I was in a supermarket the other day, and they insist with masks, and I got very upset they put a mask muzzle on my face. I decide, you know, to make a scene, to abuse myself. I get in front of a supermarket, in front of the stands, there are people in line, and I will not confirm if I'm in Spanish or Portuguese-speaking country, but you know that I'm in a tropicoon country. But for sake of, okay, let's say in Spanish, the obese homo-mans who was insisting I put the mask muzzle on, I decide I will show them something new and I say to them, I am taking control of this place in the name of the blood martyrs of the shrine of Imam Ali. Estoy tomando control de esta supermercado en nombre de los martires de sangre del santuario del Imam Ali. What do you think happened once I did this?

I think this, when the game begins, if you do something like this, that's when real life starts. Latino Muslims. Welcome. This is Caribbean Rhythm episode 99. Today is a variety show, politics and history matter, and since everyone talks Russia and Ukraine now, later I will have a segment with my friend Kirill to discuss the Ukraine fake crisis. What do you want me to say about it more now everyone talking all you need to know is Ukraine itself says there have not been changes in the Russia troop level and so forth on its border since April of last year I think. So now what you have mentally ill factions in the united snakes regime who are pushing for war Russia asking putler you know to evacuate land supposedly conquered in 2014 when they

They were not conquered, Crimea is 99% Russian and they are actually patriotic Russians at that. Okay, but I don't want this, I will leave for later a show with guest segment and I'm afraid that people do say this, the Latinks will return to Islam, that's what some people are saying. The Islamic history supposedly of Iberia and so on. So have you heard this, the Islamic roots of Aztlan just mix and match any anti-Western WAP philosophies that you can think. After the Marx, which Marxism is what, it's a WAP version of Hegel. And after that so-called Marxoid WAP economics, you give me that. After that, oracular philosophy failed and I don't like Karl Popper but I think it's tried to call Marxism a kind of messianic mysticism.

After that failed, now they do this other racial thing and the Islamic thing, Aslan, so I think unfortunately there is some, at least a little bit motion in that direction on part of some Oaxacans and Latinxoans, but it's not nearly as much as Protestantism and Pentecostalism, thankfully, it's not even close. Probably South America within Central and South America and the Caribbean within a generation will be majority Protestant. This is what happens when you abandon your traditions and you let bouncer fagged pope come. But there are some who are unaware maybe that Visigothic Spain had a rather high level of civilization. A friend recently did Twitter thread, I will link it, but for example, just one example,

Saint Isidore of Seville, who is a great literary man besides being maybe not quite a church father but one of the high minds of Catholicism, a very important thinker at break between antiquity and Middle Ages, and he was operating entire within civilization of Visigothic Spain. They had adopted Roman culture and identity, to some extent political Roman identity, but they were promoting and cultivating old Roman families and Roman culture, scholarship, learning and arts and so forth, before Muslim goat herds invaded. You know that the supposed marvels of Cordoba and Muslim Spain, even later, all those great mines were either Christians or they were born Christian. Many of the great Arab mines actually of entire Islamic so-called Golden Age were Near Eastern

Christians from Syria, from Baghdad, modern day Iraq, so forth, or they were Muslims, but they were not, you know, they were from the Iran-centered world, which has always been schismatic. They were from Central Asia, like Al-Farabi, who is a good example actually of what Islamic Golden Age mean. Al-Farabi was from some kind of Iranian civilization, nobody knows for sure, but he was from Khorasan or Central Asia, and he studied with a Nestorian Christian, this was his spiritual and intellectual teacher, and this is typical of so-called Islamic Golden Age in general. It happened on the edges of actually Muslim life despite Muslim rule, not because of it, And it was the same thing in Spain where almost all the supposed great minds were either like this or they were Jews.

And by the way, whatever propaganda you may have heard from resentful secular Americanized Jews now about how the great friendship between Cordoba Muslims and Jews and their common civilization, this was not quite the view of Jews back then. If you see what Maimonides, what he say about the house of Ishmael and so on, and how much they had degraded the life of the Jews, the Jews back then were not happy especially to live under Muslim rule, even though they were the ones who, as far as I hear, opened the gates of Toledo and I hear also of Marseille, but so it goes. And in any case, in schools today, primary schools, you hear this, this opposite and dumb story of a multicultural Muslim Jewish civilization in South Spain and how pre-Islamic

Spain was Visigothic cannibal bathing in horse blood, but that somehow Arab camel fucker and a Jewish rug merchant, they brought them the benefits of Greek or Roman baths or whatever. Well, on this show later I will have to tell you quite a bit more about beds, because people who actually do live around beds and bathhouse cultures, they have a mixed view of them, let's put it that way. I will talk Tacitus' short essay, the Agricola, where he eulogizes his father-in-law, who was a Roman statesman and general, a conqueror of Britain. This happened, let's say, around the end of the first century. And I will talk about what a Roman Empire meant in Britain and elsewhere. But anyway, this lie about Muslim Spain is aggressively taught, and maybe something else,

there may be something else in the Islamic sect, which is itself, it's a simplified and aggressive variety of Judaism, but there may be something, maybe this appeals to the Oaxacan and to the Andean robots, the Andean robots, the dead-eyed, if you ever see the pure Andean campesino indio, or the Oaxacan with the dead eyes, there's no life, excuse me, there's no absolute no intellect spark of anything in their eyes. These are robots that are royal houses of those ancient empires in Central America, themselves from the blood of Aldebaran, but they bred these robots serfs in large numbers, and now the Bush family and the GOP tries to import them, leaf blower Americans, the based national populist GOP who will have Latinx leaf blowers teach you the moral superiority of traditional socialism.

Ask Santorum, thread socialism and child credits and free washing machine on voting days. This is Latin tradition and ban porn, close shops on Sundays. This is a GOP new genius idea. This is what it learned from Trump phenomenon, import leaf blower race but now based. This is why actually the RNC hired me to do Latino outreach for Gates and DeSantis, because I have that number, this is the hot new rumor. But they're paying me in Tong Burritos, actually. But I really like this, I like Tong Burrito, Tong is good offal, do not overlook it in favor of everyone now eat liver, but don't overlook classics like Tong and tripe. Tongue has, I think, plenty of zinc, and it has a nice taste. How do you enjoy Tongue? You have to slice it relative thin. I like it in a garlic mayonnaise.

Please learn how to make homemade mayonnaise. It's one of the refined joys of civilization. I know you have been taught to hate seed oils, and most are awful, but actually the new variety of sunflower oil, if they say high oleic variety, that has a fat profile very similar to olive So, but it has neutral taste so you can do things like make a mayonnaise at home from it. It's egg yolk. I wish I could just stay home and practice my aioli skills all day. But anything goes with the sauce, by the way, the garlic mayonnaise. If you like poached cod or other similar kind of fish with, white fish with that texture or similar, this sauce, it go well with mid-best walleye. Do you like the walleye? Latino-Muslim, you know, if you go to any South America or Central America city, it's

going to be full of Lebanese and Syrians. Some of them are Christian, they are Maronite Christians, and others are Muslim of varieties. If you go to this place called Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, it's a major smuggling center and actually, was it Elliot Abrams, who has now come out of, he's come out of a sewer to advocate for nuking Russia, but I think it was him or one of his catamites who during the Bush years, soon after 9-11, they were advocating bombing this so-called the tri-border region. It's the place where the Iguaçu Falls are, the region between Brazil, Argentina, and and Paraguay, and in this place called Ciudad del Este, which is the Paraguayan city on that border, it's kind of a free port and a major smuggling point for electronics mostly,

but many other kind of contraband, they're sold tax-free all over that area. Just so you know, if you ever find yourself in trouble in that continent, you can cross that area quite easily without papers back and forth. It's routinely done by the locals, they know how to do this, but that place is full of Lebanese and it's Lebanese Shiites. And so they said during Bush after 9-11, they said that there is Hezbollah there. Of course Hezbollah, I don't know what has to do with 9-11 or any of this, it's just one of their ethnic enemies, so we are going to bomb South America because they have Lebanese cigarette and videotape and PlayStation smugglers in that city. And to keep world safe, we're going to do Tsar Bomba nuclear bomb attack on Iguazu Falls

because it's a breeding ground for Shiites, this kind of thing. But all South America and Latin America, Caribbean is full of Syriacs, Lebanese and some Palestinians. The Palestinian Christians have good food, but it's too vinegary. They put lots of vinegar, everything extreme sour, I don't know why. The best Middle East or near East cuisine is that of Iraq. The Iraqi Arabs have the best food of that region, but it's very hard to find genuine Iraqi restaurant in the West. But as I say, these cities on the third world, I think actually in general, not just Latinx America, but the commerce is run by these commercial people's middlemen minorities. They are called Turcos, but it can stand for anything from Syriac, Lebanese, so forth.

This does not reveal where I am, it's all over Cretino America, but also actually West Africa. All commerce is run by Lebanese middlemen minorities, in that case some Greeks and Italians. Ask is it Amy Chua, is that her name, but how do you feel about Armenians? My friend Thomas Seven, he calls Armenians low IQ Jews. Is this true? I don't want to offend, you know, I'm worried about so-called Armenian occupied government. There used to be a map circulated online, AOG. You know about ZOG, but what about AOG, AOG, Armenian occupied government? There was a map spread on forums, now it's been edited off the internet, wiped out. So some Armenians are nice people, they make this pizza thing with ground meat, but then Then you get this creepy closed off feel around them.

It's a very community centered feel. They're insular, they're clannish, but I mean to tell you that they too, the Arminoids, they make a garlic sauce and they put it over meat dumpling, which they call mantie. I don't know how to pronounce it, something like mantie, mantie, mantie. I don't know how you pronounce it, but it's the same word as Korean mandu. It's because it's a steppe Eurasian food stretching from the far east to the nearest, on the, you know, the silk road so-called, but all the nomads on the steppe eat it, this dumpling full of meat. Many don't realize that steppe nomads do eat carb. They do eat some starch, actually. They buy, they trade their own wares for starch. They buy it from agriculturalists, wheat products, noodle and dough to make this dumpling, and

and Mongols have dumplings and this, and not that I recommend you eat that just because they eat it, but word came up the other day where people with very large accounts, like I will not include Cernovich because perhaps he has a particular audience, but when you get to those hundreds and thousands of followers you start very much to have normie audience, and you have to think about advice you give them, because Posobiec and some other large accounts are pushing the high-fat, low-carb diet and I could do that for my audience because you understand what that means, but for those with many, many normie follower and boomer follower and fat boomer and pre-boomer office worker who is fat, they should not be pushing this.

I know some of you like paleo and keto and you'll jump at my throat for saying this, But for normie masses, you cannot tell them just eat more fat without any other information. They will just get fatter. Even if you tell them eat more fat, cut sugar, they will still get fatter. It's possible to get very fat on animal fats. Dietary fat does actually lead to body fat. You can overeat that way. Bodybuilder Forum, such things have always known this. Now maybe it doesn't get you fat, you as my listener, but a normie who will continue to eat starches and they will cheat of course, they will just get fatter, they will think you are giving them some kind of trick to become normal. Eat animal fat, you can get thin again.

What you should really be telling them is you need to be hungry and this is what girls especially need to hear. Women can become morbidly obese eating animal fats. In fact, and this is Menequinone insight, Menequinone, I cannot reach you, I excuse my audience for making this a sight, but I have no way to reach Menequinone, he disappeared. Menequinone, if you listen to this show, please contact me immediately, I will otherwise continue to say some of your ideas as I'm about to do now, but in the future I will pretend they are my own, I will just steal. But Menam points out, you know, the Venus of Willendorf, that's very ancient statue of obese woman, apparently with cornrow-type hair, from the far Paleolithic antiquity of

Europe, and we've called her the earth mammy, this has always been the enemy, this is your enemy, but that's not a Neolithic statue, that is not a product of agriculture. Those people were hunting mammoths. They were eating, that's ice age or pre-ice age, large game hunting culture and how do you get that fat and Mena points out you cannot get that fat eating tubers and lean antelope on the savannah. You get that fat because these women, at least in some parts of let's say ice age or pre-ice age Europe or around then, that these women were probably brow beating their men to go and work hard, hunt mammoths all day and bring them mammoth bacon and they quaff mammoth bacon all day and that's how you can get that obese on mammoth bacon. He point out it is likely it was a feeding culture.

You know what a feeding fetish is? I've never known this but I've heard of acquaintances of acquaintances, a man was a normal man and And he met this woman and she was like into feeding and let's get fat together and it's a kind of fetish lifestyle. For some reason they want to attack the very healthy drinking of colostrum breast milk but they are okay with feeding fetish when United States now feeding fetish obese culture. But the point is these people who, the Venus of Willendorf, that body type, you can get that of course from agricultural products and starches and such, but that was not from agricultural society, that was from hunting society. So you have to be careful what you tell normies, they will just, you shouldn't tell them eat

more fat, you should tell them you need to be hungry, girls need to hear this, they need Do you remember the hysteria, until very recent actually, it was even in the 2010s, 60-70% of girls have an eating disorder, and by that they meant that they are anorexic, that normal girls are at risk of anorexia, which is completely not true. After decades, at least 20 years of that propaganda, now you have 70% overweight women in the United state and I think 40% obese. So no, they need to be hungry. You need to tell them you need to stop before you are full, you need to have a small portion, put food down, eat a low calorie diet. For a nation with over 50% fat rate, this is what you need to hear. You cannot become thin again, excuse me, you see how they attack throat when I try to enlighten

the masses. But of course my audience does not have this problem but you have to be careful what you You tell a normie who, if they are fat, now maybe some of you also, you get on so-called dreamer bulk and you don't keep track and you get into a place where, okay, you need to become thin again, but you cannot become thin again, I think, without experiencing hunger. This is what people forget. And the paleo or keto, they're good because they help you feel less hungry. This mainly why they work. I think the hormonal changes, the gut biome changes, that only helps at the edges. And people need to hear, first of all, they need to be a little bit hungry. They need to experience privation. This is the right message for an incontinent race.

And I wouldn't tell this to one of my Handsome Thursday followers, they don't have this problem. But for masses of people, do not encourage them to eat. A lot of pork fat, by the way, today is not quote-unquote animal fat because the porks feed on soy and they feed on things with polyunsaturated fatty acid and so the fat of pigs and of other animals itself becomes that way, but of pigs especially, the fat of pig become toxic. So if you tell Normie to do this, they will just slather coconut oil on top of a bacon biscuit gravy. Would you eat a pizza with this, with the works? I've eaten before, but I mean something different. Imagine a sauce made from the works. You put the works toppings in a blender, you blend it, you put it on top of pizza. Would you eat that?

But paleo and keto is not only a way to control hunger. My friend Manakwinon again, he followed teachings of Stephane Bienet, G-U-Y-E-N-E-T. I mentioned him before on this show. He wrote The Hungry Brain and it's based on understanding of food rewards, so called. In other words, you can teach people to eat very plain foods. Probably so called food science, you know Nabisco I believe or Kellogg or they have teams food scientists, food engineering, it need to be banned or at least highly regulated. Charge 500% premium on anything that use, excuse me, that have employed, you see how they relentlessly attack my throat? I was not expecting this for show, please excuse. I cannot help it. It's the Havana syndrome they used on my throat, yeah, but they're trying to stop me.

But charge 500% premium on any taste enhancers or any products that has used the services of a food scientist or food engineer. Have people eat plain potato with whole milks, even mashed potato, you know, it's a much better diet. Everyone lost it over my breast milk as backbone of family idea. But I'm trying, you know, I'm trying, I learn from Theranos girls, you know the Theranos girl with the Steve Jobs act and the one, what's his name, it's not Miley, it's the other one, the mad dog, yeah the mad dog, adults are in the room. All these generals, who many of you think are high conspirators, part of conspiracies centuries old, they all fall for the Theranos girl. That is the level of intellectual sophistication among your so-called elite.

But I learned from Sarah Nosgul to innovate, you know, innovation, innovate. Silicon Valley, synergies, innovation, machine learning, AI, nanotech, cryo-life extension, send me VC capital. I reorganize economy based on breast milk farming. Look, my ideas regarding reduce women to breeding stock and to food providers, which I've been saying for over 15 years, these things are always, it makes a splash, it gets people animated. It gets so many people angry when I say, yes, the father should bring home organic greens to induce a high quality breast milk in the mother who can then be milked year round and provide food for entire family. These are green ideas and now I have everyone from tanky feminists and computer consultant

chimping at me, you know, just how much breast milk do you think a woman can produce? I don't know, but have you ever had a frothy cup of yellowish colostrum on top of 100% Ethiopian natural processed coffee? Have you imagined artisanal coffee bar? Look, maybe not all of you have seen it, but let me read for you what I am talking about. Let me read for... I don't know. I don't know if I should read this. This is very dangerous. This is very dangerous on show. I don't know if I can read this. This is a family show. But it's a green idea. Basically what I said, father bring home shellfish, fish roe, harvest very high quality livers from sheeps maybe and feed the mother. It's a virtuous cycle of breast milk production. I'm getting carried away. But yes, look, commerce in the Caribbean too

is run by Lebanese, and I think even in Haiti and Dominican and so on, and the other night I order shawarma, I was hungry, and a Syrian come to you on a scooter in an Ilatink city, and he bring shawarma doused in the same garlic aioli type mayo sauce, do you like this? I ask him where he from, and he say Syria, and I start to go off about Imam Ali, and about how salvation is only through the blood of Ali, he say sir, this is delivery service, I said, I mean he got pretty mad at me how he doesn't know what I'm talking about, but he knew, I mean they were probably Sunnis and they always do this, they pretend when you start to talk about the blood of Ali, they pretend they don't know what you mean, when you talk about Ismailism or other sects, he got mad at me, and I don't think I can

order from place again, but I should end segment, but something else comes to mind. I remember now what I wanted to tell you on this opening segment, there is something called village Islam. It's a kind of, I don't know if it's academic word, but I like this idea village Islam. I think this is the real traditional thing. If you want to know what traditional religion is like, it was similar somewhat for Christianity before reformation. Essentially it means at village level you have various very old beliefs. I don't even want to call them pagan, but I believe this is why the word pagan is used. It means peasant, right, so you have in the case of Islam, you have pagan Islamic belief or in the Christianity, pagan Christian syncretism, folk religion, belief in theories and spirits

and divination, other kinds of rituals, some very old. If you go to certain pockets in Europe, maybe this exists parts Basque country, but it's all over Europe. It got wiped out actually after World War II. East Europe still has some pockets, especially Lithuania and so forth, but they jump over bonfire or similar thing. They have rituals on midsummer day or on spring equinox, which is the real start of the new year. But it was much more like this before 20th century and Islam, it was universal, it's still like this in many places, it was universally like this until very recent, I think, maybe 1970s or 80s until before Wahhabism which was spread by Saudi money and Wahhabism is a terrible homogenizing modernist movement.

It's not a return to tradition, it pretends to be, but it's similar actually for any kind of Christian revivalism that approaches things similar line to Wahhabism that demands extirpation of non-Christian elements and insists on homogeneity, purity of belief and practice and pre-modern Islam worked well actually from point of view of everyone because at the local level it was pretty relaxed, the people believed these various things, it was colourful. But the Sufi mystic was the local religion headman for the village or the region of villages. This Sufi mystic was sort of the point man for the religion and he understood the doctrine, the religion, the whole system of belief and law. The people didn't need to, but he understood it.

So Islamic authorities were okay with that because he knew how to mix and match the different elements, the pre-Islamic and the Islamic, and to make harmonious life for the people. And this allowed at local level a great and dizzying, colorful diversity of practice and belief to proliferate. There was not so much legalism and this kind of pseudo-Calvinist puritanism that Wahhabism represents, but the older traditional system represents preservation of very ancient rites and so forth, and this is what thread looks like, including, by the way, syncretism with Christianity. I know people assume the Alawites, this is Assad's sect, they assume they're crypto-Christians, which they may be, I think they're crypto-pagans, the same as the Mandaeans in South Iraq.

So I was wondering if it would be acceptable to traditional Christians for the Christian world possibly to return to some form of that village folk belief. No priests, no dogma and doctrines, at least not at the local level, there's no need for it there. What would be wrong with this? Do you think, I will get attacked for this, but you know somebody referred to Tolkien actually as a pagan who believe in Christ and this similar to our friend Alex the train master who is perhaps a Shintoist who believes in Jesus as the highest coming. Now I exaggerate a little bit but can Christianity and also Islam return to something like this would believers accept that and why I ask why would this be necessary because well look Nietzsche attack on Christianity on one hand is much misunderstood.

He had quite great respect for medieval Christianity, but he thought indeed that in some way the inner meaning of early Christianity before it was partly assimilated by Europe, which of course Europe is the sword of the Archangel Michael in the world, but in any case he thought the inner meaning of Christianity was only being revealed now 2,000 years later in a naturalized or secularized Christianity that means democracy, socialism, Rousseau and socialist Just anarchism, the dissolution of all public and social life into this, what Marx sees as the end state, you know. But genealogy doesn't tell you who your allies are. So even if, let's say, Nietzsche is writing that genealogy of Rousseau and anarchism or

democracy, socialism, today is the biggest group of reliable men against just this, against global homo, against the erasure of nature and borders and sex. Their most reliable allies are Christian men. This part is true, but these men are themselves, on the other hand, able to see the vast majority of churches, of factions and denominations are pharisaical and corrupted. They are utter homo-feminization. Every major denomination has experienced this. Some of you put your hopes in orthodoxy. It hasn't been subdued yet. I think you will find it will quickly go a similar way once any state pressure is applied on it. I ask is a revival of Christianity but also of Islam and even of Judaism and I say this as a part joke but did you know for example that conservative Judaism has accepted for

a while I think maybe I don't know how long but 20 years, 15 years, something like this has accepted homosexuality but only if it does not include the act of sodomy. Isn't that very funny and legalistic? But the guy who decided this for so-called conservative Judaism, his daughter was a lesbian, so you figure out why he says this. Figure out why the GOP rolled over to a gay thing so easily because of Paul Singer Monier. But that religion, Judaism, is as corrupted now as any other. Maybe not the religion itself, but its institutions and formal bodies, same for Christianity and Perhaps Islam, their institutions, their main denominations are corrupted and they share this same problem. I ask in any case would a reform of all these be possible under some kind of, I'm using

it only as example because it was the same in the Christian world before, but the village Islam model, local folk practices, mystical beliefs and so on. But all those things were washed away a long time ago and they were not washed away by like modern science and enlightenment, which no one knows what means. In other words, the local village folk, they did not abandon these ways and beliefs because of the supposedly great enlightenment or any intellectual decision. They just did it because their social and economic lives were disrupted. They did so because of state homogenization, because of urban life, because of public education, and because of forgetfulness. The great mixing of caste, nation, and race caused by mass industrialization.

And still I mean, even if that full return should not be easily possible, is a religiosity divorced from the big institutions, which have all been insidiously degraded throughout the world. They have all become cancerous piles of garbage on garbage, obscuring everything under acidic female miasma. But would this be doable? This kind of wiping away of institutional religion and it's replaced by a vitalistic spiritualized religion, maybe, but it's not for me to think about, but for the religious. How can you save your institutions or do you have to do away with them? Village religion can maintain faith a long time, even thousands of years, unlike this puritanical homogenized form. It can maintain it because village religion is easy.

It is a natural religion, natural, you know, it comes natural even to a four-year-old boy. But on the other hand, if you are in a crisis, maybe you don't need to maintain, you need a different type of purification and purging, you need to strip away. And in that sense, maybe religious men of various faiths have their own solutions, but one is, you know, if you can't find it within your faith, maybe you can simply outsource it. And this is why so many believing men are willing to consider the idea of, this is why Why it was said, I said this before, I'm quoting now, some say that European men now need not return to virtual rule but a cadre of sadistic gay Nazi bodybuilders under the black flag to purify, to start the great work.

Then after period outsourcing this to cruel pagan king, Christian kingship can return. What do you think of that? Do you agree with this? Is this what Tolkien believed in? Anyway, I hope you enjoy some of this variety opening. I will be right back. So actually, I will get a Russia talk now. I will invite next segment will be Kirill, my friend Russia, to discuss Ukraine crisis. I will be right back. Yes, welcome to show. I have on here Kirill, my friend from Russians with Attitude podcast. Pig dog could not join us today. is being held hostage by a Tatar, and Kirill, I understand you are joining us from Ergenikon mountain in Altai to talk about this matter of Russia media hysteria right now. Yes, thank you, Bev, for having me on, I'm currently evading the Tatar forces that have

taken Pictou hostage, but I think I'm safe right now, so we can talk about the current situation. Yes, do you hear, they send this clown in a pant... Blinken wears a pantsuit, just like Hillary Clinton, he goes with... They send him to so-called negotiate with Lavrov, or... What do you make of this? What are the people saying there? What's happening? Well, so, basically, people are expecting some kind of military escalation right now, right? But I don't think this is really something that is going to escalate into a war because, well, you know, serious things and war is, if we talk about military escalation in the case of the current Ukraine situation, that means a full scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

Such things happen when the situation changes significantly, either in terms of military capabilities or the willingness of the participating parties. In my opinion, nothing of the kind is really observed right now, which suggests to me that we're just talking about mutual scaremongering against the backdrop of behind-the-scenes negotiations on security, like NATO stuff. stuff. But the West doesn't really have anything to threaten Russia with right now in existential terms. So it's probably, in my opinion, they're just negotiating some NATO stuff or like rocket placement or whatever, and I think there is no serious threat of war. Because, well, if we do a little bit of like geopolitical game theory in non-gay terms, it's basically the

The US have already said that they are not going to start a war for Ukraine and they are just going to do economic sanctions and it's impossible to imagine sanctions that could create a situation in Russia that is worse than it was in the 90s, right? And the goal of any sanctions is basically to force the population to change the government and this goal is unattainable in principle. The pro-Western part of the population in Russia is just vanishingly small and the discontent with the government, which does exist, there is a lot of discontent with the government, but it has mostly the character of like a sovietophile aversion to bourgeois government, which is why any noticeable opposition in Russia is led by communists.

But in case of a direct confrontation with the rest, especially on the verge of war, Any kind of economic downturn would be forgiven. Especially as it concerns region Donbas in East Ukraine, which has some kind of long-term tanky, commie-type associations. Am I getting that wrong? Would you give listeners… No, it's correct. It's correct. It's probably even more Sovietophile than the rest of Russia, just as a reaction to like 30 years and being under siege basically by Ukrainian nationalists. Yes. Would you give the audience some type of background from Russia point of view or let's say just truth point of view regarding, well, first of all, what is happening in the short term? What has set this off, this crisis off right now? What does Russia want? What does Ukraine want?

What does America want? And second, what is the situation of Ukraine and Russia in a longer term history? Would you like to talk some of this today? Yes, of course. So basically what is currently Ukraine is not some kind of coherent nation state. It's basically just random colonial borders drawn by the Leninist and Stalinist governments. It has nothing to do with real cultural or regional identity, and especially the region called Novorossiya, New Russia, which is the southeast of the country. It is a region that has historically never had any real relationship with Russia. It was an empty step until the 18th century. There was nothing there except Turkic nomads, and it was settled by colonists from Russia proper,

from Great Russia. So it's not even like, like the historical name for Ukraine is Little Russia, right? And like Magna Graecia, basically, you know, small Russia and the big Russia. And Navarossa, however, has nothing to do with Little Russia. It's a completely separate region that was settled exclusively by, like mainland Russians who were not Little Russians. And as such, there is a Ukrainian identity doesn't exist in any way there in these regions. And cities like Donetsk, Vugansk, and so on, down to Odessa, it's a complete anomaly that these are supposed to be in a kind of nation state that is independent from Russia. And as such, the people in southeastern Ukraine, they haven't felt represented by the separatist Ukrainian government since 1991.

And as such, there is a lot of resentment against the Kiev government. Is it true that Pink Dog was absconded by a prostitute in Mariupol, this poor town Ukraine full of prostitutes, and he was absconded, and he kept him in the closet for three days and fed him only kvass. Is this true? Yes, yes, and he was freed by FSB special operation. It's actually quite funny about Mariupol, because Mariupol is where in 2014 there was an actual Russian incursion into Ukraine to save the Donetsk and Hugansk republics. It's not officially acknowledged, but it's basically an open secret and basically the way to Mariupol was completely free, there were no Ukrainian troops there and the locals in Mariupol they had already put up a Russian flag on the city

administration building so they were absolutely ready to receive like the Russian troops but for whatever reason probably diplomatic reasons the Russian troops stopped and didn't take Mariupol So yeah, it's all quite interesting. But if we talk about the current situation, which is kind of like a freezer from 2015 when the Minsk declaration and so on was pronounced, there are simply not enough Russian troops on the Ukrainian border right now for a full-scale invasion. So there was quite enough to repel a possible Ukrainian attack in the Donbas, but not at all for a real war. And these Russian units, they are on permanent deployment there and they cannot be withdrawn of course. But for the case of a full-on war, at least twice as many would be required.

And a comparable number appears on the Russian-Ukrainian border only temporarily during major maneuvers or training exercises. And the only possibility is an attempt to implement a kind of Karabakh scenario, basically like the Armenian Azerbaijan war from one and a half years ago. And the West is pushing the Ukrainians to do this. So basically what the West wants is to make the Ukrainians attack Donbas. And indeed this is actually the worst case situation for Russia and for Putin because intervention in Ukraine on behalf of the separatist republics would mean that Russia would suffer some losses, but by suffering these losses, he would only restore the status quo and have no gains. So that's this kind of a loss scenario for Russia.

But the promised catastrophic sanctions would not follow such a scenario either, in my opinion, because they would happen only in the case of meaningful action on the side of Russia. That means either splitting the Ukraine along the Dnieper River or the complete liquidation of the Kyiv regime. And if the West escalates to major economic sanctions like really catastrophic level sanctions simply for saving the Donbas Republic from Ukrainian aggression, Putin would be in a state where he has nothing to lose anymore. And that would be just the end of Ukraine and the West would have to deal with it. Because it is quite obvious that militarily there is nothing to counter Russia in Europe. Like in other parts of the world Russia doesn't have a strong presence and even like Turkey

could probably put an end to the Russian presence in Syria. But on mainland Europe Russia is more or less invincible. So because the European armies they simply do not exist in the scale that we're talking about here. And of course Putin wouldn't wait for like 300,000 NATO troops to amass on the Russian borders which is a ridiculous scenario of course and of course in any case of real like military action against Ukraine on the verge of war with the West in NATO then the Baltics would also be gone within three days and then real diplomatic negotiation would begin but like on the basis of the real state of affairs and like accomplished facts but the West won't go to war for Ukraine They are not stupid. They can't go to war for Ukraine and they can't go to war for the Baltics either, no

matter what the fifth article of the NATO- Oh yes, nobody in East Europe believes the United States will go to war even for East Europe ex-Warsopec countries. So it is somewhat losing proposition for all of them to be part of NATO or part of this, but- So in my opinion, basically any military escalation would lead to the return of Ukraine and the Baltics under Russian influence in any case no matter what happens and this is the last thing the West wants so it's it's so it's kind of they have no reason to want a real war in Ukraine in my opinion is there any yes but you are assuming they are rational and have yes of course yes above 120 do you is there any understanding in Russia and in Europe that America is run by crazed imbeciles right now?

Well, yes, of course. That's really the one flaw in my argument that I assume that American foreign policy is rational. It is obviously not, so it's hard to know what will happen. But I believe there is another reason why the U.S. has a significant reason not to want real war in Ukraine, because the appearance of Russian troops in Yakiv would almost certainly provoke China to make a move in Taiwan, in my opinion, because the U.S. also would just have to take, because they have no way to fight for Taiwan and Ukraine at the same time. That's ridiculous. And they have no way of serious economic sanctions against China either, because the economies are so closely intertwined.

Yes, regarding economic sanctions, is anybody, Russia, worried about things like being delisted from stripe or being shut out of all financial markets, things like this? I mean, yes, of course, that would suck for a lot of people, and funnily enough, it would not matter at all for, like, the elite, they wouldn't be touched by these sanctions. The sanctions would only make the regular Russian middle class suffer, as has already happened in 2014. And of course, people are afraid of that, they don't want that, but the thing is that in the case of real direct confrontation with the West, it wouldn't lead to any noticeable social unrest. Because people would tolerate it, I believe. Basically everyone.

But returning to your point about the irrationality of American foreign policy, this is a huge problem and I believe, of course I believe that the US has like malicious motivations for their behavior, but they also have a real problem in that they don't have a way to look at the real facts, because like Americans have for a very long time, they had their own view of Russian-Ukrainian relations, and this point of view is extremely one-sided, because you will have people like Brzezinski, who is a native of the city of Kharkiv. And for like 40 years or 50 years by now, the US foreign policy establishment has looked at Eastern Europe through his eyes. Speak me of Brzezinski is from Kharkiv. Yes, yes, he is from Kharkiv.

And it has never occurred to Americans for some reason that for all his intelligence and diligence and devotion to America, he is not an American. He is a small, resentful European with an inferiority complex towards one of the great nations and he is passing off his personal perception that is marked by ethnic resentment of that nation. He is passing off this perception as immutable truth and it's not just him, it's a lot of these people, a lot of spite for Eastern Europeans. And in such cases, it's just really bad. Imagine you're building relations with Armenia, but you're building these relations based solely on the opinions of Azerbaijani experts. It's a thankless task. Yes, so I've heard this for a while now in the United States State Department, but in

the government in general, but also in universities, it's simply forbidden to concede that Russia has any legitimate interests whatsoever, and there are only one or two dissenters from this view. There used to be Stephen Cohen, is that his name? He used to appear on TV and give the Russian point of view, and that doesn't happen any longer I think. And then you have also people like, what's her name, Aleksandra Chalupa, she I believe is like co-chair of some council. But she's a Ukrainian, but she's named after a Colombian type of pastry, I don't understand. Kind of tortilla she's, I don't know. Yes, so basically you have these people, they are all just really, really resentful ethnic grievance types. And the perception of Russia is really through their lens, it's their point of view.

And that's not an American point of view, because objectively there is no reason for America to have any kind of beef with Russia on the geopolitical side. Yes, of course. Well, this is nothing new in America, Kirill. As a country of half, at most half assimilated immigrants, they all bring their ancestral hatreds to America and continue them under various not-so-convincing masks. Yes. And another point is that Americans believe they knew what Ukrainians are like, but they identify Ukrainians with the descendants of Austro-Hungarian citizens who emigrated to the United States and Canada especially at the beginning of the last century. And these people are completely different from what Ukrainians are actually like. And this is why they simply didn't understand what happened in 2014.

It was really crazy to look at it. Like Washington was talking about Putin's brilliant military operation in Crimea, which far surpassed the boldest designs of NATO strategists and so on. And it never occurred to them that it was actually really simple that in Crimea, the The Kyiv authorities were hated so much that even a hint from Moscow was enough for the complete collapse of Ukraine. I was in Crimea in 2007, it was all Russian, totally Russian, they hated, the Orange Revolution was even back then, the Rose Revolution, whatever it was, they hated that, Crimea seemed to me 100% Russian, and I had lunch, pork, kebab, they invited me to Dacha, and the best onion in the world are from Crimea, isn't that so, I believe, right?

Well, I saw before that interjection, you know, I like food, and... No, no, no, Crimea is great. Crimea is basically the Russian, I don't know what you refer to. Yes. Yeah, they say Riviera, and this, but... in terms of, yes, it's a really beautiful piece of land. And yes, so basically that's what happened and the Americans don't understand what happened in Crimea and the Americans don't understand what's happening in Donbas either. Like they really think that the self-sacrificing defense of the Donbas is just some kind of Russian plot that the evil Mongol Muscovites somehow brainwashed the people through TV And it can't happen that the people in Donbas really just fucking hate the key of government.

Is that what is setting this off? I heard, I don't know, Stu, the local governments in Donbas are somewhat on the verge or have already made motion, declared independence. And is that what is setting this off now? Well, they have declared independence eight years ago, But the point is that the Russian government has not yet officially recognized them. So from the official Russian point of view, the Donbas republics are part of Ukraine. And all the negotiations is basically a rather, it's a very weak stance, a very weak Russian stance because the Russian stance is basically that Ukraine should grant like autonomy to to the Donbas republic, like not independence, but just autonomy, secure Russian language rights and so on, because the Ukrainians have forbidden

Russian schools and stuff like that, and that makes people mad. Basically, the whole, what set off the situation and Donbas in 2014, was that immediately after taking power, taking over the government, the Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed a ban on Russian language, Which is ridiculous because like 70% of the whole population of Ukraine, not Donbas, the whole Ukraine, they 70 to 80% speak Russian and that they be live. It's the conditions that people generally confuse for Ukraine as a whole, the Western Galicians. And you know, I don't want to make it sound like I am only for Russia and against Ukraine, because I like those people and as of battalion, they seem like good people. What do you make of that? You have so-called neo-Nazi Azov battalion

allied with Jewish comedian president of Ukraine and Blinken United States versus Russia. What do you make of this alignment? Well, it's tragic really, right? Because you have these people lapping as Waffen-SS and I've thought about it. It's really a tragic comedic scenario if you imagine like you're you're like a national socialist you go you join the azov battalion you have a black uniform with a black sun on it you go fight and then you have your balls shot off by some 47 years old electrician from Donetsk and then you go home and you turn on the tv and your president is a literal jewish clown and it must be pretty demoralizing yes no But the point is that Azov is not made up of Galicians.

I think this is a point that gets very overlooked, that Galicians are not really involved in this at all, which in my opinion is a point in favor of Galicians. Well, Galicians really are not Russians, right? Galicians haven't been part of Russia for like 700 years. They are really different in their language, in their culture, even in their religion. So Galicians are not Russians, but the modern Ukrainian identity is kind of a lab of Galicianism, basically. And when a Galician farmer boy walks around with like SS insignia, it's just filial piety, because his grandfather probably actually served in the Galician SS But when a guy from Kharkov does that, it's a complete laugh. He has nothing in common with the Galicians. He doesn't speak the language. He has a different religion.

He has a completely different family background. And Galicians, they have nothing to prove. They know that they are not Russians. But when a Ukrainian patriot from Nikolayev or Kharkov, when he wakes up and he looks in the mirror, he just sees a regular Russian event. and this is why he has to convince himself and the outside world that he's not actually Russian. And that's why they do all the crazy stuff. Can you explain to me, what is motivation? The Galicians, I understand, they are not Russian, but you explained it just now. What is motivation, however, of this, what you just mentioned? Somebody from Kharkov, who I only know Kharkov as a place they used to make, there's a factory there. What is the very nice Soviet camera called that takes photograph, photograph camera?

There's a very nice factory there, that's what I used to know. But what motivates somebody like that to be so anti-Russia right now? Well brainwashing, it's just, it has been 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and these 30 years was just three decades of ultra nationalist brainwashing on all levels for beginning from school, TV, media and so on. And even before that basically the Ukrainian identity is a construct made by the Soviets, right? And it didn't exist in that form. They just took tens of millions of people who self-identified as little Russians and and just put the word Ukrainian in their passports. And it's kind of these people, well, they are just brainwashed. They are trying to prove to themselves that they are actually Ukrainians. Yes.

Because they are compelled to do so by media and culture and so on. And they are kind of like religious converts. You know how religious converts are always more radical than people who grew up in Ukraine. This is what I don't... And it's the same thing. It's the same thing, basically. The Ukrainian nation is a cult. Yes, and it's like in much of East Europe, this cult is built on anti-Russianism. I understand that. The part I don't understand is how one can be hardcore nationalist, but also be aligned with something like a Biden, American gay empire, as it's called. Are they so blind to what is going on in America with the transsexual thing that they are willing to align with it? I can't imagine they can be so blind because Pussy Riot is from Ukraine, right?

I mean, they have some type of bizarre, hardcore feminist thing going on. Yes. Well, the thing is that, I mean, there is no ideological consistency here. Russian Antifa, like the real Antifa, they were Russian Antifa volunteers. So it's not about really world view. It's just geopolitical allegiance and laughing basically. And you have to understand that the Ukrainian nationhood as such, it's not real. It's not real. It's not a real identity. It's not a real culture. It's not a real language outside of the West of Ukraine and basically the end goal of Ukrainian nationalism is joining the European Union and go clean toilets in France or Germany or England and that is the whole point of Ukrainian nationalism and they are so anti-Russian

because they believe that Russia is the reason why they are poor and they are really completely blind to the fact that the Europeans don't even want them, they don't like them. The Polish, who make great use of the Ukrainian for their own political ambitions, they despise the Ukrainians. Well yes, the Polish have always taxed one of the Ukrainians like serfs, right, you know? Yes, yes. The Russian word for like scum or lower class people, budwe. It's a Polish term It means cattle, and it's what the Polish aristocrats called the little Russian serfs they were ruling over. So it's a really very kind of BDSM type nationalism. It's very strange. In East Europe, generally, you only see this attitude among the older people who have long-running hatreds of Russia.

I mean, you have people like the Baltes, right? The Baltic states, they are real. These people, they have real grievances historically against Russians. But Ukraine is fundamentally not real. And Galicia is real, for sure. They showed that historically. And now it's a fun fact that no one talks about, but there were almost no volunteers for the Ukrainian army in 2014 from Galicia. It was all just, like, brainwashing people from someplace. That's very odd, you know. I thought it was Galicians. Yes, because they don't have to prove to themselves that they are Ukrainian nationalists. They know that they are Ukrainians. And no one will enter a truly existential struggle on behalf of an administrative fiction, especially since this fiction is, and the Ukrainians know this in their hearts,

it's vile and dishonorable. and the ukrainians uh... as an identity they still do not understand that in nineteen ninety one they committed basically a monstrous betrayal for which they are despised by the whole world and which will they have to clean up for generations to come because they have abandoned their identity in their homeland freely on their own they were not forced to do this there was no great replacement mass migration there was no foreign occupation they just decided uh... they put up a fake flag in Kyiv and were like let me know speak Russian and uh... abandoned the motherland in its hour of need and in my opinion if we talk about the long term it's clear that in a historical perspective uh... Ukraine but Russia the northern part of Kazakhstan will become Russian again

but it is the business of the inhabitants of these countries and they will have to go a long way for that and the way of blood and suffering Even if you just, as we talked about a moment before, if we compare it to the Baltic states, right? They were never really Russian, and the Soviet annexation in 1939 was really profoundly unjust, while the Ukrainians were always kind of blood over blood. And even in the Soviet regime, they were privileged compared to great Russians. And the Balts, they fought for their independence in the civil war, basically until 1938. And even before that, in 1905, the Latvians waged an insurgent war against the Baltic Germans. And even after the occupation, the Poles fought on the territory until the German capitulation.

And even after that, for another ten years, the partisan war. The swarms there are red with blood. And that is the real price of independence. And in my opinion, the Ukrainians simply don't have the balls to pay that price. Yes, I understand Kirill, we've been half an hour, I don't want to keep you more. I have final question for you. You mentioned administrative fiction, it's been said for a while, I don't know if everyone knows, but Crimea was transferred to Ukraine within the Soviet Union only in the 1950s and Donbas or Novorossiya, this eastern part that is at issue now, I think it was transferred the 1920s from you know just within the Soviet Union it was administratively transferred to Ukraine yes right it was it was in 1922 it was basically a way

for the Soviets to aside from other things it was a way to break the yes Cossacks the Don Cossacks the Cuban Cossacks it was their territory that was incorporated in part into modern Ukraine, as a way to disenfranchise people. By the way, the Cossacks, are they still around, and are they pro-Russia now? My final question is, what do you think will happen now? You don't think, okay, there will be war. But if there is war, do you see Russia occupying Ukraine from, let's say, Donbas to Odessa, and Galicia becoming own separate country, and then what happens to that central north area of Kharkov with the stronghold of what you call the little Russians? Yes, well, I believe a real useful occupation would have to be at least along the Dnieper, so kind of like splitting Ukraine in half.

It would just make no sense to occupy only Novorossiya, because you would need like Kharkov, Poltava, Kiev probably as well, just to secure the border, really. Because north of Kiev you have Chernobyl and stuff, the better Russian border, and basically that would be the logical end point. Do you think this is a long-running trick by either the Poles to re-establish gigantic Polish commonwealth with the Lithuanians, or perhaps the Austrians to recapture Lemberg Lwów, is this what you think is at play? Well, I would rather see the Austrians in Lwów than the Ukrainians, of course, but it's possible. Of course, Poland has big ambitions and… Yes, this guy, Edward Habsburg, is going along Twitter, making moves, you know. But… Yes, yes. Very sinister.

With Arnold Schwarzenegger doing the same in the United States. Kirill, I don't want to keep you longer. I know you must look for Big Dog, he's been, they are sticking pins in him in the alt-eye there. Why don't we continue next time? I hear you and Big Dog will join me for longer historical show, not on current event. To show that you enjoy this, do you remember Victoria Nuland? She was caught on a recorded call talking about the last Ukraine crisis that she and her moron Kotori provoked, when they are humiliated by Putler and he took Crimea and he faced no consequences for it, or as Edward Luttwak said, he was able to take Crimea and instead of uniting his opponents with an attack, they were even more divided after than before.

And Luttwak adds, in this you see why the Russians run eleven time zones, and this why Victoria Nuland is an interloper who should be practicing her briskets and pastramis instead of trying to play Metternich, or maybe I confuse Luttwak with someone else. She can practice vareniches. But you hear her on that call saying fuck the EU and this kind of language and talking about who they would install as Ukraine leader in this kind of casual style and this petty dumb scheming and half open and gets caught doing it. And you see the real face of the so-called elite. They are not as some of you like Alex Jones imagine masterminds who planned things out for centuries ahead. They are like her. They act in the moment. They act on emotion. They

act without thinking. They are like Fauci. They are corrupt and incompetent wheelers and dealers and operators. Ignorant and vulgar people who hide behind a fig leaf of degrees but who in quite recent times, someone like Fauci would have been running perhaps a successful tailor shop or in the case of Newland or Jennifer Rubin, their families would have locked them in the attic in shame, they would be crocheting or whatever, but so they go from one loss to another and this likely is to end the same way now as it did before the Putler crisis, the Atlantic headline notwithstanding that Putler isn't a chess player. Yes, it's the American deep state plays a 44-dimension chess judo. Do you know American officials used to challenge Putin to judo on Twitter and that type of thing?

These are not serious people, they are extreme, insecure. But that's the danger, that in their hour of humiliation they will lash out, which is part of what's happening now with this escalation. And if you see this around you, the poor excuses for politicians and this and Victoria Newlands, and then you move from that and you read ancient things about Greeks and Roman statesmen, even minor ones like I will discuss now, it fill you with such a regret to think that this is the same species, that it has come from that to the international hyenas of now time, that it has gone from great men that – what can I say – the people who exist now, what lay on the grill attack as the small men of the European common market or its aggressive

weaponized variety in people like Jennifer Rubin or Bill Kristol, how much more insulting it is that they sometimes invoke antiquity and try to compare themselves to the heroes of Plutarch or others. But what I'm going to discuss with you on this show is not even somebody whose exploits were worthy of an entry in Plutarch. He was a great man, but not of that magnitude, but he exceeds the possibilities of the small people of our time by so much that it fill you with regret. And I don't know, to think this species is the same species, I don't know, but my friend the Bureaucrat said this, not in this way with comparison to Newland, but he just said he does not like reading ancient things because it fills me with regret, he says this, and I know this feel.

And forget ancient things, many times I can't even read, for example, a novel about 1950s vitalist life. I mentioned this before, Mishima friend Shintaro Ishihara, who later became mayor of Tokyo, and he wrote a book, Season of the Sun, when he was young. And it's very hard to read for me sometimes this kind of thing because the contrast to much life now. And then even worse when you see that really nothing is in the way of the end of this desolation other than men's weakness and hesitation and lack of belief in themselves. I mean people, just to give you silly example, forget Trump, but people like McMaster and Miley McMaster give this recent interview, he's a company man and a dork, and if five men in those kinds of positions were not just this panty wearer conformist dork, really

caponised men are selected to be there, but just five men in those positions right now, when the people are mad, but five men could easily overthrow this whole joke and take everything for themselves, but there was an article about me the other day, should I even respond to it, I don't know if you've seen it, it's by this guy in unheard, I don't think I'll respond to it formally or in writing or this, but it spent half the article praising me so then it could set itself up to attack me in the second half and the point, the only point I can sense in article would be, oh BAP in his book does not realise that technology has changed and that it has uncoupled manliness from war and that the female drone operator

and supposedly it will be carried out by robots in the future, no it won't by the way, but I should even bother responding to these shallow regurgitations they attack me with every time as if I had not heard this point many times before. Ernst Jünger say something very much like this in Der Arbeiter in 1930 and many others talk it and I talk it in my book actually which make me think this guy who did a tech review did not even read the book, did he even read the last part of the book? The things I recommend there. Has anyone read with a good conscience and in good faith the last aphorism in book? I mean, I saw tweets and so on, but nobody who reviews it in mainstream or has mainstreamish magazines mentions that, what I recommend there, because it's not exactly, you know,

trying to take over a country with a chariot or broadsword. And speaking of which, how it's funny sometimes, I see these guys attacking and some of them make a show that they study German literature or philosophy and they attack me based on JSTOR, academic articles they look up that day. But they miss the illusion of the title of the last effort is with my book and I mean to say I have no attackers worth responding to. Most don't even understand what or who I'm arguing against in this book or who I'm talking to. They're lost without a map. They're trying to situate me in their petty debates and catch words like analysis. But anyway, you know, Burkina Faso coup the other day in Africa, if you saw, the military

did a coup and apparently those guys didn't understand that the female drone operator could have theoretically stopped them. So they took over their country instead. Meanwhile you were pennies. Please write more book reports. What to talk this? So anyway, my friend, the bureaucrat, I told him I would talk about this short, it's not an essay, it's a mini book, really just a mid-length eulogy by Tacitus the Agricola, and you can easily read this in one sitting, but it made bureaucrats regret by contrast to what is now, as Ancient Things almost does when, you know, so now in this case it is a eulogy, again by Tacitus of his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, so being a eulogy it's especially full of praise and there's no blame, you know, when the Romans did praise

they did it right, they didn't engage in this. I think it's very poor taste to always feel you need to temper praise with some kind of blame to appear even-handed and I hear people even do this now at funerals, it's extreme poor taste, but even allowing for fact it's eulogy and even if you read it and think okay Okay this part may be exaggerated or presented, but there are still contours here of a biography, a life that makes those supposedly big men of our time, and I don't say great because not one of them can pretend to greatness, but the very rich for example which is all our time can boast of very rich people even though they're not as rich as Andrew Carnegie or such were in their own time, but their lives seem boring and the life of a Bezos or even of an Elon Musk.

It's like life of dependent child playing in a fenced yard compared to a man who, like described in this brief biography eulogy by Tatchitoches, a man, in other words, who otherwise this is not even a man of power episode, you know, I wouldn't do a man of power about somebody like Agricola. Agricola's life was great, but it was not interesting. He was a man who went through the course of offices that a competent Roman of noble family was to go through in service to the empire, and he was successful in his governorships and his conquests, but there is nothing truly flashy or meteoric about him, and he had to tamp down a great deal on things like vanity and pride and ambition because, okay, so this is the thing, he lived in a bad time, under a bad emperor, in a state of unusual subjection,

but even the life of a Roman official during a state of decline and degradation who merely does its job well, such a thing makes our notable figures look pale and erased. I don't say immoral or really pale, erased, and boring. The life of the supposedly greatest men of our time is very just boring and lame compared to a mid-level successful official of the Roman Empire who engaged in some battles and conquest. I think looking in the future this whole time, as interesting as it may be to us now with pandemic and political ferment, but I doubt anyone in centuries will remember the names of people around right now or in the last four decades or five decades even. Tell me who will be remembered and why, will it be Reagan? I doubt. What did Reagan do that can impress centuries later?

Our whole age lives under obscurity and silence, if not yet fully that of repression than that of a total lack of manliness and spirit that inevitably invites repression. And maybe some writer or artist will be remembered in future, maybe I can imagine some movie maker fame will be much more appreciated in the far future than we even do now, maybe people who like David Lynch. Maybe Ferris Bueller Day Off will be remembered as masterpiece, I don't know who can speculate on this, but even for us living now, it seems actually like many decades of desolation in history of human greatness. There is just nothing now but a blank pause of many decades, smothered silence in history. People will remember what? They will remember Colonel Vindman, duty to the Republic.

Yes, Colonel Vindman, a Renaissance man, a politician, also an actor on Larry David's show. Look, let me give you some basic background to ta-chi-tus, and I know the correct pronunciation would be ta-chi-tus, maybe, and in English it would be ta-si-tus, but I feel fake saying that. I like to use the Latin, Vatican pronunciation, where you say ta-chi-tus, because the correct pronunciation, where you say ta-chi-tus, would have Julius Caesar, when he say, okay, I saw a conqueror, it's a winny-widdy-wicky. I cannot imagine that the conqueror would come and say that. It sounds so silly to me, Winnie Winnie Wiki, where it's used the Vatican pronunciation Vini Vidi Vici sounds better, you know, it sounds like Don Corleone is saying something like that.

But I think the Habsburg pronunciation is different, they don't say Tatchitus, they say Tatsitus. Ask Edwin Habsburg. I'm not sure. since it's all the same, they have the problem with the palette or something. But I will give you some background on Tacitus because not everyone is a Rome boo, you may not remember details if you studied it, but Tacitus you can think of like this, he's great Roman historian, talking very terse, condensed style, much like you can compare him maybe to Thucydides in Greek because both have a, it's not obscure, it's just extreme condensed, it's hard to understand, maybe sometime even for native speakers, Thucydides is hard even for ancient Greeks to understand what he meant, and not because they use obscured

language and academics so, but extreme condensation of language, extreme use of unusual rhetorics. And he lived in second half, first century, beginning of second, so he write, you can think of, he writes many things around the turn of the year 100 AD, which is around when he wrote this eulogy to his father-in-law, and this is extreme turbulent time Roman history. When I think someone's foolish, maybe this article attacked me, they say, oh, Rome floundered on for a while even after Nero, as if Nero was the end of Rome. Well no, Rome attained arguably its greatness well after Nero during Trajan and other such emperor and I would argue was even continued under Byzantine and Roman loyalists actually do not believe that the empire ended the republic.

They believe empire was continuation of republic by other means. That's a long, interesting subject but for another time. But this in particular is time of trouble when you had some very few bad, very bad Roman emperors. After Octavian Augustus dies, you have a bad emperor Tiberius, yes, you have Caligula and such, and finally Nero, and all emperors after Octavian are bad for a while, and the best biography of Tiberius is by Spanish doctor Gregorio Maragnone, Tiberio's study in resentment. Gregorio Maragnone is an amazing biographies. I love, as you know, history as biography, and Gregorio Maranion specializes in that. He was a Spanish doctor, a liberal, but a liberal in the old style, and he wrote various

biographies of great men with incisive view of doctor, almost from a biological perspective, and he wrote one of Tiberius. It's very good. I think it was Translate English. And then after Nero, finally, you have turbulent year of four emperors, which was a political situation much like Congo in the last decade, with military and generals contesting the throne, claiming the throne, and that was 69 AD year of four emperors. And then after that crisis of 69 AD, you have finally two good emperors after Augustus. You have Vespasian and Titus, and they are both quite good, but they do not manage to complete and redeem Roman life, and they are followed by just a terrible, the most terrible and long-reigning one up to date yet, Domitian. For 15 years, the most terrible.

And authors like Tacitus and many others, they saw Domitian as far worse than people like Nero or Caligula, by the way. Domitian reigned from early 80 AD to 90-something AD, so for 15 years around then to 96 AD. And many, many famous Roman authors you may have heard of, they hated Domitian more than – not only Tacitus, but for example, Juvenal, the satirist poet, has a whole long satire just on Domitian. I think it's satire number four. It's too bad that the translations of these satires are a bit dense and the allusions Translations are hard to get for many, the translations are often Victorian and cleaned up, it's too bad juvenile is very bawdy. Juvenile attack many bad type of people. He attack transgender, he attack homo, he refer to socratic catamite pathics.

Why does juvenile do this, by the way? Why does he just casually assume socratics are pathics? That mean bitch who take in the ass. Is it because Socrates was a faggot? But anyway, so yes, these many Roman authors who looked down on the Roman decline of life and morals, they saw Domitian as more cruel, more destructive, and worst of all, a time of repression of speech, a time of repression of thought like had not existed in Rome yet maybe. And Domitian was followed by Nerva and Trajan, who were arguably the greatest Roman emperor born in Spain, to an early 100s, I think he came to power in 98 AD or this, and in the early turn of the first century he re-established not only Rome's political greatness and expanded empire, but also freedom of speech and thought.

And this is historical time when Tacitus is writing, and this short book, Agricola, he remembered his father-in-law and his career during this turbulent time, and his greatest glory, Agricola's greatest glory, in the conquest of Scotland, and the end of his life was in the beginning of Domitian's reign. So it's a beautiful and moving eulogy, the ending will probably bring tears, but one of the most beautiful parts is at the very beginning, which I will read for you, it is when Tacitus is talking about freedom of speech, but he's doing it in the negative, and I think, of course, may be relevant for us now, because he described the degradation of the reign of the mission, the repression of thought and speech being the worst thing because it's a kind of mute death.

Lack of freedom of speech is a kind of living death. And I will read for you. I'm reading now from Tacitus Agricola. We have read that the panegyrics pronounced by Arulanus Rusticus on Peitus Thracia and by Rhenius Senecio on Priscus Elvidius were made capital crimes that not only their persons but their very books were objects of rage, they wrote memorials of various people during the reign of Domitian and their books were banned and they were killed, he's talking about some famous case, and that the triumvirs were commissioned to burn in the forum those works of splendid genius. They fancied for sooth that in that fire the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate, and the conscience of the human race were perishing, while at the same time

they banished the teachers of philosophy and exiled every noble pursuit that nothing good might anywhere confront them. Certainly we showed a magnificent example of patience. As a former age had witnessed the extreme of liberty, so we witnessed the extreme of servitude. When the informer robbed us of the interchange of speech and hearing, we should have lost memory as well as voice had it been as easy to forget as to keep silence. Now at last our spirit is returning, and yet, though at the dawn of a most happy age, Nerva Caesar—this is Trajan's precursor—Nerva Caesar blended things once irreconcilable, sovereignty and freedom, though Nerva Trajan is now daily augmenting the prosperity of the time, and though the public safety has not only our hopes and good wishes, but has

also the certain pledge of their fulfilment, still from the necessary condition of the human frailty, the remedy works less quickly than the disease. As our bodies grow but slowly perish in a moment, so it is easier to crush than to revive genius and its pursuits. Besides, the charm of indolence steals over us, and the idleness which at first we loathed we afterwards love. What if during those fifteen years a large portion of human life many were cut off by ordinary casualties, and the ablest fell victims to the emperor's rage. What if a few of us survive, I say almost say, not only others, but our own ourselves, survive, though there have been taken from the midst of life those many years which brought the young in dumb silence to old age, and the old almost to the very verge and end of

existence? Yet we shall not regret that we have told, though in a language unskilful and unadorned, the story of past servitude, and borne our testimony to present happiness. Meanwhile this book, intended to do honor to Agricola, my father-in-law, will, as an expression of filial regard, be commended or at least excused." But isn't this amazing, for our time, that had been taken from the midst of life those many years which brought the young in dumb silence to old age? The informer robbed us of speech and hearing, which should have lost memory as well as voice had it been as easy to forget as to keep silence. Does all of this sound familiar? I hope not completely yet, but probably is. Maybe it's familiar, it's on the horizon, looming enough that you know the feeling.

And I remind you that it's not merely now losing jobs and such anymore, which in communist states in the 1980s and 70s and many of them, I remind you that was the penalty most people faces just to lose a job and not as easily as is lost in the United States right now. But they're not stopping with having people lose jobs or livelihoods. They arrested my friend Ricky Vaughan and even if he avoids jail and win, the process is the punishment. As you know this, the process is stressed, it takes a long time, they bankrupt you. But I don't fear for what will come with this new generation of zoomer turds. Most of them don't believe in free speech, I think maybe well over half of younger millennials and zoomers don't believe in freedom of speech, and they are ready to smother the

world under the mute and deaf tyranny of a large shiboon ass. But I welcome this fight. I will not let them drown voice and reason and humor under monumental statues of Mississippi hippo ladies. I must take a break, I will be right back to continue talk Tacitus Agricola. There have been taken from the midst of life those many years which brought the young in dumb silence to old age. I can't imagine a better defense of freedom of speech and thought, of what is at stake than what Tatchitus does here. And you compare his defense to that of the pathetic so-called resistance liberals, the liberals of our time, the so-called classical liberals, the intellectual Dork Web, the Barry Vice and Claire Lemon ostentatiously showing their anal dildo.

People who ignore the mass censorship of millions, not just now during the pandemic, but the silencing for political reasons even before, not to speak of frogs or others who are jailed, who are arrested, who are physically attacked, not a word ever raised in their defense. These fake liberals only ever say something when it's safe. And to them, the big issue right now appears to be if a book gets removed from school curriculum that say that Pocahontas was a gay trans man or that a boy is a girl and parents decide we don't want our children reading that at that age, to them that is called book banning. I don't know, is it book banning that Ebola is not taught in primary school if a book is excluded from school? Anyway, this is to them, and you compare it, it's impossible to parody, right?

When you compare Tacitus' defense to what so-called liberals today believe. This is why satire is impossible, it's impossible now to do satire. But this short booklet, Agricola, it often comes in addition together with Tacitus Germania, which I've often talked about before, and just like Germania, Tacitus talks in both places about the customs and lives, and one about the land and customs of the Germanic tribes and in Agricola about the Britons, and there are interesting ethnographic and ecological observations about different tribes in the races of England. He even speculates, do the English who live close to the coast of Gaul, do they look the same and do they have similar customs because they have common descent, or is it because

the climate and land leads to the same physical and customary type, is very interesting aside he made. And it's weird how the Romans, they talk so frequently actually of fine-grained racial differences in observations. But because a number of left-right academics assured me, but also actually conservative intellectuals and Catholic intellectuals, they told me the Romans didn't notice race, that they didn't have a concept of whiteness, even though juvenile, for example, but other places too, but juvenile talk of just this, he say, let the white man Albus laugh at the Ethiopian. What means this? It's very rude, but what means? And Tacitus, in this book, he talk, for example, the red hair of the Caledonians or Scots, and their large limbs, indicating possible Germanic ancestry.

He speculates on this. Again, the ones who live close to Gaul looking Gaulish, and then the Silures, a very war-like tribe in South Wales, he talk of them being swarthy and curly haired. It's very inconvenient that he notices all these things. And he speculates this about the Silures look might mean Iberian ancestry since the sale from Iberia to West England, not quite so hard maybe. He also has interesting aside on Ireland. He says adding Ireland to the empire would be very good because it could be a waypoint between Britain and Iberia. And he also adds in very frank Roman fashion, unthinkable today for a political leader to say something like, well, we should take over Ireland because the example of freedom is not so good to the Britons to have example of free people living so near.

Very brutal maybe, but this good, you see this in classical literature, but not now. But many such observations about races and of course you'd expect this, just this, noticing fine-grained racial and ethnic differences from a truly cosmopolitan and imperial people. You could think it's not even possible to rule over many peoples without noticing and taking advantage of these differences. But it's not at all what you hear from post-Shitlib polemicists, right? Because it's important for political officers masquerading as scholars to say this, that Greeks and Romans did no race, right? Because if they did, then it threatens their idol, egalitarianism, this last idol, the state idol of our age. Is this the last idol that's hardest to abandon for certain Christians, certainly the ostentatious

performative Christians online, the idol of equality, the blindness of our time? And of course they must insist it was unknown to the Greeks and the Romans because then they can say, well, racism and this, it's a socially and historically conditioned cultural belief of our time, a misunderstanding of science, a passing glitch, whereas if they had to acknowledge the ethnic and racial phenomenon apparent in all literature and philosophy across time, it is then their egalitarianism that looks like the cultish and recent glitch. But anyway, there are many nice observations like this in the Agricola and good others on a character, a personal character, on how to live rightly in a time of political repression when excellence and standing out is seen with envy and suspicion.

Because he points out Agricola, who was born in Roman Gaul, and he was educated and grew up in Massilia, or Marseille, and actually even on this city, the Marseille, there's a funnier side where he refers to this city as one of provincial thrift, of provincial sobriety and cultural refinement. And it's a quite different profile of Marseille from the mix-your-skin-crawl Marseille of 20th century. Just to quote about it, this city transformed into giant sewers, a growing, crawling, fetid bog running over our land. It is this immense flood of Neapolitan filth, of Levantine rags, of sad, stinking Slavs, of dreadful, miserable Andalusians, the seed of Abraham and the asphalt of Judea, doctrinaire ragheads, moth-eaten Polaks, bastards of the ghettos, smugglers of weapons, desultory pistoleros,

spies, usurers, gangsters, merchants of women and cocaine. They arrived preceded by their odor and escorted by their germs." And end quote, yes, I was reading famous passage about 20th century Marseilles, quite different from the ancient Massilia, apparently. But anyway, so he grew up there, Agricola, and Tajito says he exhibited too much love of philosophy in his youth. He say I remember that he used to tell us how, in his early youth, he would have imbibed a keener love of philosophy than became a Roman and a senator, had not his mother's good sense checked his excited and ardent spirit. It was the case of a lofty and aspiring soul, craving with more eagerness than caution the beauty and splendor of great and glorious renown.

But it was soon mellowed by reason and experience, and he retained from his learning that most difficult of lessons, moderation." End quote. Again, that's Tacitus on his father-in-law, Agricola. But there you have quite spiritual and also spirited men of great ability and ambition, but Tacitus shows you in this description of his life how Agricola avoids the vanity and the kinds of behavior that inspire envy, not just vanity but even excessive pride, how he avoids a rivalry with colleagues and this kind of thing, which normally in a well-running monarchy you don't need to avoid that, that's the advantage of a monarchy. The disadvantage of a republic, Schopenhauer points this out, is you always have people

around you who are your equals who get very, rivalry is a polite way to put it, they get very envious if you do well, they try to bring you down. Whereas in a monarchy where there's one very secure ruler, he actually has an interest in raising up men of genius, he has no reason to feel threatened by them. But a bad monarchy, otherwise called a tyranny, with an idiot, envious man like Domitian, he doesn't like that. He gets jealous of anyone seeming too good. But anyway, Tacitus gives some between-the-line practical advice on this, and also between-the-line shows the degradation of such a time, but he shows how such a spirited man as his father-in-law Agricola can thrive even under a jealous and resentful tyrant like Domitian.

A lot of good thing in this eulogy, again, between line, how to make the best of living even under a tyranny. That said, it's something else that caught my eye reading this time. I tell you, it's often in the same edition with Germania, this come. I don't have that edition, I'm reading them online. But the reason I say this to you is you often hear, and I hate this kind of snide interpretation by the way, but you hear the touchiness views of the Germans in Germania, that smugly this described as, oh they're not accurate, he even makes some things up, even though again I think historical and ethnographic research supports much of what Tacitus says about the Germans finally. But it's described as a polemical account that's not really about the Germans, but about

the Rome of his time, where he was trying to make up a mythical German purity of virtue against a morally debased Rome under the bad emperor, so that the Germans of his time are are sort of like the ancient Romans of the early republic. In other words, that he would have the aim of encouraging Romans themselves to return to that austere, moral living. And I've always found these kinds of explanation repulsive, you know, it's the kind of know-it-all nerd declaring he knows best that such and such great work isn't really about the content, that the content doesn't exist, it's a literary device or creation. So ignore this because similar is also said about the Agricola, where he talks about the Britons. Both of these are wrong interpretations.

I think maybe you should read these two books together after all, but maybe you'll see something a bit different. There are two famous passages from this book I will read for you. And here he is, Tacitus is recounting a speech by a Caledonian, Scott leader, who is trying to rally his people to fight for freedom against the Romans. Surely, of course, this speech was not actually given, but it's more significant that Tatchitus made it up. It shows much about his intention, which is not what you just heard. So I'm reading from Tatchitus now. To us who dwell on the uttermost... He's speaking as a Caledonian leader. This is a speech of the Caledonian leader. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary

of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defense. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but the waves and rocks, and yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious, if he be poor, they lust for dominion. the East nor the West has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men, they covet with equal eagerness, poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of Empire. They make a solitude and call it peace. They make a desert and call it peace."

Sometimes it's translated that way. Now it's often read this, and also I say together with Germania, many see it as a criticism or skepticism of empire, which it only partly is, I think Tacitus go some way much farther than empire. This isn't, you know, this debate that's contrived now between globalism and particularism. I think Tacitus go much more. If you read together with Germania, you see he's skeptical of civilization as such. And I see these two books as attacks on civilization, or what I call in book default civilization. I see it even as a kind of proto-Gopino argument Tacitus is making, where a great people like the Romans have within them not only the seed of their own demise, but the precise mechanism by which that takes place.

They try to expand and expand, and they destroy the freedom of other peoples, they destroy freedom in the world, and they create for themselves a kind of smothering, closed-off living death that goes by the name of civilization, which he's very ambiguous about. I read for you other passage that show what he mean. I'm reading again from Tacitus Agricola. He likewise, he's talking about Agricola now, how he subdued England, Britain. He likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdain the tongue of Rome, now coveted its eloquence. Hence too a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the toga became fashionable.

Step by step they were led to things which disposed to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilization, when it was but part of their servitude." End quote. Isn't that wonderful? They called it civilization, but it was a part of their servitude. There are many similar passages in the Germania, not so direct, but I think it's just shallow a little to take this and bluntly compare it to Roman corruption of morals and to think Tacitus is saying morals can be brought back by abulation of these examples in his book, which is what academic nerdoids say. These are statements not about morals, either prescriptive or ethnographic, not about customs only, but about civilization.

How civilization means a kind of moral slavery, yes, but even more it means a kind of apocalypse. As you read this book, you get very strong sense, much stronger than in other ancient things. You read even in Germania, you get this sense the world becomes closed off, tamed. The avenues of life all become known. He has these kind of strange asides about how Roman soldiers are ranging through deep forests and ravines, implying that basically all the world become covered over by Roman pavement, a parking lot, life itself become enslaved, both internally within Rome, where the ascent of someone like Domitian is not a coincidence. It appears as a kind of biological clock of this kind of senescent people, where civilization

itself is the expression of this senescence, this dumb muteness, and its comforts are just phenomena of its spiritual exhaustions. Its pointless diversions in banquets or sexual diddling are just another expression of boredom, of exhaustion with life. And no, I don't think Tacitus was looking at Germanic tribes or Britons and idealizing them. I think he saw clearly and accurately that here at the edge of the world, as this blob of exhaustion called urban civilization was crowding out all life and nature, but here Here you had holdouts of freedom and spirit in these wild tribes who had no need for civilization in the same way the young and vigorous have no need for nursing homes, who live in a condition

still where tyranny cannot smother their frankness of speech, their freedom of thought, and can't erase or edit their memories as all tyrannies and all the default civilization, they edit history and memory. China's notorious for this. Chinese civilization is a fiction. Their history has been erased over and over again. Their civilization wiped out again and again, so-called, under persistent and cyclic tyranny. I will talk more on this later, it's a complicated subject, but Tacitus, what means so-called default civilization is expression of the exhaustion of a people, and Tacitus does allow for possibility of a revival, even among, maybe not the Chinese, he didn't know of them, among the people like the Romans, because in his own time Trajan was leading a kind

of revived, revitalized Rome into an era, as Tacitus praised, where freedom was re-established to some way, which brings up the question of whether a civilization can exist in a form that transcends again this near default state, where it can represent something more than just domestication, meaning human breaking, the breaking of the human animal. You know, it has to give something in exchange for taking away the free-ranging vitality of barbarism. Something more than just well-lighted, safe streets for roosters to have a fake cosmopolitan or martini. What it give back if it take the Mongol life away from you? I hope Pechenegs who drink horse blood come back. I hope Bulgars under Khan Khrum come again and bugger all of you Deralts. I hope they end this.

I'll be ending until next time Ben out