perhaps an inkling on what lines the etymological origin of the very ambiguous agathos is to be investigated. In Latin, malus, the Latin word for bad, which I play side by side with melas, the Greek word from which you get melanin, the word for dark. So again, in the Latin malus, the vulgar man can be distinguished as the dark colored, and above all as the black haired, hick niger est, as the pre-Aryan hick niger excuse me, as the pre-Aryan, that's with a hard R, okay? Okay, the black haired as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of the Italian soil whose complexion formed the clearest feature of distinction from the dominant blondes, namely the Aryan conquering race. At any rate, Gillick has afforded me the exact analog fin, for instance in the name fin gal,

the distinctive word of the nobility finally good noble clean, but originally it meant the noble, excuse me, the blonde haired men in contrast to the dark black haired aboriginals. He's talking about the Celtic words for good and bad now. The Celts, if I may make a parenthetic statement, but this is not me, it's Nietzsche saying this, the Celts, if I may make a parenthetic statement, were throughout a blonde race and it is wrong to connect as Virchow still connects those traces of an essentially dark haired population which are to be seen on the more elaborate ethnographical maps of Germany with any Celtic ancestry or with any admixture of Celtic blood. In this context it is rather the pre-Aryan population of Germany which surges up to

these districts. He's saying the dark haired and so forth in German. The same is true substantially of the whole of Europe. In point of fact the subject race has finally again obtained the upper hand in complexion and the shortness of the skull, and perhaps in the intellectual and social qualities. Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more modern anarchy, and indeed the tendency to the commune, the most primitive form of society he's talking about the Longhouse, which is now common to all the socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion, and that the conquering and master race, the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically. I believe that I can explain the Latin bonus, this is the

Latin word for good, as the warrior. The Latin word for good is the warrior. My hypothesis is that I am right in deriving bonus from an older duonus, compared bellum to dwellum. I don't want to get into the detail of what Nietzsche is arguing here. He's basically deriving the word, the Latin word for good from the words for war and duel. I believe that Valoric Fire, this wonderful new account would find this very interesting. Valoric Fire claims that individual comeback to settle disputes was its center of European traditions of liberty. This is entirely in keeping with what Nietzsche is saying here, where the Latin word for good is derived from the word for duel. So the word duonus appears to be, you know, bonus, in other words, the word for good is

derived from the word for warrior, and I'm reading again from Nietzsche now, bonus accordingly as the men of discord, of variance, duo, as the warrior. One sees that in ancient Rome, the good meant, one sees what in ancient Rome the good meant for a man. Must not our actual German word gut mean the godlike, the men of godlike race, and be identical with the national name, originally the noble's name of the Goths. So I'm ending quote. Isn't that a wonderful quote from Nietzsche, or is that Hitler? I don't know, but that's not the Nietzsche you might know from your professor. And it's very interesting because you find this in Genealogy of Morals, which is usually a book very much preferred by leftists who pretend to be Nietzscheans.

In fact, they read this one book to the exclusion of all others, whereas rightists mainly enjoy Beyond Good and Evil. But the left loves this book for the obvious reason, because they think the technique of genealogy which is meant to deconstruct morality in this case by giving you literally a genealogy origin of how its different layers came to be, of its the motivations behind different psychological motivations behind different moral developments in history. But the left believes they can use this historical method to deconstruct Western traditions, Western science as they see it, and many other Western things and so on, and thereby as they They understand that they want to dissolve the oppressive state apparatus, or dissolve

capital, and therefore the origin of inequality, but realizing, again, that nature that would be left over is not inert or egalitarian or formless, but that it has its own primordial order and a hierarchy, a hierarchy that all custom and all morality, whether aristocratic or of the people, but all custom, tries in one way or another to edit it, to channel this primordial order of nature to suppress it in various ways, to tame it, he would say. So they're very confused people. And it's funny that in this supposedly most leftist book of Nietzsche, or actually not leftist at all, but it's the book most preferred by the leftists, but you have the passage I just read you, which is maybe more Nazi than the Nazis, right?

But you find a great elaboration of this same argument in the writer Arthur Gobineau, who wrote a great book called Theory of Inequality of Human Races, which I will read from you in a moment. But before I do, I want to tell you a little bit of who is Gobineau and of his life. And in giving you a short sketch of his life, I'm also going to give you a short sketch of, let's say, a quick history of France in early 19th century. Gobineau was born, I think, soon after the end of Napoleon's adventures. I forget if it is 1816 or 1818, which is the date of publication of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, but he was born around then to a noble family and on his mother's side it was a noble and fabulously wealthy family of Norman origin and later when Gobineau

inherited money he bought his mother's castle back and became a mayor of that village in France and he managed it actually very well, he was very much loved by the people, because when France lost the war with Germany in 1870-1871, an event that Gobineau knew would happen, others did not realize that France would lose, but he knew that France would lose. And because of his knowledge of the German language and the German people, he was able to negotiate actually a very good outcome for the village in the German occupation, so he was much lost by the people there where he became mayor. But I am drawing most of this brief biographical sketch from an introduction written by Oscar Levy to Gobineau's book On the Renaissance. Gobineau was a great writer.

He did not only write this so-called first racist track, The Theory of Inequality of human races, he also wrote poems and novels and other histories of, for example, of the Renaissance or of the religions and philosophies of Central Asia, a wonderful book if you can find it. I don't know if it has been translated, but it's a very, very wonderful book. And if you care to look for it, a very good friend, a rogue book scholar actually told me about this, but you can find it on the internet. It's a nice, short introduction to Gobino's life and thought, and you can learn much from it. He was born in this post-Napoleon France and his family supported the Bourbons, the dynasty that was overthrown in 1789, these are the real kings, and they were restored right when

Napoleon was deposed, they were restored in 1815-16, and therefore his family went into exile, both internal and external exile, when this dynasty was overthrown again in 1830. They were overthrown and replaced with the usurper faggot House of Orleans, which is a kind of fake and gay constitutional monarchy. It was not a real monarchy, but not a real kingship. It was a monarchy that was really there to give way to democracy, the Orleans dynasty that came in 1830. And this, it was itself replaced in 1848 by the even faker and gayer Second Republic in the Europe-wide revolutions of 1848, in which the Masons had such a strong hand, but which They were so-called liberal revolutions, democratic revolutions. It was a horrible time in Europe.

And if you want to read a great book about these events, you can read the novel by Flaubert called Sentimental Education. It will tell you the story of these happenings much better than any plodding history textbook, any stiff textbook. And it's a wonderful, important, great novel and fun to read in any case. But so, Gobineau lived abroad because his family was loyal to the Bourbon dynasty that had been ousted, and they were in exile. He spoke German because he grew up in Germany, he gained great admiration for German culture and language, and is therefore happens to be one of the most important sources for a Franco-German spiritual union in modern Europe. And his upbringing, I would say, was a free one, a wonderful upbringing, away from the crowd, almost hermetic.

way you should raise your children, I think, if you can, a kind of ultimate home schooling where his parents tried to shield him from vulgar democratic societies they had only contempt for. And in his case, of course, it was made easy by the fact that his family already had plenty of wealth and status. And so since he was not motivated by trying to go after these things, he was entirely focused only on learning for the joy of it. And I will repeat to you that since the 19th century and maybe since the 18th, this is really the only education you can have that matters. You have to teach yourself and to be led by love of what you study because no school or academy can teach you for the last 200 years.

You can maybe meet teachers occasionally who inspire and who are good people, but ultimately it's up to you to pursue your own studies. Nothing can replace this. So anyway, driven by this alone, this joy, he was, as Oscar Levy nicely puts it, he was free from the prejudices and narrowness of the learning of his day. And this is important too, if you form your thoughts in conversation with the intellectuals and academics of your day, or even with them in mind, I'd say this holds for at least the last 200 years especially. But if you do that, you will be dead to history. Your thought will be petty and without lasting power because these groups, the so-called republic of letters in the best case and actually intellectual proletariat in our day, they

are only led by myopic self-interested concerns. They cannot even break out of that if they want to for career purposes. So this another reason that it's important to develop your thoughts, not necessarily you know in isolation because you can still talk to like-minded people, but the way specifically from this fake world. And I had whatever brief acquaintance I had with it was forced on me and I always tried to protect myself and to isolate myself from it because I saw the danger of how it could corrupt your mind and make it petty. But so anyway, Gobindor, through having this rather idyllic and aristocratic hermetic upbringing with total contempt for the mass democracy of his time, he ended up actually being a

political man with a long diplomatic career, and it's very funny how he came to that. The man who jump-started his career was Alexis de Tocqueville, the writer of the famous book democracy in America, and Tocqueville first hired him as his secretary when he was foreign minister, and then Gobineau continued his career in that, being ambassador in various places. Tocqueville, of course, is darling of the American conservative, or conservative cuck. And Gobineau is the father of racism, cue sinister music, very interesting relationship. And they have a quite long correspondence also, in which Tocqueville berates Gobineau for writing this evil philosophy of racism that is fatalistic and that does not allow mankind for the striving for perfectibility and so forth and all this, you know.

So in these letters, Tocqueville, he comes off very much, I don't want to say like a conservative, because in parts of his book Democracy in America, Tocqueville actually makes arguments that are themselves arguably racist. Tocqueville says things that would make your modern conservative intellectuals chimp if you actually read them. They don't actually read the book, though, you know, they can just ignore it. But Tocqueville, since this is in the news now, he very much emphasizes the importance of Anglo, of Anglo-Saxon culture for the workings of American democracy, and he strong underlines that other cultures are not capable of sustaining modern democracy and liberty, okay. Tocqueville is an interesting thinker.

You could say very much, he saw democracy coming, he knew that it would bring bad things, and he thought, how could you preserve liberty within democracy? Very strange for perhaps modern to think, because they think liberty and democracy go together, but as Jouvenel and Schmitt explain, and not really so much, liberty and democracy are opposed. Liberty is an aristocratic medieval tradition. So in any case, Tocqueville's answer is that yes, you can preserve liberty within democracy and he is wrong, and he's a female to think so, but Gobineau is clearer-minded and understands you cannot preserve any liberty and any human excellence within modern mass democracy. So this correspondence between the two men, where Tocqueville chimps at him and gets very

angry, you know, so I will not call him a conservative in this, but he, Tocqueville, he very much comes off as a weak liberal who uses Christianity as a cover for his weakness in much the way Nietzsche said liberals would do. And he comes off very much as a weak liberal in criticizing Gobino's thought, in talking about how it is too harsh, the racism too harsh, it's too hopeless and fatalistic. And what is a weak liberal, after all, but someone who they often see the problems, right, The liberals, the smart ones, often see the problem. I'm not talking about the left now. The liberal, the classical liberal, which is what Tocqueville is, they often see the problems, they see the severity even of modern problems very clearly, Tocqueville saw this,

but their remedies are all optimistic, feminine hogwash and drivel of no practical value. I'm not calling James Lindsay a Tocqueville, but at a much lower level, people like James Lindsay are the same. We see the problems and their solution is nothing but this optimistic drivel, this sermon. So Tocqueville, if you read his books, he often has correct estimation of problems, but his solutions are emotional. So it's always, maybe you need more of this kind of education. Maybe you need more of this institutional product. Maybe you need this political measure. It's always, you know, no money for them programs. With Libertoids, it's always this, right, no money for them programs. Whether it's at the low level now, of course, I'm exaggerating, Tocqueville didn't say that,

but whether it's at the low level now where a liberal says this, or the more highbrow version of that that Tocqueville says, but it's always this, no money for them programs. Even though Tocqueville saw the problems with modern men and with democracy, and even to a large extent he predicted the evils that would come, he predicted very famously the the soft despotism that would stifle all life under the administrative state, under bureaucracy and so on. But his solutions are always just pure hope. It's pure cowardice and effeminacy. There are no solutions. And like every liberal, he's unwilling to see either that nature is harsh and immovable, and to see maybe that Gobineau sometimes says there are no solutions and Tocqueville is unwilling to accept that.

But then at other time he is unwilling to see that whatever solution might be needs to be as harsh as nature is. To preserve the light of intellect and liberty measures far beyond what the liberal is willing to suggest need to be taken. But Gobineau saw all of this. Either no solution or solution must be very harsh. And I will be right back with more on Gobineau and on his life. This segment too long so I need time for a smoke. Quand a bittu de tout toi, je remont le dra J'ai peur que tu es frond Quand a bittu de ma ma Caraise té chebeur Près que m'indre moi Quand a bittu le d'eau Un d'a bête, un bête, très bête Je s'entre de la chambre Quand a bittu de ceule Je vois mon café S'en retart, d'habit deux deux En broi, je qu'il a maison T'es gris deux, nous calles D'habit deux bien vrai

Vrais sorti, vais un comprendre Comme d'habit deux deux Salle d'habit deux Qu'a chaudais, comme d'habit deux The case could be known to return to a brief tale of his life After his rather idyllic upbringing and excellent aristocratic education He became, through the aid of Tocqueville, a good diplomat, a man of the world, and he served in embassies in Germany, in Sweden, and he was France's ambassador, I believe, to Tehran in Iran and to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, where, however, this is before the end of malaria and before air conditioning. So he did not enjoy it there like I do, even though his weakened companion was the emperor who was in exile in Brazil. But he became sick there, Gobineau, and he was absolutely disgusted by the racial mixing

that he saw, although actually Gobineau at time, in typical French manner, he has quite positive things to say about mulattos and mulattas, you know, this is not a new thing. I mean, Hitler criticizes the French for this and the Germans always criticize the French for this. The French like black people, it's true, but they like to be with black women and make mulattoes, the French like to do this. So it's nothing new, and yeah, Gobineau hated the Russians the way French always have, which is very strange because we tend to think Russia women beautiful today, but he calls them among the ugliest. But in any case, Gobineau, he of course ended up being the writer of the great book, Inequality of the Human Races, which I mentioned before, but if you read the first part, even if let's

say you disagree all of his conclusions. But his form of argument, his historical and literary knowledge is such a pleasure, the way he builds his argument, it's a kind of comparative, a kind of Herodotus or Montaigne-like thought on customs, on peoples, on states, that it's unequalled by anything in 20th century or now. It is vivid writing with verve. And its main argument is that all civilization, all true and high civilization, springs from the the blood of a people from the race, and that neither political instability, nor political regimes, nor luxuries and immorality, nor changes in religion will ever explain the end of a civilization, but only the end of its relevant bloodlines. He's trying to explain this, what makes great societies and civilizations end, and he believes

it's only its bloodlines that make civilization end, whether through extinction or by mixing. And in this process, he actually praises a lot of non-European peoples, for example the melees he has high regards for, and he even hears some good words for the Jews, although in other sense he's a kind of Nietzschean, or as Oskar Levy calls it, he's a kind of gentleman's anti-Semitism. But he says at times quite good things about the Jews and their productivity, and he contrasts the verdant productivity of ancient Israel with its present-day depraved condition. He has wonderful reflections on the differences between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, too. Very funny. So actually, let me read you that and forgive if I've read it or posted this before.

But this is so good, it's because the difference between Haiti and Dominican Republic that share the same land but differ in race, it's a kind of natural experiment of sorts. And it's really unanswerable by critics on the case of for how race and blood really is what determines the fate of nations. So I'm reading Gobineau now, it's a rather long passage but very enjoyable. At San Domingo, this Dominican Republic today, so at San Domingo the independence is complete. There are no missionaries to exert a veiled and absolute power, no foreign ministry to carry out European ideas. Everything is left to the inspiration of the people itself. Spanish part, he's saying what corresponds today to Dominican Republic, but its Spanish part consists of mulattoes of whom I need say nothing.

They seem to imitate, well or badly, all that is most easily grasped in our civilization. They tend, like all hybrids, to identify themselves with the more creditable of the races to which they belong. Not anymore today, unfortunately. Maybe someone should read this passage to Obama, who knows? So anyway, continues with Gobindo now. Thus, they are capable, to a certain extent, of reproducing our customs. It is not among them that we must study the question in its essence. Let us cross the mountains that separate the Republic of San Domingo, the Dominican Republic, from the state of Haiti. We find a society of which the institutions are not only parallel to our own, but are derived from the latest pronouncements of our political wisdom.

All that the most enlightened liberalism has proclaimed for the last 60 years in the deliberative assemblies of Europe, All that has been written by the most enthusiastic champions of men's dignity and independence, all the declarations of rights and principles, these have all found their echo on the banks of the Artibonite. He's talking about Haiti. It's constitution built according to the latest European ideas, right? So, nothing African has remained in the statute law. All memories of the land of Ham of Africa have been officially expunged from men's minds. The state language has never shown a trace of African influence. The institutions, as I say before, are completely European. Let us consider how they harmonize with the manners of the people. We are in a different world at once.

The manners are as depraved, brutal and savage as in the homie or among the falata hats. There is the same barbaric love of finery coupled with the same indifference to form. Beauty consists in color, and so long as a garment is a flaming red and edged with tinsel, the owner does not trouble about its being largely in holes. The question of cleanliness never enters anyone's head. If you wish to approach a high official in this country, you find yourself being introduced to a gigantic negro lying on his back on a wooden bench. His head is enveloped in a torn and dirty handkerchief, surmounted by a cocked hat all over gold lace. An immense sword hangs from its shapeless body. His embroidered coat lacks

the final perfection of a waistcoat. On General's feet are cased in carpet slippers. Do you wish to question him, to penetrate his mind, and to learn the nature of the ideas he is revolving there? You will find him as uncultured, as a savage, and his bestial self-satisfaction is only equalled by his profound and incurable laziness. If he deigns to open his mouth, he will roll you out all the common places which the newspapers have been inflicting on us for the last half century. The barbarian knows them all by heart. He has other interests, of course, and very different interests, but no other ideas. He speaks like Baron Holbach, argues like Monsieur de Grème, and has ultimately no serious, he's talking about these liberals, right, and has ultimately no serious preoccupation

except chewing tobacco, drinking alcohol, disemboweling his enemies, and conciliating his sorcerers. The rest of the time he sleeps. Isn't that wonderful? This is one of the funniest passages in Gopino. He shows how really state institutions, constitutions have absolutely no effect on the character of peoples, on the way they actually live. Let me continue. The state, I'm continuing to read from Gobineau now because this passage is so wonderful. The state is divided among two factions. These are separated from each other by a certain incompatibility, not of political theory, but of skin. The mulattoes are on one side, the Negroes on the other. Please send this to the talented tenth, to Obama, to Kamala and these others. Please tell them what will happen to them in a Negroid America.

Anyway, I continue with Gobineau. So he's talking about how in Haiti the mulatto and the Negro are divided. The former have certainly more, he's talking about mulatto now, the former have certainly more intelligence and are more open to ideas. As I have already remarked in the case of San Domingo, Domenica Republic, the European blood has modified the African character. If these men were set in the midst of a large white population, and so had good models constantly before their eyes, they might become quite useful citizens. Unfortunately, the Negroes are for the time being superior in strength and numbers. Although their racial memory of Africa has its origin in many cases as far back as their grandfathers, they are still completely under the sway of African ideals.

Their greatest pleasure is idleness. Their most cogent argument is murder. The most intense hatred has always existed between the two parties in the island. The history of Haiti, of democratic Haiti, is merely a long series of massacres, massacres of mulattoes by negroes or of negroes by mulattoes according as the one or the other held the reins of power. The Constitution, however enlightened it may pretend to be, has no influence whatsoever. It sleeps harmlessly upon the paper on which it is written. The power that reigns unchecked is the true spirit of these peoples. According to the natural law already mentioned, the black race, belonging as it does to a branch of the human family that is incapable of civilization, cherishes the deepest feelings of repulsion toward all the others.

Thus we see the Negros of Haiti violently writhing out the whites, forbidding them to enter their territory. They would like to exclude even the mulattos, and they aim at their extermination. of the foreigner is the main spring of local politics. Owing further to the innate laziness of the race, agriculture is abolished, industry is not even mentioned, commerce becomes less every day. The hideous increase of misery prevents the growth of population, which is actually being diminished by the continual wars, revolts and military executions. The inevitable result is not far off, a country of which the fertility and natural resources used to enrich generation after generation of planters, will become a desert.

And the wild goat will roam alone over the fruitful plains, the magnificent valleys, the sublime mountains of the Queen of the Antille. He's talking about the island of Haiti and Dominican Republic. You know, it's a very good prediction because you look at the map now and you see the division between Haiti and Dominica, very, very Dominican Republic, very simply, you have forests and lush green in Dominican Republic, and in Haiti you have a desert like he predicted, nothing, a complete wasteland. Now, the really depressing part of this wonderful book I just read you from is you can say that for Gobineau the superior races are expansionist and universalist, and they seek to conquer and convert others to include them even.

So that develops a kind of almost biological life cycle in the time span of an Aryan or other superior society, where it expands, it becomes imperial, it conquers and conquers, but as it extends, it eventually conquers racial aliens at the periphery, who then they move to the center of the empire in search of prosperity, and these, who are even brought in as slaves, and at certain moments there is mixing that takes place, and it is in this mixing that ends the society, or in other words, its very virtues and powers are what make for its own end as well, it's almost like a tragic story. So again at the time of the fall of Rome, there were barely 6,000 Roman original citizens left in the city, if that.

So this is the Gobineau theory, you could say, of the cycle of history and of civilization, although you can see that in this thought, where like Nietzsche he believed Europe to have already been a mess of mixing, that it wouldn't really be a cycle, but a perpetual degeneration, a kind of entropy of the blood and of biology, therefore of all things spiritual as well, a return to the muck of the pre-Aryan village. And since we are on the subject of France in this show, I will read for you his thoughts on French history now, and how he saw it. This is a bit long, he said, a bit long, but I must read you this. I will read you now. This Gobineau on France, she said, take the case of France. I will not confine myself to the fact, which always strikes the most superficial observer,

that between Paris and the rest of France there is an impassable gulf, and that at the very gates of the capital a new nation begins, which is quite different from that living within the walls. On this point there is no room for doubt, and those who base their conclusions as to the unity of ideas and the fusion of blood on the formal unity of our government are under a great illusion. Limousin, excuse me, so not a single social, excuse me, they tried to do something with my throat, you see, NWO, New World Order does not want me to read you these fine passages. I'm continuing now with Gobi Ngo. So not a single social law or root principle of civilization is understood in the same way in all our departments of France.

I do not refer merely to the peoples of Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Limousin, Gascony, and Provence. Everyone knows how little one is like the other and how these vary in their opinions. The important point is that while in China, Tibet and India all the ideas essential to the maintenance of civilization are familiar to all classes, that is not the case among ourselves. The most elementary and accessible facts are sealed mystery to most of our rural populations and are absolutely, who are absolutely indifferent to them. Well, usually they can neither read nor write and have no wish to learn. They cannot see the use of such knowledge nor the possibility of applying. In such a matter I put no trust in the promises of the law or the fine show made by institutions,

but rather in what I have seen for myself and in the reports of careful observers. Different governments have made the most praiseworthy attempts to raise the peasants from their ignorance. Not only are their children given every opportunity for being educated in their villages, but even adults, who are conscripts at twenty, they find in regimental schools an excellent system of instruction in the most necessary subjects. Yet in spite of these provisions, and the fatherly anxiety of the government..." Okay, I will not read this whole passage, but here he is saying that he sees complete disinterest among the French peasants, the mass of the French nation, to learn anything, to even become literate, and I'm quoting him now that, "...at the root of their apparent

indifference, there is a feeling of invincible hostility to our civilization." And this is what he emphasizes, that basically, France is an ethnic and civilizational fiction. It's obviously a civilization, but it's a fiction ethnically or racially speaking. He's saying the majority of France, the peasants, are essentially a different society. So I'm continuing here with reading Gobineau. If our rural populations were merely brutal and ignorant, we might not take much notice of this cleavage, but console ourselves with the delusive hope of gradually winning them over and absorbing them in the multitudes that are already civilized. But these peasants are like certain savage tribes. At first sight, they seem brutish and unthinking, for they are outwardly self-effacing and humble.

But if one digs even a little bit beneath the surface into their real life, one finds that their isolation is voluntary and comes from no feeling of weakness. Their likes and dislikes are not a matter of chance. Everything obeys a logical sequence of definite ideas. When I spoke just now of religion, I might also have pointed out how for very far removed our moral doctrines are from those of the peasants, and what a different sense they give to the word delicacy, how obstinately they cling to their custom of regarding everyone who is not a peasant stock, in the same way as the men of remote antiquity viewed the foreigner. He's saying they have a completely different understanding of morality, of the same words. They essentially consider themselves a separate race.

I continue reading him now. It is true they do not murder the stranger, thanks to the strange and mysterious terror inspired by laws they have not themselves made. But they do not conceal their hatred and distrust of the stranger, and they take great pleasure in annoying him if they can do it without risk. By the way, if I may interject, if you spent any time in European countryside among peasants, what Gubinov is saying here is completely true. I don't know what the hell Heidegger is talking about, but this vision of peasant or the one that Chekhov has is much more accurate, much more accurate. Anyway, I continue to read now. Does this mean that the peasants are ill-natured, not among themselves? We may continually see them doing each other all kinds of little kindnesses.

They simply look on themselves as a race apart, a race, if we may believe them, which is weak and oppressed and obliged to deal crookedly, but which also keeps its stiff-necked and contemptuous pride. Here I interject again. If you want to see a wonderful, modern profile of such a peasant attitude, you watch Kurosawa movie Seven Samurai and look on how the peasants in that are contrasted with the nobles. In any case, I continue. In some of our provinces, the workman thinks himself of a far better blood and older stock than his former master. Family pride in some of the peasants is at least equal to that of the nobility of the Middle Ages. We cannot doubt it, the lower strata of the French people had very little in common with the surface. This you could

says money quote the lower strata of French people have very little in common with the surface They form an abyss over which civilization is suspended and the deep stagnant water Sleeping at the bottom of the Gulf will one day show their power of dissolving all that comes their way The most tragic crises of her history have deluged the country with blood Without the agricultural population playing any part except that which was forced on it when its immediate interests were not engaged It let the storms pass by without troubling itself in the least those who are astonished and scandalized by such callousness Say that the peasant is essentially immoral which is both unjust and untrue The peasants look on us almost in the light of enemies. They understand nothing of our civilization

They share in it unwillingly and they think themselves justified in profiting as far as they can by its misfortunes disfortunes. If we put aside this antagonism, which is sometimes active, but generally quite inert, we need not hesitate to allow them some high moral qualities. However, strangely these may at times be manifested. He continues, I may apply to the whole of Europe what I have just said of France and conclude that modern civilization includes far more than it absorbs. Maybe this is second money quote. Modern civilization includes far more than it absorbs. In this, it resembles the Roman Empire. Hence, one cannot be confident that our state of society will last. And I see a clear proof of this in the smallness of its hold

even over the classes raised a little above the country population. Our civilization may be compared to the temporary islands thrown up in the sea by submarine volcanoes, exposed as they are to the destructive action of the currents and robbed of the forces that first kept them in position they will one day break up and their fragments will be hurled into the gulf of the all-conquering waves. It is a sad end, and one which many noble races before ourselves have had to meet. The blow cannot be turned aside. It is inevitable. The wise men may see it coming, but can do nothing more. The most consummate statesmanship is not able for one moment to counteract the immutable laws of the world. Very sad, yes. What do you think about that?

What do you think about? And he continues, it's a wonderful book. He says, but those thus unknown, despised, or hated by the majority of those who live under its shadow, our civilization is yet one of the most glorious monuments ever erected by the genius of man. And he continues to explain why modern civilization is great, what makes it distinctive. He's not just a booster for it. He thinks it's lacking when compared to certain other great civilizations of the past, when it comes to the arts and to manners, but he thinks very highly of modern science and of many of the technological achievements of modern civilization. But as you saw, he has a very pessimistic view, because the racial and blood law of

the world means that the high will be necessarily submerged, submerged under a racial tide of the law. This is very interesting, no? Very interesting. He was followed and echoed also by the researches of other interesting men. So there is another French thinker, his name is Georges Montandon, I know I'm perhaps reading too much for you or telling you too many names, but this is, after all, unusual ideas in the hidden history of France, but Georges Montandon, a very interesting thinker, and he also had similar theories, okay? So I will read for you now from a very brief, a very brief passage so you can understand. You can understand, you know, another assumption of historical social value was proposed as for Alpine or Celtic type.

It would represent compared to sub-Nordics somewhat of a more democratic, moreover popular, and it would be the prolongation of the brachycephalic race subjugated by the sub-Nordics, these being not consistent by the Germanics but also Gallics. This too specialized passage and too long, but I will decipher it for you and I also do not agree with the last thing he says, but he's talking about the two skull types. Nietzsche, remember, mentioned the short-skulled type, which is the pre-Aryan. This is called brachycephalic, broad-skulled, whereas the long-skulled type, dolichocephalic, which is the Aryan racial type, you could say. Now the passage I just read you identifies the Gallics or the Gauls or the Celts with the brachycephalic, but as I tell you on this show I think it's wrong.

The Gallics are actually a separate Aryan tribe and what is shown by the brachycephalic or the broad-headed race in Europe is the pre-Aryan type. But listen to what this other thinker is saying. He is identifying the brachycephalic type with the democratic and popular sentiments and the dolichocephalic with the other. And he continues, the French Revolution and the democratization era which followed would thus be a revenge of the indigenous element on the dominant caste. And he continues very, very interesting observations about how many of the policemen in the Parisian police in the French Revolution were brachycephalic, were Alpinid types. The Alpine type is frequent in the services of the Parisian police force, not as much

among the agents in uniform than among the special services agents who are dressed like civilian. Perhaps this is true to the fact that they are recruited among the strapping strong men. In any case, this is the Alpine type predominant in France after the revolution. In other words, the security services of the republic were recruited from pre-Aryan types specifically to oppress, let us say, the blonde or Aryan type that was almost exterminated when the ruling caste of France was beheaded in French revolution. So you know, this is exactly what I'm talking about because I'm trying to explain for you this so-called secret story in regard to the origin of the French Revolution, which was the most calamitous event in modern history, and the model for other slave revolts, like

the Russian Revolution, or like what you are seeing now in America. And all such great events are racial events. And this revolution, the French Revolution, is a racial revolt of slaves. Do not listen to Alex Jones. He has it completely backward. It's like he's a believing American and he can only condemn his enemies as aristocrats or kings, but that's not who the enemy is at all. The enemy is the manipulator of the people who are composed primarily and historically of racial hostiles, quite the opposite. In any case, yes, the racial revolution of 1789, which Nietzsche explains how they just butchered the French nobility who were the last and one of the greatest flowers of the Aryan ruling case, one of the last Aryan ruling case history butchered by these short, squat, fat

pre-Aryan racial revolution. And since then, the European and world history is on trajectory of self-immolation because you have people essentially who should be tilling the earth or trading coin or garments, you know, or they are instead making decisions they're in no way suited to make. And now it's interesting that here, the last thing I read you from George Montandon, he mentions this word alpinid, right? And he identifies alpinid with the pre-Aryan type. These are sort of, you could say, steampunk racial categories of Europe. Alpinid, Nordic, Mediterranean, and so forth. But it's interesting, I'm not sure it's true, by the way, but why would it be that the alpinid type is the pre-Aryan? Listen for a moment,

because this is interesting. There's some truth to it, maybe. So you look at the Troisgroe culinary family. T-R-O-I-S-G-R-O-S. It's, I think, three generations of very great chefs, the trogro. I met Claude Trogro, the younger one in Rio, at his very nice small bistro place. He's a very nice man, he makes very interesting good food. He came up to me, we shook hands to show them, to show camaraderie and that we did not care about Wuhan flu and all this, so I enjoyed their food. But you look at their face, and especially of the older trogro, and you see this kind of face you could find on the Anatolian plateau is the kind of face you see in the readouts of mountains of Middle East of Syria even all the way from Syria to the Pyrenees now. Why is that?

Well, it makes sense if you think of theory of refugium in other words, and this is this is not cook history I mean nothing of what they tell you is cook history It's I all believe it but even from means the normie point of view what I'm telling you right now is widely accepted What is a refugium you imagine for example a people? let's say of farmers, that had spread all around a continent, Europe in this case, but then they were quickly but gradually supplanted by another people that came later and conquered their territory and was oppressing them somehow. They were either trying to eliminate or assimilate or rule them. And some of these original inhabitants of that one people that had spread out over the continent, they did not want this, right?

So what do they do? They take to the mountains. It's safe. It's thinly settled. It's not prime real estate. So they take to the mountains and this is recognized like I tell you nor be history nor be linguistics and anthropology, too That mountains for this reason often a refugium of peoples for one reason or another so mountains are then home to very ancient Fossil peoples and such and there are in this regard even theories that Basque the language Basque is related to the Georgian language from the Caucasus in other words that those two peoples from opposite sides of Europe are somehow related And again this motivated in part by linguistic observations, but also in part by this theory that mountains will hold residues of older people so that

the one people that had existed across Europe took to refuge in the Caucasus Mountains, in Alpine Mountains, in Pyrenees and so forth. And it's similar to other phenomena, similar if you find other parts of the world, other refugiums, so you look at New World in the Americas and And the very south of Baja Peninsula, or very south of southern cone of South America, next to Magellan Strait, the Indians in these two places, whether now or before, boast the skulls that have been found and, again, this is widely accepted by normie anthropology and history, but the skulls that have remained and the genetic studies that show that these Indians are very different from other Indians. In other words, what happened is an earlier wave of immigrants was pushed to the extremity

of these continental land masses, or to very inhospitable areas, as other stronger waves came along and displaced them, to the refugia, also the tips of peninsulas. So in this sense, the mountains of Europe and certain islands can be said to house older inhabitants of Europe. So maybe Montandon is right to consider the Alpinit a kind of pre-Aryan type as a general rule. Nevertheless, I am not sure you cannot make an absolute rule of it because you see Beethoven, right? He looked up in it. So this is obviously a people capable of producing genius, and what I mean is that I'm not indiscriminately attacking one type of people or another here. You know me, I would be upfront with you if I was doing that.

But even in Sardinia, which according to genetic studies is said to house the remnant of the oldest Neolithic farmer populations in Europe, which is, okay, that's pre-Aryan if anything is, but even here, you know, I dedicated my book to a full-blooded Sardinian who was physically a giant and also mentally a giant. He was a genius, and me and other frog friends, we miss him very much, and he's not only example. Sardinians are a wonderful people. And then, of course, the Basques, who are also pre-Aryan, they were leaders in exploration and colonization, many other things. So Elcano, He completed Magellan's voyage around the world. He's a Basque. So the point here I make is very different It's that these divisions are on the whole at the group level not individual

but they're on the whole that the visible prominent visible remnants of Europe's pre-Aryan past which you know has Unfortunately now overtaken every European nation no matter how blonde So maybe some people got mad at me how on my third show I talk about how were ancient Greeks blonde in this But even if they were blonder than now that doesn't mean they were necessarily more like Nordics It's not that Nordic hypothesis because the Nordics themselves are today mixed with pre-Aryan elements, but so every European nation has this problem no matter how blunt so much like Nietzsche says it is the pre-Aryan element within each of us even that is overtaking the higher instincts within each of us and I mean I mean, you might have bugmen in your own family now, you know, even if you are of noble

natural blood, and even in yourself, and you need to repress that. And it's a roll of the dice now in almost every nation and family because of this. And the solution, if there is one, so Gobino sometimes says what I just told you, that there is no solution, but at other times you can say there can be only one or two solutions. A junta, a small junta of men who are clear-eyed and who see this, this problem I tell you C is a danger and C that you cannot get around it with sentimental half-solutions and political half-measures and this, the Tocqueville and other liberal versions, but who instead they enact the most strict political, biological and physical discipline to hold back the dark tide of so-called democracy and liberalism, which is the herd animalization of mankind

and the dissolution of the spirit. Otherwise a similar solution you have similar leadership to have our own exit But a real and ultimate exit I don't mean you go and you grow mushroom in Washington State or this but our own real exit our own Venice a new State a new city-state a new Venice a new Atlantis a new hyperborea living perhaps off the ocean Maybe this time in the remote tropics. We return until next time back out