Please stop the music stop. I will read to you I am reading now Paolo Uccello would have been the most gracious and fanciful genius that was ever devoted to the art of painting From Giotto's day to our own if he had labored as much at figures and animals as he labored and lost times Over the details of perspective for although these are ingenious and beautiful yet if a man pursues them beyond measure He does nothing but waste his time time, exhausts his powers, fills his mind with difficulties, and often transforms its fertility and readiness into sterility and constraint, and renders his manner, by attending more to these details than to figures, dry and angular, which all comes from a wish to examine things too minutely, not to mention that very often he becomes solitary, eccentric,

melancholy and poor, as did Paolo Uccello. This man, endowed by nature with a penetrating and subtle mind, knew no other delight than to investigate certain difficult, now impossible, problems of perspective, which, although they are fanciful and beautiful, yet hindered him so greatly in the painting of figures that the older he grew the worse he did them. And there is no doubt that if a man does violence to his nature with too ardent studies, although he may sharpen one edge of his genius, yet nothing that he does appears done with that facility and grace which are natural to those who put each stroke in its proper place temperately and with a calm intelligence, full of judgment, avoiding certain subtleties that rather burden

the man's work with certain labor, dry, constrained and bad manner, which moves those who see it rather to compassion than to marvel. Let me interject here for a second. There is one line I forget where in Nietzsche where he talked about how you take average ancient Greek noble upon seeing a beautiful statue, such as today we are likely to marvel at and consider a great, wonderful work, but he says the immediate reaction of a Greek noble, the natural reaction would have been one of terror. How could so much work and painstaking labor have gone into this? You must understand the tremendous disdain for labor in aristocratic society, which is, I think, a useful disdain. You see why, as I am reading here, even for artists who is not aristocrat, a certain ease of manner and grace is required.

Too much work, not good. I keep going. I keep reading. So he's talking about how when people see this painstaking labor, it moves them rather to compassion than to marvel. I continue reading now. For the spirit of genius must be driven into action only when the intellect wishes to set itself to work, and when the fire of inspiration is kindled, since it is then that excellent and divine qualities and marvelous conceptions are seen to issue forth. For the sake of these investigations, he kept himself in seclusion and almost a hermit, having little contact with anyone, and staying weeks and months in his house without showing himself. And although these were difficult and beautiful problems, if he had spent their time in the

the study of figures, he would have brought them to absolute perfection, for even so he made them with passing good draughtmanship. But consuming his time in these researches, he remained throughout his whole life more poor than famous. Wherefore the sculptor Donatello, who was very much his friend, said to him very often when Paolo showed him mazochi with pointed ornaments. Masoki referred to a kind of head ornament worn in Renaissance, and Paolo Uccello liked to make perspective studies. It's a torus shape, hard to do in perspective. He did it. I go on. When Paolo showed him mazoki with pointed ornaments and squares drawn in perspective from diverse aspects, and showed him spheres with 72 diamond-shaped faces with wood shavings

wound round on sticks on each face, and other fantastic devices on which he spent and wasted his time. And Donatello said to him, ìAh, Paolo, this perspective of yours makes you abandon the substance for the shadow. These are things that are only useful to men who work at the inlaying of wood, seeing that they fill their borders with chips and shavings, with spirals both round and square and other similar things.î I stop reading. Now what does that sound like to you, that kind of life? That sounds to me like the life of a spurg, a man with Aspergers, and that is from life of Paolo Uccello, a favorite painter of mine, from the book The Lives of the Eminent Artists by Giorgio Vasari, who as I said before, he continues ancient tradition you find in Plutarch

and in Diogenes Lertius, doing history by biography, short biographies, which to me is this most enjoyable, interesting way to learn history because you then understand historical period in terms of human nature instead of other way around, and you have before you embodied image of what life was at the time. Let me go on tangent. By the way, welcome Caribbean Rhythms, episode 98, sexiest Caribbean show. This show names Caribbean rhythm for same reason Vladimir Zhirinovsky party in Russia is named the Liberal Democrat Party. But let me go on now to other tangents and read for you Schopenhauer, who had a low opinion of history in general. And then he says this, I'm reading from Schopenhauer now, in regard to knowledge of the inner nature

of mankind, I must concede a greater value to biographies and particularly to autobiographies than to history proper, at any rate to history as it is usually treated. This is partly because, in the former, the data can be brought together more accurately and completely than in the latter, than in history, systematically, trees, of course. Partly because, in history proper, it is not so much men that act as nations and armies, and the individuals who do appear to seem to be so far off, surrounded by such pomp and circumstance, clothed in the stiff robes of the state, or in heavy and inflexible armor, that it is really very difficult to recognize human movement through it at all. On the other hand, the truly depicted life of the individual in a narrow sphere shows

the conduct of men in all its nuances and forms, the excellence, the virtue, and even the holiness of individuals, the perversity, the meanness, the malice of most, the profligacy of many. Indeed, from the point of view we are here considering, namely in regard to the inner significance of what appears, it is quite immaterial whether the objects on which the action hinges are relatively considered trifling or important, farmhouses or kingdoms. For all these things are without significance in themselves, and obtain it only insofar as the will is moved by them. The motive has significance merely through its relation to the will. On the other hand, the relation that it has as a thing to other such things does not concern us at all.

Just as a circle of one inch in diameter and 140 million miles in diameter have absolutely the same geometrical properties, so the events and the history of a village and of a kingdom are essentially the same, and we can study and learn to know mankind just as well in the one as in the other. It is also wrong to suppose that autobiographies are full of deceit and dissimulation. On the contrary, lying, though possible everywhere, is perhaps more difficult there than anywhere else. This simulation is easiest in mere conversation, indeed paradoxical as it may sound. It is fundamentally more difficult in a letter, since here a man, left to his own devices, looks into himself and not outwards. Anyway, I stopped reading because you go on subjects too far removed from what I talk

here, but this from Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, I think it's where he talks about how poetry tells you the truth of the nature of mankind much more so than history does, and he quotes Aristotle also in support of this, but he goes through many examples. And I think he's right, and it's not just autobiographies, which there are many from a long time ago you can read, you can read Rousseau's Confessions and this, but there There are also novels which I recommend if you want to understand historical period. For example, you look at the novel Gilles Blas, which was written in the 18th century. It is a kind of adventure novel of a rogue character, Gilles Blas. It's one of Nietzsche's favorites again.

But when you read that, you understand historical period and situation much better than if you You take a modern book, a textbook and read, or you can read letters. You can read, for example, the letters of the Duke of Saint-Simon. You understand French history in this way much better, directly. It come out directly to you in letter in an off-handed casual way. You absorb it much better, and especially history of battles. I enjoy military history very much, and I will talk on this show, but it's very difficult to get concrete understanding as an individual of what happens in a battle. If you read a book I've recommended to you before, The Chartered House of Parma, and he takes part there in a Napoleonic battle, but he's one individual, and so the meaning

of the battle comes out rather different as he experiences versus what you'd find in a textbook. But his experience is real, what you find in a textbook, you don't know if it's true. For all these reasons, I also think learning history through biography, like I've recommended to you here, Vasari or Plutarch, or autobiography, or letters, or novels are ultimately, I wouldn't say poetry, good for learning history. But anyway, that's subject for another show. But what you think this, what Schopenhauer says about biography being superior to history as such, and with this book I just mentioned Vasari, Lives of Artists, if you start it because you like art or you like Renaissance or you just want to educate yourself. You may occasionally, I have to tell you or warn you that you may doze off.

You may encounter some difficulties because Vasari can get into quite some detail and even in the passage I read for you at the beginning of segment I skipped at least one paragraph where he was explaining in his own spur-like way Uccello's study of perspective and how he went about perfecting some of his art of perspective, which may be interesting but maybe not for a radio show. You have to read on your own. But this book, I say, certain passages can be very difficult to push through because interest may be just to the most devoted Renaissance weebs, Renaissance obsessions, you know, especially if it talks about some place names that even specialists have sometimes hard way of knowing or lost paintings.

So if you want to read it, I suggest you start, you read his preface and then you read lives of a major artist you are fond of. He has a long one on Michelangelo, though maybe not start with that, the one on Michelangelo is like a book of its own. But you have a browser open when you read his book and then you can look up the art as it is mentioned, which it is strange because sometimes the art that was prized in that That time is not necessarily prized today, or at least not by you or me. For my taste, in Ocello, he had series where Paolo Ocello made frescoes of the creation. By the way, yes, this is show on art and then I will move to some military history matters. It is calm, relaxed show. Anyway, you must accept sometime.

I like to have a chill show on such matter, not politic, but I refuse to apologize for that. But in the case of Uccello, he had series where he made frescoes of the creation and the fall, and also of the Ark of Noah, and you can still see them in the so-called Green Cloister at the Church of Santa Maria novella in Florence, and this church was actually later remodeled by Vasari himself. Vasari was not just a biographer of Renaissance artists. He wrote his biographical histories, but he was himself an important architect and artist. But he remodeled this church in the second half of the 16th century, and Uccello made these frescoes in the 1430s. So they are separated by 100 years or more, I mean from the time

of this composition and so forth. But these are in one color scheme only, these frescoes he made. So I don't know, for me it's very difficult. If you look up Paolo Uccello, Fresco, Ark of Noah, Florence and this, you can see them. It's one color, it's monochrome, I don't like so much. For me it's difficult to appreciate despite the fact that if you look closely you see he put great attention to detail and to perspective and he made storms and animals lively. Some people say the depictions of storms are lively for the first time. He's early Renaissance painter, Paolo Uccello, but Vasari says about this, I'm reading now about the frescoes he made. He also represented various human emotions such as the little fear of the water shown by the two men who are

fighting on horseback and the extreme terror of death seen in a woman and a man who are mounted on a buffalo which is filling with water from behind so that they are losing all hope of being able to save themselves. And the whole work is so good and so excellent that it brought him very great fame." And he continues with some further descriptions and then he adds, "...in short, he gave to all this work so great softness and grace that it is beyond comparison superior to all his others, wherefore it has been greatly praised from that time up to our own." So anyway, I'm quoting to you so you get sense of how these biographies are written and some of the information, but for example in this case maybe I am peasant, I don't know, but

I can't really appreciate this fresco and has nothing to do with why I like Uccello, which rather why I like him are his two paintings of Saint George and the Dragon, which are so bizarre and even feel like they could have been made by modernist painters. Not that that is necessarily a virtue, but they are otherworldly and outside of time, And I will not describe them, but they are very much like Giorgio de Chirico and the use of cartoonish contours, very strange colors and a kind of dream feel. But I don't think Vasari even mentions these, and this is possibly because Uccello composed them quite late in his life. And it seems from his biography that Vasari thought Uccello passed the last years of his

life in depression, and mostly in unproductive study, when in fact, although he became hermit-like Like for sure, I think he still produced some amazing works like these two, the Saint George and the Dragon painting, which were oil on canvas, which I think Vasari does not think Uccello used. But my favorite painting of his is his last one, The Hunt or The Night Hunt or The Hunted Night. It has no formal name. It's at Oxford Museum and is a huge painting, is image of demonic power. There is something hidden in the dark horizon of the forest. I must take break now. What has never anywhere come to pass, that alone never grows old. That is from Schiller. What do you think of that? You like this kind of German, you know.

Anyway, welcome back to show and I am using, I don't want to use power voice if you don't mind. It does something to my throat and is not appropriate for this show topic. I was thinking video game the other day, talking with frog friends about possibility. What if there were a game like Risk, you know, board game with countries or the computer game Sid Meier's Civilization, but instead of nations and civilization as the units of computer game rivalry, you had races, that's right, you had a race, you know, map of world divided by races and maybe even some mini-tribe races and racial subdivisions, and you represented a race in a, let's say, a near future world where it became one of a biological racial struggle, race war around the world.

Would this be, and then the end of the game, the victory and loss part of the game ends in mass public rapes, mass rapes of both women and men. I think this would be a very controversial video game. It would sell very well, I think it would make a splash, and I recommend video game developer Venture Capital to think about this. But anyway, back to show, I mentioned Vasari when he talked about painter. Often he will praise greatly some of the work that is no longer as beloved now. Or in case of Uccello, you know, his nova frescoes, which at least I don't much like them so much, but on the other hand, he does mention one great work you should look up of Paolo Uccello. Maybe you've seen it as a tourist in Florence.

It's an impressive fresco still widely loved in Santa Maria del Fiore in memory of Giovanni Accuto, an Englishman, captain of the Florentines, who had died in the year 1393. He made in Terra Verde a horse of extraordinary grandeur, which was hailed very beautiful, and on it the image of the captain himself in chiaroscuro and colored with Terra Verde. In a picture, 10 braccia high, braccia is measurement, old Italian type of measurement like foot, meter, this, but it was not standardized, so it's impossible to know what, I mean you have the painting now, so you, the fresco, so you can see what, how tall it is, but braccia, nobody knows so braccio how much it's varied from state to state. So in a picture ten bracha high on the middle of one wall of the church, where Paolo drew

in perspective a large sarcophagus supposed to contain the corpse, and over this he placed the image of Giovanni Accuto in his captain's armor on horseback. The work was and still is held to be something very beautiful for a painting of that kind, and if Paolo had not made that horse move its legs on one side only, which naturally horses do not do or they would fall, and this perchance came only about because he was not accustomed to ride nor used to horses as he was to other animals. This work would be absolutely perfect since the proportion of that horse which is colossal is very beautiful. And on the base there are these letters, Paoli, Uccelli, Opus, end quote. And this is big and nice and Giovanni Accuto, real name was John Hawkwood, maybe I will

continue my Men of Power series and include him because he was an English adventurer, he was already a warrior in England, but he became mercenary in late 1300s Italy. I believe this, that age of mercenary and adventurer could return, and I think it must because it would be the only way really out of current order of things. It's something that factions on the right don't want to understand or don't want to accept the dependence of a focal historical change on crucial shifts in military technology and organization, which I will talk about a little bit on a further segment of show. But speaking of military, one of Uccello's beloved paintings is the Battle of San Romano, three frescoes of egg tempera on wood, which is the same technique you see Byzantine icons,

or now they still use Russia and Greek icon egg tempera on wood. But these are huge paintings, I think 12 feet, impressive and chaotic battle scenes. Probably Uccello's best known paintings now. And a friend online, you can find this account, I think it's called Aristocratic Fury, and he liked very much medieval world and Renaissance world. He knows very much about this history and history of battles, and he has discussion of Renaissance battle and war in which he talks about these paintings. I will find them and link them. But aside from these, my favorite, again, is Uccello painting Night Hunt or Hunt at Night or I don't know that it has a formal name at all, but if you search those words you'll find it. I will post it. I actually already have.

But it's a big painting, also on wood panel, both tempera and oil. It's his last work probably. And like the St. George and Dragon paintings, it is mystery and surreal feel. It's colorful night hunters in dark forest. They are dressed in red, some of them, and they are chasing animals with dogs and some on foot. Anyway, many of you are in cars and cannot look now or don't like to do that, so I don't want to describe painting too much in detail. But this image captures a feel of freedom in hunt at night, better than even though hunts do not take place at night, right, supposedly, but I think they do. I like to go in forest at night. You let feel of the terror, it's inevitably come to you terror alone at night in forest.

But you have option of let this terror overtake you and you can respond in instinct by becoming terrible yourself rather than running. There are two ways to let terror overcome you. It happens to me now sometime in nightmare where I find myself waking up growling like animal instead of screaming because the nightmare is the terror you feel. You can become that terror yourself. The instinct to fight or flight, it's simplified that way, but it's much more than that. You can become the hunter. But this is very modernist look, painting anyway. A friend saw it. He said it has achieved everything that modernist artefact critics whine about when they talk about so-called all-over composition, which means painting.

Maybe you can think with no focal point, it is uniform throughout, it has no top or bottom. You think Jackson Pollock, which you know, for all the theory behind it, it feels very much like background design or tile work and this kind of thing if you look at Persian or Ottoman tiles. But word-heavy modernist painters, they're driven by critics and intellectuals and they made so much out of this as if nobody has thought of it in the past, as if putting a a whole barrage of words to accompany a painting will make it more profound than it is. Well, it will drive up the money valuation and it can be used for money laundering. But then you know Steve Saylor has a lot to say about this. I talk on Art Show, I think it's episode 15, where Clement Greenberg and some others

like him, and these are men with no sense of the visual. These are the types of men who they would need string to find their way in an office building back to their office from afternoon coffee. And they would replace painting instead with a lot of word-chopping casuistry. And then painters would follow what they say. And Tom Wolfe documented this, that for modernist painting, the painting followed the theory, not other way around. It's complete fake. But in paintings like this, Hunt by Uccello, you see, and he has exquisite sense of design. When you look at it, these figures are running toward a horizon and vanishing into the horizon, but the horizon is trees at night, very mysterious feel, and you see, however, maybe some element

of this supposed 20th century theoretical breakthrough all over composition. Not that it matters, you should not take your bearings by modernist abstractions and logocentrism, or think that the worth of an art has to do with progress or originality, but I want to miss no opportunity to shit on the heads of these people. They were, in fact, do not represent progress or originality. But he does it better than Pollock anyway. There's something sinister. This painting is both surreal and real. It's charged, I believe, with a divine power. It's charged with understanding of excitement, of prehistoric rush at night hunt. But so anyway, look, I don't like the Wurzburg, how it is thrown around so much right now. Okay, I used it myself on this show.

I called him a spurg, and spurg zis and that, aspergers. And I don't like how it's sometimes overused, because many times people who are called autists today would have been referred to simply as assholes 30 years ago. And then other times you refer to spurg zis and that when it is just an appropriate level of detail, and technical detail is interesting. When I had Stone Age herbalists on show, I told him to get as spurg-like as he wants, But it's not correct because it's just people enjoy detail, they should, you should. But Uccello was a genuine Asperger case, I think. First of all, just the passages I read for you at the beginning of the show. But his name Uccello, it means, I think, birdie or of the birds.

And he was given this name because his obsession with animals and his love of birds in particular, just like many spurgs are, they have obsession animal. My friend Owen, the horn monger who is currently residing in Kenya, he is saying, why he go Kenya? Not just because he likes African women, but he likes to spend half the year on safari. He is obsessed with animals. He would tell me in loud voice in restaurants about habit of African hunting dog or details of hyena behavior and he would use this loud nasal voice and people would turn around and look. I will try to have him on show. He is very entertaining. similar obsess also on animal and this perspective and countless studies of figures in perspective

and just, again, drawings of shapes with 80 side and other dimensional thing like this, which he did in private. He had a wife and daughter, which I think is a real achievement for a sperm, and his daughter also drew well, according to Vasari. But he died at 83, apparently old, alone, poor, and depressed. What set off this depression and his total withdrawal from public life was when his lifelong friend Donatello, he disdained a painting he had made of St. Thomas when it was publicly unveiled. And I think Donatello was his only friend, so this came as his big blow to him. He never recovered from it, according to Vasari. And this is the Donatello, yes, who made a twink like David with the head of Goliath,

which Camille Paglia, she likes so much, she considers the sadomasochistic homo painting and, excuse me, sculpture and this. But what a cold, prissy homo this Donatello was to do this to his friend. And I will end this segment on a painter with something interesting that Vasari says, and I'm quoting again now. Truly great were the labors of Paolo in painting, for he drew so much that he left to his relatives, and I have learned from their own lips, he left them whole chests of drawings. But although it is a good thing to draw, it is nevertheless better to make complete pictures, seeing that pictures have longer life than drawings. In our book of drawings there are many figures, studies in perspective, birds and animals, beautiful to a marvel.

But the best of all is a mazocchio, again this is a head ornament, a mazocchio drawn only with lines, so beautiful that nothing save the patience of Paolo Uccello could have executed it. Paolo, although he was an eccentric person, loved talent in his fellow craftsmen, and in order that some memory of them might go down to posterity, he painted – this is what I wanted to tell you in part on show and in this segment, so I'm still reading – he painted five distinguished men with his own hand on a long panel, which he kept in his house in memory of them. One was Giotto, the painter, standing for the light and origin of art. The second was Filippo Di Ser Brunellesco for the architecture, Donatello for sculpture, himself for perspective and animals,

and for mathematics, Giovanni Manetti, his friend, with whom he often conferred and discoursed on the problems of Euclid. End quote. And this struck me, first of all, when the mention of perspective and animal, I tell you this is life of a spurg. He was commemorating genius of his time and his own achievements he saw in perspective and animal. But what struck me was this focus he had on genius and on origins of the arts and sciences. It struck me as does Vasari's own repeated musings on genius, the origin and nature of genius. Vasari was maybe first to come with this idea of Renaissance, of rebirth, which is taken to mean the rebirth of antiquity, of Greco-Roman art and of ideas in spirit, but I think should be taken at its core,

Or rebirth of genius, the rebirth of spirit of individual genius, and what are the prerequisites of this to arise? And in Vasari's book, which is just about visual arts, you have an example of how a tradition arises, in this case painting tradition, how geniuses are nurtured in it, how schools develop and styles change and are perfected, but mostly conservatives and traditionalists, for example, like Scruton, but many others, they like to pay attention and to enjoy, I I think of tradition, but after it's already tradition and after it has been established. And they are good people for continuing it and for cherishing it, but they are less good when no tradition exists and has to be established.

And even during the vital time of a tradition, for example, conservatives are likely to emphasize its social or political unity and significance, rather than what you need, men like Vasari describes who are monsters of will. Vasari describes a tradition at its height, right? And it's significant that the way he describes it is a series of biographies of men of genius with much concern. How are they, as I say, nurtured? How are they found? How are their talents developed? And he sees that they are in a kind of fight and opposition to outdo each other. And the nature of an obsessive man like Uccello is very different from a a traditionalist who, let's say, who preserves the memory of somebody like Uccello after and supports schools or styles already established or appreciates it.

Not that Uccello himself, by the way, founded any, he was too odd and somewhat himself he was anachronistic kind of man composing in an older style already even though he was early Renaissance. But other artists learn from his studies on perspectives in this, but think maybe of intensity of mind that secludes itself like this for years in study of perspective or Newton with his obsessions. What it takes to get this, to give such men the space to expand their powers, and for all the performative talk of creativity today and the celebration of some geniuses in movies like you have this one with Nash and his very, it's kind of a performance for middle-aged ladies, but this is actually one of the most hostile times for such men.

Nobody is creative today, almost nobody, for all this talk of creativity. Creativity seminar, this kind of talk and process. Everything is about the process and the process of creativity, but the substance is lacking. And a man like Uccello, who would have been placed on medication today, and otherwise, besides medication and the spiritual aspects of our day that would have militated against against his becoming an achieved genius and working on these things. An obstacle would have been also placed in every way in his path, whether things you can think of already, the race stuff of course, or the anti-white male thing, which is itself most of all, it sets itself against the idea of genius in history. If you read so-called critical race theory, they are extreme offended by exactly what

I talk on this idea of history as biography, history driven by great men like Uccello. And it's true that he was a hermit, but he got commissions for paintings and this which he needed to sustain himself and so forth. And he became, you know, Vasari exaggerates a little bit, Uccello became famous as painter in his lifetime, for example the frescoes of Noah and so forth. But I'm trying to say that the critical race theory and all the race thing that gets attacked now, it's actually an offshoot of a communitarian ideology that precedes it. It comes out of this. What CRT has most enraged at is the very idea of distinction, not so much of race. It's outraged at the idea of natural hierarchy, that one man should be better than another or excel another.

There must always be a conspiracy behind that. It is always power that determines the canon. It's an older argument. And I say this before, in ancient Greeks it's the very opposite. There are countless words to describe ways in which one man will excel and be superior to another. As this extreme offense to modern mind in general, not just CRT and the race stuff now, this is just an extreme and more brutal version of it. But it's been with this ideology, this communitarian egalitarianism, has been with the West so called for many decades. But as Nietzsche says, this is what Greek culture was founded on, the opposite of that. Let me reread for you from Zarathustra, always shall you be foremost and prominent above others.

No one shall – excuse me – I am trying to get rid of the thy and this and to tell you with your. Always shalt thou be the foremost and prominent preeminent above others. No one shall thy jealous soul love except a friend. That made the soul of a Greek thrill, whereby he went his way to greatness." End quote. That is from Zarathustra, The Thousand and One Goals, and this I've read before. And Nietzsche continues with describing the morality of Israel, of Persia and of the Germans. Not a single one was egalitarian. It was not the same as the Greeks. They had different ideas, Persia should well and speak the truth, Israel honor mother and father, German it was loyalty and command and obey and so forth.

But all of them said something far above themselves, something that they prized and that was difficult. These were pre-modern cultures, if you want to call them these peoples, they are not egalitarian, not one of them. Now the Greek one, most of all, it had precisely the character Nietzsche said. And they had, again, something like 20 words to describe how one man could be better than another. They were obsessed with this. The argon, the competition, the supremacy of one man over another and over other men, It was at center of their ideology, not collect world, but their culture, their religion, their life. These are moralities, in fact, not to be confused with the laws or the culture of a modern state, which uses all these peoples up. The modern state serves the superfluous too many.

There are too many born in modern time, and that's who the modern state serves. It perverts all of these moralities, religions and so forth. The peoples in their periods of vitality are peoples forged by creators, by founders who set a high goal above each people and thereby they served life. But in this one case of the Greeks, the law you just heard, to be preeminent above others and to excel them, I'm telling you even before CRT with its weird brutal racial stuff, the Opposite of the Greek ethos was already the morality of all the schools, all the academies, of all the political assumptions of modern life, maybe exception in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew openly challenged it. But this creed would have been seen as satanic, the Greek one that I just named for you.

It's even actually dismissed with that word now by the Christian Marxist variety. This is a kind of Marxist who hangs under a Christian bouffage or clown show. But aside from the biological material required, high IQ and so forth, which I will not talk now, you need this creed, this overwhelming intensity and ambition, this cult of genius, yes, to be able to re-found traditions as in Renaissance or Ancient Greece. In the West, in Europe, in European men, you need this. You need men like Uccello and Donatello and others living in a kind of fruitful rivalry to each other, and they would have been considered not just spurgs but other kind of mental illnesses today, obsessives, where even when they're friends they're vying with each other and

each is vying with his predecessors and with great men of the past to make lasting works or great discoveries. And this is the opposite of the ideologies promoted around the world since at least 1950. You could maybe go back to 1789, but why not do I do that? Because there was one exception, Nietzsche and his followers, and before they hid, after 1950 they could not edit Nietzsche out of existence and suppress him, but they hid what he said, they perverted and corrupted it, and it's amazing how people still believe in the existence of a totally edited Nietzsche they encountered at college and so forth. But the other social requirement besides this cult of genius is a condition of total upheaval,

social upheaval, overturning of ossified bureaucracies in schools and a situation of war and strife, such as happened in Renaissance Italy or around the same time in warring states, Japan, because in the end it is actually military innovation and significant military changes that alone can bring about the overturning of one era and the beginning of another. And this is connected in fact to birth of artistic and scientific genius. And I will talk briefly this on next segment. We had the mid-show Caramel for Energy. Is this okay? It's very difficult week because insomnia machine under New York Federal Reserve, they turn it on again, and I go to sleep every day at seven in morning. I do not know how stop this, terrible.

But this subject of deep connection between the genius of art and of war is very dear to me and is very profound topic, maybe does not just need its own show but own book. Because you look at men like Uccello who is a hermit-like spurg, loves animal and burb and very sensitive and obsessed with matters of perspective and technique, and spend time with his friend, a mathematician friend, talking geometry and other such thing, and you could think well, this type of man, how can you think of anyone more different from a soldier or a warlord? But I think if you take a step back, I will not read this now, but just very quickly, if you take a step back, you see there's a kind of spiritual kinship maybe between

the two in the intensity of mind, the ambition of a man like Uccello to overcome his predecessors and his contemporaries, to be, let's say in the case of a scientist, discoverer, maybe not like conquistador of new worlds, but new mysteries of nature, penetrator of new mysteries of nature. In case of philosopher or thinker, somebody who is maybe not founder of new state, but founder of new religion or something like it. And this intense ambition of artists, men like Uccello, I think it's not a contrived similarity. real spiritual kinship to some kind of raiding warlord. But that is a very profound subject I can't go into right now. And secondly, you cannot deny that times in which men like Uccello proliferate, like Renaissance

Italy or ancient and archaic Greece, they are a time of extreme political recklessness and constant warfare. This cannot be coincidence. Somehow these types of societies, I don't like to use the word virtues because you know you think of Victorian matron now is that virtue this and that, but think of excellencies or powers that such times demand of their men, times of war. They can very easily then be used in other directions and I don't like the word sublimated but the territory of war extends then in a new direction, in art, in philosophy, in science and these other things. So there must be, I think, some type of connection. You take, I mentioned Japan, Tokugawa shogunate was very peaceful time of Japan after it was

set up early 1600s, mostly peaceful, and they promoted some arts and so forth and literature And they did well during that time, but it lacked the intensity and the world-changing ambition of their thinkers of the age of war or warring state, which was very similar to ancient Greek and Renaissance Italy politically, fractured small states constantly warring. I think there is deep connection, but I must leave for another time on this remaining half of show, I have somewhat more limited concern and much discussion online now has become intolerable including on the right, which was the only tolerable place to be online, was the only place where interesting and heretical ideas were discussed recently. And I don't mean to say stop, in some corners they still are, but it's in way of being

corrupted into this crude political populism only, which was supposed to be just something we were riding as our public face, but now much of good discussion about history and culture and biology is gone, in part because so many of us have been banned, there are still some, but everything moving toward moral and political whining about degeneracy and late capitalism and hypercapitalism and neoliberalism and socialism and child tax credit and banning Banning porn, you hear, so this is the big radical proposal, for example, of the Integralists where Mueller had this, their platform banning porn, closing shops on Sunday, you know, this will really stick it to, I mean, can you imagine, for example, Putler, Putler faced similar

situation of disorder and decay in Russia in 1999 when he first came with, he had senile puppet Yeltsin and the country was being sold fire sale. Did you know Russians did not even see any profits from their huge oil reserves until 2004? And he came in and he told oligarchs, he didn't take power directly, I mean immediately it was gradual, but he told them eventually things are changed now. I am Russia's deep state, which he is, we the Russia's deep state are coming back, we have the guns, you have the wealth, but we have the guns, I'm not going to kill you, you can keep your ill-gotten gains. But from now on the Russian people deserve a cut, too. And you have to get on board with this and be on my side and be an obedient oligarch or else. And most took that deal.

The ones who did not ended up not so good, like Khodorkovsky in jail and exiled. And Khodorkovsky is a murderer, by the way. But to Ted Cruz and Anna Rowe, he's a peppy Randian businessman. He's the same as a mom-and-pop hardware store who managed to turn their operation into a chain. or he's like Andrew Carnegie, but he's had people killed in Russia, Berezovsky had journalists killed as well. You don't hear ever from American media. Instead the murders of journalists in 1990s Russia by oligarchs are retconned as putler murders. It's very shameless. So these oligarchs who did not accept Putin compromise, which seems to me a very reasonable compromise, right? He is a man of peace. I wouldn't have done that.

I would have liked to be like Agathocles or Clercus on them, you know, loot oligarch and hang them. But he was very reasonable and I think this was Trump's plan also, a kind of actually put in light compromise in which he wasn't even, you know, he just wanted to do well and he hoped that they would see that he improved country and they would love him for it. But their response was no, nothing for you in America, everything for us, we cancel elections. And so now I think the proper response is for America to rise up with Agathocles. Look up this. It's a famous passage in Machiavelli prints also about Agathocles of Syracuse. Look up what he did. Or instead of this you can have Lech Walesa at least.

But the so-called dissident arrived has become talk about child tax credit and higher corporate corporate tax rate, you know Russia had I think 15% maximum corporate tax rate, but it's actually they pay much lower than that because they get all kind of exemptions. Somehow the country did well under him mostly, people's living standard increased dramatically, their life expectancy recovered, he turned the country around with very low corporate tax rates. Now, this does not register on the so-called populist post-Trump right. How pathetic, stupid is this? Clothes shop on Sunday, child tax credit, and this whole discourse of we are the new Occupy Wall Street, we are the new left but natalist and for traditional Oaxaca family values, the pseudo-Centorum platform.

It has infected so many parts of the right at expense, even I think the racial trolling that 4chan, even 16-year-old used to do was much better than this. Even purely intellectual hypotheses, if you entertain anything now as a question, you're barraged with emotional chimp-out from people who inform you that you're not doing enough to oppose globalist capital and it's all whether you keep the party line or not. This is what online right turning into. And by now also the feminist white nationalists who are back in force and many of you engage with them. I have no idea why they are paid to engage with you and they are mad because you do not recognize that the height of life is to live in their imagined matriarchal Viking huts

where a 200-pound Olga built like a log cabin pegs you with a salami. them about the Heruli, by the way. I was saying this the other day and I was overheard on street talking to myself. I was walking around saying, I'm a National Socialist traditional housewife. A woman heard me and she looked at me very weird. I will bake pie for you in the shape of a swastika. And these deranged NGO monkeys, they show up actually for years every few months to harass us, but for some reason they caught on now and they've kept doing it this time because you're engaging them. But some of them I assume are genuine obese ex-mud sharks, but ask them about the Heruli. This is a traditional Germanic tribe, right? And their name just means actually the Earls. It's like a black gang, the Kangs. They were a gang.

They were not a people in any normal definition of the word. And I think the same is true for quite a few other so-called peoples we know from history, but in the case of Heruli it's very much so. It's supposed they did not even have women in certain stages of their history. They were or at least started and remained long time a manner bond of warriors only, a kouros, and they are described by Roman cucks as the men most remote from convention, the biggest cad. They were supposed to be also the biggest physically, which probably you know was true because it was self-selected. It was like a gang and they accepted only, you know, like Frederick the Great. So anyway, this Rulli thing is interesting, matters to discuss at a time, but I tell the grass-hot thread wives about them.

Think about that. But yes, I like to go on tangent, but you get these emotional shtetl leftist-type chipouts and they think if you go off the approved party platform so that they made up on anything, even a little bit, they go off at you. I give you some example. This guy, I forget the poster, doesn't matter actually, I think he tried to be nice to me, I don't like to attack, but he had some ridiculous post about how, oh, you rightists like all male secret fraternities and brotherhoods like Mannerbund, you know who else likes that? You know who is your model for that? The Masons. Right, so you're just like the Masons. I mean, okay, so men have excluded women from groups for 40,000 years or longer. You find all male fraternities in hunter-gatherer tribes with no literacy.

You find examples all over ancient world of various kinds. But okay, yes, excluding women is purely a Masonic thing. I'm telling you, we cannot take much more of this. Much of the right has become as imbecilic as the left or the shtlibs or the NRO, so-called intellectual conservatives or anyone else. The genealogy of working out can be traced back to the crypto-Jew Plato. kind of thing. I can't take any more of this. Ask Taleb. But I think this is going to make a lot of people drop out, unfortunately, even as much as the censorship or the threats of doxing. You cannot have sometimes a thread on conquistadors without a retard informing you that they were tools of international capital and globalist colonialism and that

they were working secretly for Jewish finance interests. I do not joke to you. I had a while A while ago a Wignat girl, she was telling me Pizarro and Cortes were Jews because no Christian trad men would oppress natives. I'm telling you, I can't take this much longer. So why I say this? Because the other day I made a post, casual statement that shouldn't be so controversial. It was, I didn't want to go into detail, there was a video of jetpacks and at least in this video, they were British Marines, they were using these new jetpacks to get over oceans from one ship to another. And they seemed fully operational, they were mobile, maneuverable fully, they were quiet, it looked great. So I had something to say along the lines of, you know, theories and ideas and history

and so on are good, and great and brave politicians are necessary, but a true change of world and spirit will only come about now as before with signature changes in military technology or innovation. And what is important is to make individual soldiers much stronger. And I got a chimp out, you know, people laughing that mere jetpacks, as if my statement was about jetpacks, or idiots saying that the jetpacks would be used to enforce vaccine mandate. You know, everything is about the emotional hysteria of the moment. Or bigger idiots saying, oh, this guy is praising mere jetpacks when America in fact rules the world by financial domination. You know, I cannot take this cretinism anymore. The biggest discovery of mankind, actually, right now, could be something like the shield

from Dune, okay? Something like that would make war eugenic again. Something that would empower individual warrior, much like toolkit of hoplite or a medieval knight did. That is what changes eras, not just ideas or political action. This much less so. You need that. That is what changes civilizations. And Musk and Thiel and these guys should be putting billions into something like the Dune I will give you some examples later, but basically everything you complain now in modern world, the shape of modern state, the political arrangements, the morality, even the supposed financialization, many obsess about this now, I don't see, you know, it itself cannot be a problem. It's the moral aspect and the social decline that it leads to, supposedly, right? That's what you should worry about.

But even the financialization and all of it is dependent on this era of modern warfare, mass conscription and the military competition that made these types of bureaucratic mega-states necessary. There's no such thing as financial domination. Somebody with better weapons and military can just come and take it from you. In history, only very rare cases, something like Byzantine Empire, do you find a state capable of lasting a long time, for example, by bribing foreigners, even frighteningly strong ones. But even in that case, it was not just finance. They had centuries-old traditions of wily diplomacy, something that does not exist in America today or in the Anglo world. England was good at it, but not nearly as good as the Byzantines, who did much with very little.

They knew how to set enemies against each other better than the English did. And they were also, however, favored with relatively rustic enemies, but even then the the Byzantines had in fact a very strong military, not as strong as English Navy and so forth, but they had specialized heavy cavalry that was very expensive and well-armed. And when they declined militarily, they ended after Battle of Manzikert and then the Fourth Crusade. They were really done as a world power. They conspired a little bit. They used money to overthrow Charles of Anjou, but they didn't drive – I've talked about this before – the Sicilian Vespers. They donated money to a conspiracy that was hatched by others, and it required the military of other states. But that was an exception, it was a small thing.

The money they threw around in Sicily even before, let's say, they lost – I'm talking about before now, not the Sicilian Vespers, but when the Normans came into Sicily and South Italy, and the Byzantines were throwing money all around and working with the Lombards, But it made no difference against an enemy like the Normans, who took the money. And they built their wealth with force of arms, not the other way around. It consistently beats money. If you have strength, you can just take from the rich. It's something Randians can never accept. And if you ever point this out to them, Ayn Rand, who was called Nietzsche, and she's not Nietzsche, she does not understand the profound idea of physical force. It's actually a profound idea.

I talk about it another time, but Randians can never accept this, so they get very emotional if you tell them, well, why wouldn't you just build an army and take from it? So in general, Hans Hermann Hoppe understands, but Randians do not. So in general, all portions of the right now, from neo-reaction to the integralists to these neo-post-leftists to whine about hypercapitalism, they come from a very intellectualized, nerd-centered view of political life and history, theory heavy, and mostly they are offended by suggestion that it's actually military technology and innovation and military men, which doesn't refer by the way to just one gadget or even something, a major discovery like iron, but an entire toolkit and how it is used and that it is this that changes history, not financial

or economic consideration and also not ideas. But I think historical record is unambiguous on this for really focal changes, I mean, you need the military element above all, the military innovation. And I can just quick, I will give you a series of examples, I will take another quick break for a glass of milks, I will be right back. Consider a sexual harassment who ask a woman if she would enjoy being raped, not raped but maybe ravished by West Virginia University champion wrestler. I know it would be a little bit offensive, but would H.R., Human Resources, consider this a forum section? I was asked this by a friend. I think that Joe Manchin, he is Senator of West Virginia, but in American press he is sometimes they ask, is he the real President of the United States?

You must constantly push this question. It upset very much current regime America. But I think he being from West Virginia, I'm hearing through various sources that he is assembling WVU, West Virginia University, I don't know how you say, they have amazing college wrestling program, and he is assembling a number of those wrestlers to enforce his will in Washington, D.C. Can you imagine very strong, virile wrestlers in the Capitol building showers while Rahm Emanuel looks on and they dominate in the showers? Mitch McConnell and maybe not Pelosi, but Mitch McConnell and many others. Can you imagine what this would be like? You should say this constant, Joe Manchin, the real President of the United States. He has taken everything from Jeff Biden. He has taken his manhood.

I think this is very good. But I told you I would talk this matter of how military innovation changes eras of history, Not just a slight change in the course of a society or civilization, but even changes civilizations. And I thought this was something easily accepted by all, but people jump on me when I say it, so I just will give you some quick examples. Maybe most of you already know this, but for example, to start, what is Bronze Age that I talk so much? How does it start? And I don't mean the change in the material bronze, but the characteristic period that is sort of described in the Iliad, which actually mixes at least two periods, but the life described there that is so inspiring, the one I admire so much, how it came about, and it's called chariotry.

And around 1800 B.C. you start here first use of military chariots. Carts and other wheeled vehicle drawn by animal and horse had existed before, but effective military use only start around Zen, maybe. But immediately you see big change in the world. Like I say, a change in era, in total political organization and character of life, and one assumes also in thought and feeling. You have very large states set up very quickly by formerly, in some cases, marginal people In the Kassites, marginal mountain people, they set up first big territorial state in Mesopotamia, all on back of chariots. You have Hittites, who again is a bit of misnomer, because there was no Hittite people as such. It was not a national state, it's the name of a territory.

They were called the people of Hatti, but it was not a national ethnic state, it was heterogeneous. The leadership was a small Indo-European military caste of charioteers. They worshipped the gods of Hati, they say, and other such things. And same with Mitanni, who actually, the Mitanni had Aryan gods, this is very interesting, and their kings had Aryan names, Tushrata, a vehement chariot. This is the name of a Mitanni king. today somebody named Pontiac Grand Am, or maybe not that, but another Lamborghini for name of warlord, same thing. But Mitanni, chariot kingdom, you have Hyksos, they take over Egypt for the first time that outsiders take Egypt, and Egyptians are very contemptuous of them, they consider them rustics

and primitives, and they call, you know, their Asiatics, and indeed they were a rustic confederations of Semitic and Arian adventurers. It's interesting, actually, because here you have the sons of Shem and of Japhet teaming up against the sons of Ham, and is this where this comes from in the Bible, which say that the sons of Japhet will live with the sons of Shem? I don't know, but later they are expelled from Egypt, but in all these cases, as in Greece with Mycenaeans and in India around the same time, the Mycenaeans in Greece I I think came around 1700-1600 BC, same time, but the Aryans in India, 1200 BC with Aryan conquests of Dravidian civilization, it is in all cases small troop of charioteers take

over much larger territory because old infantry are complete powerless against the chariot. Sorry if I repeat from previous show, but this important period and the subsequent political organization of Bronze Age palace societies, which was an international civilization, many of you know, they had to import bronze from all over the world, they mined tin from English islands in this, this depended on the palace core of chariots, it was the foundation and keystone of this world. Then it ended suddenly and quickly, as you know, around the end of the 1200s, beginning of the 1100s, around that time, sometimes earlier, sometimes later, but why then? Sea Peoples, which again was revolution, military technology, and innovation.

And again these were some marginal peoples, formerly they had probably been hired as berserks and runners by the charioteer states, and they developed a military toolkit to destroy chariot armies. Javelins, which you have to be trained for, you can throw from far and you kill one of the horses, that's the end of the chariot. Some iron tool and some new kinds of armor, new type of infantry organizations that made chariots obsolete, and they very quickly pillaged and destroyed states and ended an international civilization. They ended literacy. Again, epochal change all because of military innovation. In Greece this was return of sons of Hercules when Dorians settled as far as Rhodes and so forth. They were looking for serfs to treat as sheep, which apparently that's another of the new

hot thing on the right, to abandon the fight, to move to countryside, believe that having a big family will give you demographic power as if the establishment will not quickly abandon democracy if they have to, but to believe that having a big family on a farm, on a homestead somewhere is a political act that suffices. Again, when I say this, they say, oh, you're anti-family, and I'm saying it doesn't suffice. You go and you live like Amish and grow carrots and become serfs. And serfs live that way, traditional conservative life, like that for thousands of years, but they remain serfs. They do not have sovereignty, they are owned livestock, or copts in Egypt. They live traditional conservative family lives, but they were demis for a thousand years. Good luck.

So anyway, then there is this other change at end of Bronze Age, and you can see some mythical foundation to it already. In other words, the ideas followed it, the myth of the return of the sons of Hercules, And even before, the divine twins, Castor and Pollux, who were worshipped as the Ashvin twins also by the Aryans in India and by the Mitanni. And it's very interesting actually because the Mitanni, they were settled in south of present-day Armenia or so forth, so you'd expect them to have Iranian or Iranid or somewhat, I don't want to say Avestan gods, but Iranid gods, but they did not. They had Aryan gods from India. Very interesting how that spread took place. Nobody really knows. I think finding Mitanni capital, Washukanni, would be an amazing thing.

You could find the graves of the early Mitanni king, and there you have an answer of who the Indo-Europeans are. But anyway, so you see, there was a religious aspect that is known already to have accompanied that epochal change in military technology. But then you have around 1000 BC, you have another big change, you have first use of military cavalry and as soon as it arrived, you see suddenly the Cimmerian, not Sumerian, but CIM, like Conan, excuse, they attacked my throat, like Conan the Cimmerian. The Cimmerian reigns as far as Anatolia coast, they were some of the first military riders and their arrival brought such terror. And I've seen somewhere even later philosopher, even of modern age, they took this as start of Western history proper.

I'm not sure I agree, but then quickly come the Medes, the Persians, and they built the first mega empire stretching from Europe to India, again all because cavalry which struck such terror into previous armies and peoples, it was irresistible when it first come. And the foundation itself, the cavalry of these new orders, then the military revolution that happened later, let's say 800 BC and maybe after that, the heavy infantry, which this only really took place in ancient Greece because it required certain intellectual and financial investment that not available elsewhere in the world. But the Greeks adopted some element from Carians, I think the shield was Carian if I'm not mistaken, But the same way that the Romans adopted things from Celts and Iberians, but the complete

toolkit of the hoplite was developed in Greece of course, which Aristotle and many others, and now there's Victor Davis Hanson, he makes this point, the hoplite became the backbone foundation of the republican states. They could stop cavalry and so Greece moves from aristocratic equine rule to republican rule entirely because of this military change. And again you see this military change foundation of political, social, spiritual, and moral life anew. And actually, Victor Jensen and so on, they miss, I think, a stage of development here because the point they make is the hoplite was the most effective in a phalanx formation. And this required high discipline and high esprit de corps and equality among the body of the phalanx, the hoplite class.

And so, besides this also, the armour itself and the training was very expensive. So you can see how this lead to argument, this group was obvious one to form the republican citizen class. But I think they are a little bit wrong because in beginning actually the hoplite toolkit, which was the heavy armour, the heavy shield, the tall spear and then the knowledge and physical strength to use them, this is why Greek had the gym culture so they could wear the armour. But it was an individual warrior's assembly, it was not a phalanx in the beginning. It was used by individual infantry, type of knight adventurer, pirate adventurer as it were. And these were hired by tyrants who were what? They were another type of political adventurer, they were trying to take over aristocratic state.

So even here there is this intermediate and to me more interesting revolution in social organization, but it was affected by new military technology innovation that came along with resurrected spiritual vitalism, an ethos of conquest, supremacy, and expansion. But this does not, of course, negate possibility that in its later phalanx evolution it also served as back of republican constitutions, but in both cases you see very clear now, and now it's documented form, written form, how a whole assembly of new political moral philosophical thinking came along with this, and that is itself an interesting question I leave for another time, much to think about how come first the military newness or do the ideas, the spiritual impetus, the philosophy.

I think it's very hard to say that the ideas come first unless you think of some type of mechanism like there is a prophet or thinker who come with new ideas but they languish for a while or they are marginal but then they are opportunistically picked up by men who found these new states based on these new forms of organizations ultimately reliant on military innovation. I'm sure you can think of other historical explanations or possibilities to make case for both sides, but an option I find more interesting, which I believe, is that they develop simultaneously. Both are refined and developed as time goes on, but in the beginning, both the ideas and the military innovation arise somehow from depths of nature together roughly at the same time is a big mystery how it happened.

As big a mystery as adaptation of organism to its environment and vice versa. What comes first? The stag's horns? What is knowledge and desire to use them to fight? Because you see even in young bull and stag with no horns, they play fight as if they had. They butt heads. But this is simultaneous I believe. come from something deep in emanation of the will in nature, but this for another time. And you see many other changes similar through history, I will not go through all of them. Actually one exception might be fall of Roman Empire, because here you can make the case that the Romans of 1st century AD or BC could have easily defeated the Germanic invaders. Yes, they lost to Theutoburg then, but that was in a forest away from home, it was different.

But if they had defeated Hannibal, they could have defeated Germanic rustics. You can think, because the Germanic rustics, the barbarians, they didn't really have that great military innovations. You know, tall height, that's a biological one, and bravery and spirit and so on wouldn't have been enough. The Germanic berserkers did not yet have superior military technology, innovation or organization. I think they didn't win because of that, but here maybe it was purely a battle of a spirited vital and virile people versus one that was exhausted by bureaucracy, by too much civilization and maybe by deleterious beliefs. But then later the knight becomes the foundation of medieval feudal Christian society, the knight himself being, I think, a development of the Scythian step-rider.

But you know the story and so on, and seafaring military innovation in Venice and other places, entire books are written about how sea power changed the world. I don't know if I pronounced that name right, but he's not only one who wrote book of sea power in history and how it changed political organization and many other things. Excuse me. It changed the shape of the world, the development of navigation, oceanic navigation by first Portuguese and Spanish and this. But I skip over much now, but you know these arguments. How can it be denied that military innovation is what inaugurates new eras and in our own time I excuse for repeat, but these large states now, the way they are organized, how they justify themselves, it has everything to do with the need to fill the gigantic conscript

armies after Napoleon and then in modern industrial totalitarian age, and now we're in this kind of lull where those types of large wars are believed obsolete and the world is moving to expert armies again but very slowly, and as yet there hasn't been yet an innovation jetpacks will not do it alone, but need an innovation to take power away from the bureaucratic modern megastate and to give it back into hand individual warrior or small groups. I think this will change the world entirely. This is why I say if you don't want this trash world of Jen Psaki type scolds or the so-called defence minister of European countries or these four sterile old women running things and Fauci nursing home manager to continue for a thousand years, please find a way to

develop shields from doom or a series of other innovations that can amount to the same. And I personally rather live under the rule of Mexican cartel warlord than under a Fauci, by the way. That's another thing. You can see now in our situation why even in ancient world it was a relief maybe to To have your territory conquered by an Ostrogoth warlord in some cases rather than what was before. But that's a defeatist way to think. The change can come entirely from within if you can give power back to the men. And in some ways this was main political message of my book also to tell military men across civilized societies that as these will shortly become more inept, elevating trash and making bad decisions.

In that case, nothing can stop soldiers from simply taking over, nothing can stop them other than their own mental imprisonment. And you don't need to be paid more even, you can have it all, why accept money? The people would stand with you, they would see you as liberators. And I always liked this episode from Japanese history where samurai class finally realized they no longer need to listen to imperial court and to the imperial administrators. It took a while, but even after they had the physical power already, it took a while because maybe military men run by honour, I'd like that. But ruled by effete priests and bureaucrats who live isolated from consequences of their decisions and who are enthralled to stupid ideas, this is not freedom.

When do you realize you do not need to pretend Jen Psaki or Hillary Clinton are your equals? In Russia, there was not an epochal change with Putler, but in limited ways the realization I say already came when Deep State realized, no, we do not need to pretend Yeltsin and Khodorkovsky have a right to rule this country. Deep State guy realized, I don't need to go lobster risotto party with a pedestrian to take money from a Paul Singer. I can have it all. And I'd rather have that than what's now. It's a more accountable government, ultimately allow for more freedom. But anyway, yes, I hope my book or other thing I will write can one day may be inspiration for power armor adventurer soldier to simply take.

And maybe power armor won't even be fully necessary if modern state continue, for example, their descent into unmanageable dysfunction where South Africa, which was a well-running state, but then you know what happened, end of apartheid, and now they are running submarines into ocean floor. Look it up. This happened. a Navy disaster happening also, where simply ships are colliding because nobody now navigates. But I hope for this. I hope to see jetpack knights in impenetrable Adamantine stealth armor bedecked in black with gold filigree, like the armor of Emperor Charles V. Look it, and many feathers and things with gang name, we the dukes, we the dukes. I want to see them rape and pillage and smash skyscraper and take the gold, take the women. Very good. Until next time, Bet Out!