Caribbean Rhythms, Episode 105, New World Order, Caribbean Rastafari, New World Order. Why should it be allowed that only Masonic freaks have the messianic language? I've been dreaming of messianic New World Order since I was three or four years old. I mean literally dreaming, waking daydreams. I have been sent here as emissary of Aldebaran to set mankind on an entirely new path in this cycle. And Hitler say, I am not he, but I prepare the way for his coming. Was he? And, okay, this hypothetical question now, okay, I'm being reasonable. Is this a fruitful hypothesis? Was he talking about me? And I only say this because if I do not speak for myself, who will? Okay, but, you know, and seriously this, yes, this was going to be show on movies, but end

up being a long show on identity again, because I wanted to add something to the question of identity from two episodes ago. Because I was talking to the bureaucrat and he said he did not think I went hard enough against this concept of identity. He thought actually many ancient so-called identities are also fake. So it's not just that modern gay and Palestinian and tranny and these kinds are fake. But you know, it's so bizarre, sorry to go on tangent again, but just think how bizarre it is that you can decide you're part of the gay or whatever identity because of some kind of sexual desire that supposedly creates a community between you and others with that desire across time. And that by joining in this identity or group in your mind, you are also entitled to have

a partaker of the suffering, you know, some tranny cross-dresser riot at Stonewall, or whatever other thing they mythologize, and that a trans-historical identity can be created from supposed oppression by some unspecified other, that you are then in a way transubstantiated into this group physically once you are oppressed as it. Someone someday should have to write, the absurdity of this should have to spell it out as also of the transsexual conceit that there exists disembodied souls with masculine and feminine essences, and that these can be wrongly incorporated. But I think that actually if anyone did write out a satire of the deranged and hysterical metaphysics of these identity conceits, it would be taken entirely seriously today.

You know, satire now just prefigures things that are genuinely, they come to be believed a few years later. So satire impossible. I realize this quite some time ago I was listening to Phil Hendry's show, he's a wonderful ventriloquist comedian and he has this recurring character, a husband who regularly sues his friends, sues his wife or his family over some small thing she said that traumatized him, that made him shit himself when he saw fireworks, you know, and when I told my lawyer friends these scenarios from Phil Hendry's show, they winced, the real-life lawyers, they winced and they say, well, that wouldn't really be thrown out of court anymore today. It would be probably taken seriously. So I don't know how you think on one hand how much longer can this beyond-clown society

can go on, but others among you then believe apparently it can continue for centuries. Maybe it will, we'll see. Anyway, so the bureaucrat, he says, it's not just that these are fake, these new modern groups like trans, gay, and others, but other groups as well, including those BABs that you claim are real, including ancient ones founded by wiser men and wiser elites. This is what the bureaucrat said. And this may very well be, but I'm a polite man, I'm very polite, and I remember a passage from Suetonius when he talked about Octavian Augustus, the emperor, I will read it for you. I'm reading from Suetonius, Life of Twelve Caesars now. He treated—he's talking about Augustus Octavian now—he treated with great respect

such foreign rights as were ancient and well-established, but held the rest in contempt. For example, having been initiated at Athens—he means in the Eleusinian Mysteries—but having Having been initiated in Athens, and afterwards sitting in judgment of a case at Rome involving the privileges of the priests of Attic Ceres, in which certain matters of secrecy were brought up, he dismissed his counselors and the throng of bystanders and heard the disputants in private. But on the other hand, he not only omitted to make a slight detour to visit Apis when he was traveling through Egypt, but highly commended his grandson Gaius for not offering prayers at Jerusalem as he passed by Judea. quote, do you like this? What does it mean? He did not respect new cults and then he says

this about Judea. I don't know, it's very, there might be book about this you might want to read from. I think the name is Rudolf Khmerkin, but Nietzsche also say, I believe in Antichrist that he thinks the history of Israel was falsified in the Bible. I don't know what that means. I'd like to explore, maybe I invite someone to talk this, but out of politeness I would concede a reality to things that have endured, just like Octavia and Augustus, but also in one moment I'm also allied in some sense to the nationalists and the traditionalists and the French right who I mentioned, people like Wenner on the last show, Dominique Wenner, Because we share an enemy in the current possessors of the universalist cause of our day, the so-called globalists, the current internationalists.

I hate them, they hate them, we share an enemy, but really these are just the midgets who have inherited positions and ideas, not their own, I'm referring to the globalists now. And I wanted to make advices for them, my temporary allies, I mean for the nationalists, the French right and so forth, to make advices for the best case they could make for themselves, which is to forget the postmodern identity talk and to return instead to talk about peoples, to characters of peoples, to return to a language of common sense. But I think the bureaucrat is right that even in the best case, a group being is inadequate. So there I just say it, it's inadequate. And I disagree fundamentally with someone like Wenner that it is our membership in various

traditions or tribes or nations, civilizations and so forth, that makes you who you are. I just disagree with that. I made a tweet on this, maybe you find it amusing. Hitler, Napoleon were enlightenment cosmopolitans. Modern liberalism has abandoned this dedication to universalism, nature and science, has abandoned this for pathetic plays and desires for group being, group belonging and false piety. Trying to get feelings of self-worth from group membership is sad, and I will stand by this. It's actually the same thing I've always said. I admire the sovereign individual, the self-directed man. I admire Robinson Crusoe. I admire Heraclitus. I admire self-contained men who are worlds into themselves, who spit on the people.

And this is not left-wing or liberal or individualist or any of these words that are now thrown around by intellectuals who are trying to make a name for themselves. A number of other morons responded to that tweet of mine comparing what I said, comparing it to Bill Maher. That's right. If you don't agree with getting browbeaten in a communal jerk session and joining the warm swampy folds of the community, then you must be some resistance liberal, or Bill Maher, or a clear anal master Lechman, or Kelet. What kind of stupidity is this? It's the same kind of stupidity where I was told by full professors of philosophy that Nietzsche was surely a leftist because he attacked capitalism, and this crazy bitch professor was just baffled by possibility that someone didn't fit in her two-color

view of things. These people, she has less color perceptions than Labrador, where she understood the whole of nature and history through the gray, watered-down concepts of the last drab and hopelessly piss-dry 50 years or so. But no, look, let's take the easy case first of why this is not. First of all, Bill Maher and let's say the self-styled classical liberals of our day are not in fact against group being at all. As is well known, they make all kinds of exceptions, for example, for Jewish identity politics among others. But that's a very marked one, where Ben Shapiro and the Bulgarians of the Daily Wire do this also. And they attack others' identity politics, but not those of their preferred groups.

So Lindsey Graham, the little girl Lindsey Graham, he will attack your identity politics, but not Israel's, and not the blacks, frankly, also. And he will defend the bigotry of people who aren't even his own, because he's a girl and a coward. And that's the easy case, you already know this. But they are also bad universalists, not just in that sense, but also their very liberalism is for these people an identity. They conceive of themselves as part of the liberal team or tribe. It comes complete with fake new shared tastes. I've made fun of the lobster risotto thing or the kinds of clothes they wear where, you know, they pretend to dislike luxury and sartorial extravagance. They attacked Putler's designer puffy jacket, or they attacked the garish decor of Trump or Saddam palaces.

Certain of these fake news shared tastes, shared even mannerisms and gestures, the lilting voice which you all know. What is that lilting liberal voice where he tried to sound like a 13-year-old girl? That's not a political view or a view of human nature. None of these things are. Why do these things go with supposedly political views or views of the... nature of men in society or men in nature. They don't. These are so-called identities. Even the political views are markers of status. They are made up markers of group being. I'm part of Reddit team. I'm educated. I'm urban and so forth. It's another consumer identity, of course. You know this. I'm not saying anything you don't know. But it's this group actually that goes most in lockstep, is the most conformist, treats

ideas as status markers. Okay, so this is well known. My point is it's wrong to identify this group as the party of science or of openness and curiosity to nature, or about universalism or cosmopolitanism, however they want to term or you want to term that general feeling. They are some of the dogmatic and chauvinistic also when it comes to rejecting science because it hurts feelings or because it contradicts party consensus, party feeling, whether it's on race they reject science, or on matters of health, or any number of things. And I suppose we're in this position now, after 200 years of liberalism and its decay, and now we're in this case that people maybe cannot conceive that there is a party of science,

a faction of truth, the true inheritors of Greco-Roman openness to nature, of universalism in regards to mankind and so forth, that is not liberal. But I believe actually liberalism is only one strain of this and not the best one. It's just the one that won out over the others, but not because it was good, it won because it was bad and because the majority of mankind is bad. And because left wing, which is to say demagogic, promises often win out. And liberalism is demagoguery or it certainly became this after its union with socialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But the cause of the Enlightenment is arguably right-wing. So you take Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, for example, who I frequently invoke.

And often they are called anti-Enlightenment thinkers, but this is so only in a very limited sense. They are anti-stupid Enlightenment, they are against the domedification or popularization of science. They look down on things like mass education or newspapers, so you can say, well, that is enlightenment, but not quite. The point is Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, they're not obscurantists, they're not the partisans of some religious view that comes out of this or that text or tradition, and they're not even anti-rational. It's only that the honesty of science and nature and the love of truth compels them to see also the irrational basis of many things other people think are rational, but in their than enlightenment through and through.

Nietzsche dedicated book to Voltaire, and he frequently admired men like Spinoza. He criticized Spinoza, but he greatly admired Spinoza. Another such mind he respects, and his slur on men like Locke isn't that they're too scientisty or rational, but that they don't practice real science, that they're an insult to the spirit of philosophy with their self-satisfied superficial abstractions. And Nietzsche's objections to Ralph Waldo Emerson, who he admired very much, was that Emerson did not have an education in science and so that therefore a philosopher was lost to mankind because Emerson too vague and sentimental and so forth to literary. And similarly, Nietzsche, he looked down on English utilitarian and psychologist but he He still thinks they approach the right questions and so forth.

In other words, he's in a dialogue with them, with people like Darwin as well, and Darwin furthermore took much inspiration from Schopenhauer in turn, by the way, and Schopenhauer himself, for all the mystery and pomp so-called of his philosophy, he was a lifelong Anglophile, a respect that I believe both of Kant and of Scottish Enlightenment so-called. He wrote in their style, in an English, very clear style, and both men were atheists, Nietzsche maybe you could say some kind of ambiguous kind, there's a question on him, excuse me, with regard to atheism, but Schopenhauer very much an avowed and uncompromising atheist. They both looked down, as is well known, on Christianity, on religious bigotry, and all

these, they looked down on nationalism and on their own people, on the German people specifically. And Schopenhauer, who had somewhat of a Reddit kid problem his whole life, arguably he was a bit of a Reddit kid on some things, but nevertheless it's important to note Schopenhauer goes much farther than just casually attacking the nationalism of his day. He has some very deep attack on nationalism, excuse me, on nationalism philosophically in his attacks on Hegel and the Hegelians, he points out that, okay, so look, here, I will read for you for a moment, okay, so I'm reading for you. Finally, as regards the attempt specially introduced by the Hegelian pseudo-philosophy that is everywhere so pernicious and stupefying to the mind, the attempt, namely, to comprehend

the history of the world as a planned whole, or, as they call it, to construct it organically. A crude and shallow realism is actually at the root of this. Such realism regards the phenomenon as the being in itself of the world, and imagines that it is a question of this phenomenon and of its forms and events. It is still secretly supported in this by certain mythological fundamental views which it tacitly assumes. Otherwise it might be asked for what spectator such comedy was really being enacted, for since only the individual, not the human race, has actual immediate unity of consciousness. The unity of this race course of life is a mere fiction. Moreover, as in nature only the species are real and the genera are abstractions, so in

the human race only the individuals and their course of life are real, the nations and their lives being mere abstractions. Finally, constructive histories guided by a shallow optimism always ultimately end in a comfortable, substantial, fat state with a well-regarded constitution, good justice and police, useful arts and sciences, and etc. He keeps going there, making fun of this kind Hegelian materialist utopia, kind of proto-Marxism. But I just wanted to read that for you. I will be right back to talk more about this. Yes, right back. So I was reading Schopenhauer to the effect that, you know, neither the history of mankind as a whole in the Hegelian sense, nor the history of nations as such as any ultimate

unity or reality for Schopenhauer, because all these groups are inorganic abstractions, accumulations of individuals. And you notice that he attacked Hegelianism for having a mythological basis. So again, he's not attacking these views because they are too rational or too scientistic or whatever you want to say, he's attacking them because he believes they have secret religious assumptions or underpinning of some kind of mythology that is not spelled out. And for Schopenhauer, the cleaving of the individual to the group in this sense at least is a Schopenhauer conception, more or less, where he mentions the ant, for example. He points out that there must be some delusion, maybe a chemical delusion in the mind of the That makes it sacrifice its own good for the good of the hive

So only by such means or by fraud or by coercion is in Schopenhauer possible a full Identification of the individual and the nation or the individual and the tribe or the state and so forth So now you would turn around and reflexively say BAP. This is shit library everything You've been telling us so far about Schopenhauer and Nietzsche everything you've said about them. This is shit library. This is leftism This is a reddit scientism. This is anarchist utopianism Well, it's not because everything I've said so far is totally compatible with a very right-wing very right-wing view can see very anti revolutionary conception of politics of the state for example of the power and necessity of the state

Which forgetting Nietzsche for a moment Schopenhauer believes in the state as the only way to curb natural human wickedness and And wickedness is the preponderant quality of man, faithlessness. And he does not believe in a universal or world state either, because it's impractical. And because he acknowledges existence of local customs and ways, anyone who's not insane must acknowledge this. So you can say he ends for Hobbesian reasons, for man's wolfishness to man, because of man's natural wickedness, he ends up justifying state power to curb this human viciousness. And even you can say then he's a monarchist who believes the king must rule outside and above the law because political power needs to be mixed in with some arbitrary element. Why?

Because when it is open to question or when power is shared by elites, and he gives the reasons I will not get into, I don't want to talk Schopenhauer political idea here, But he thinks, for example, that America or the South American copies of America, the republics especially of the modern world, are lawless and unstable. So anyway, this again is not a place to get into details of Schopenhauer philosophy. He has an essay on this if you're interested. It's called on jurisprudence and the state or jurisprudence and politics, something like that. Not to speak of Nietzsche, you have nevertheless in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche two men who come entirely out of the Enlightenment view of things, they are not nationalists or traditionalists

of any kind, they're not religious, they're almost by any definition atheists, but who are in many ways the fountain, the origin, the fount of all hard right and even far right thought in Europe, certainly before World War II, from 1900 to 1940, but I would say even right now, so, you know, what do you say about that? That's right. Hitler carried Schopenhauer, the guy who I've just been talking about now with these views. He carried Schopenhauer in his bag when he was a soldier. Hitler did. He did not carry Fichte or Herder. He didn't carry nationalist type Hegelian thinkers or religious Christian thinkers or Joseph de Maistre or nationalist theory of the state. He carried Schopenhauer, dummies. And while you can say, well, Hitler carried Schopenhauer because of Schopenhauer's other

thoughts on life, on the will, or on Schopenhauer's glorification of the artist as a thinker of truth, a metaphysician, and Wagner to some extent liked Schopenhauer for the same reasons, while on the other hand being some type of folkish nationalist, so people say, that may all be partly true, but it's still interesting. After all, Hitler carried this weird enlightenment dark, this is the real dark enlightenment, this is dark proto-Darwinian enlightenment thinker who glorified the artist and who thought, in other words, most closely about what means man as such, what means man nature and man future. I would argue this for another time, but I would argue Wagner is not as traditional a nationalist as you may think, that his relationship to folkish nationalism is a little bit complicated.

His liking of an enlightenment thinker like Schopenhauer is very significant, but that's for another time. But taking just Hitler now, he carried around a book of this man I've been talking to you about Schopenhauer, who is concerned with the fate of men, not the fate of nations. The future of men as such, not again a nationalist thinker, a thinker on nature, not on history and nations. You know, Fanon, the tragic Negro, Frantz Fanon, the anti-colonialist thinker, he loved Fichte. Hitler did not carry Fichte. He didn't carry a theory cell in his bag at war. He carried this very exciting Schopenhauer thinker, and even more so, German soldiers in general were supplied with Daspic Zarathustra by Nietzsche in World War I in their knapsacks,

and with Beyond Good and Evil of Nietzsche in World War II also. So again, they didn't carry historical nationalist works or theory cell about the a priori dignity of the group or nation over the individual. They didn't carry Prussian state thinkers. They didn't carry Treichke. They didn't carry Fichte. They didn't carry these people. They carried these men I've been talking about, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. And I'm using Hitler as an extreme case, right? But Hitler was also a disciple of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, among others. And Chamberlain was arguably also an Enlightenment thinker. He imagined himself, at least, a man of science, or at least he was not so unambiguously nationalist despite reaching nationalist conclusions, arguably.

But Stuart Chamberlain was, I would say, very much – you can say whatever you want about him. He's stupid, he's wrong, and this. But he sees himself as coming out of an enlightenment way of thinking, as he doesn't see himself as – so you can say the same, by the way, of Gobineau, who I've talked on this show, Gobineau, who was the father, so-called father of racism. But he was also very much an Enlightenment thinker, totally so Gobineau, a thinker of science and of nature and of universalism. And in fact, he identified universalism as a characteristic marker of superior races. Right? And Gobineau, this was not a left-wing man or a liberal man. His statement on the Negroes of Haiti, where I think he was ambassador for a short time,

very funny, but he mentions that hatred of the foreigner is the only thing that dominates primitive peoples, you know, whereas very literally master races, he was one of the ones who maybe originated this idea, but master races are very much the opposite. They are imperialist and universalist. And actually it's long been a commonplace among any serious historians that Nazism, The real core of Nazism, I mean, the real esoteric Nazism, not Savitri Devi or Miguel Serrano, although actually it's funny, them too, but the esoteric Nazism of the actual Nazi Party, I mean, it had nothing almost at all to do with bourgeois nationalism. I mean, creating the embryo of a pan-European nightly eugenic caste like the SS, you know, that's not exactly your traditional nationalism.

It was a highly scientific regime based, I believe, ultimately on a view of biology and of progress, not of traditional nationhood. I mean I exaggerate a bit, but even when Hitler is speaking to the German youth, there's a famous Leni Riefenstahl filmed it, I think this is in the triumph of the will, but he's speaking to the German youth and uniquely in that speech he ends it with Deutschland Heil. He's hailing the future Germany when he talks to the German youth. And when you listen to his words in that very significant speech, where he ends it in this very unique way, but when you listen to his words, his very trench warfare, mannerbund view of what the core of the nation is, it's not really your traditional family-based conservative bourgeois nationalism, you know.

And now they'll say I'm stomping for Nazism, I'm Azog battalion, you know, I am the Nazi danger. Meanwhile, they fund the Kolomoisky's fake Azog battalion. Okay, but that's not what I'm doing here. I'm trying to show you that the left and the shit libs do not have the monopoly on science, progress, truth, universalism, any of these things. So, you know, because of stupidity, ignorance, and also because of censorship and cowardice, none of these views that I've just talked now can really be mentioned much today. So many people end up having a very impoverished, like I say, two-color view of what is enlightenment, science, nature, universalism, and such things. And they've let the dumb conformist, cowardly shit libs claim these words I've just said.

And it's like, you know, on the right, it's like we all have to be into mysticism and Ebola and we all have to be religious obscurantism and talking about feelings and the group and the necessity of group belonging, and to all sound like a longhouse or community center ethno-narcissists who go around criticizing the corrosive qualities of capitalism and technology. That's supposed to be us, you know? And I just very much disagree with this frame of things. I've never been part of it. Never will be. Never! I'll never accept to be browbeaten by a self-satisfied, smug, tradwife, role-playing e-girl who goes around lecturing people about history and identity and community and love your people and really go, you know, I tell you, go, you go put a cucumber up your ass whore.

You do not define what the left and the right is. And all the trad e-girl ex whores and the dumb meme injected spic servitor pundits that they keep dredging up over their fake journals for Newell and his gang and then what's this This new one called Compact or something, all of them are repeating talking points from white nationalist 105 IQ forums from 2009. You can get out of my face, you molding spics. Is this what the right has become? The National Mossad Conservatism Conference in Brussels, right? So Hazony just had this nationalism conference in Brussels. His fake nationalism, what is it called? National conservatism, okay? So let me give you an example from that. All these types, the Vermulas, the Dreyers, Rod Dreyer with, what was he talking about?

He saw a black boy in a locker room. He makes a fool of himself, Rod Dreyer does. These weak, soft-handed types who want to know that they're really concerned for you, that you don't whack it to porn, and that you don't buy alcohol on Sunday. You hear that's the problem today, you know, that you can buy on Sunday. So this Maroun Hazoni who came out of nowhere, you know, who's now recommending meddling in Ukraine, Yoram Hazoni, well you see boys and girls being nationalist means you must oppose imperialism. So a nationalist foreign policy means one where you fight imperialism around the world. Hello fellow nationalists, please fight Russian and Iranian imperialism. That's what nationalism means, you see, sending guys from Tennessee to die for a Balochi state

or a fake Ukrainian state or for Israel because it's threatened by Iranian imperialism. So in other words, it's Wilsonianism on steroids. That's Hizani's new nationalism, the same cretinous foreign policies the United States has had for how long now and after how many disasters when it put this policy on acceleration after the Cold War. And he wants to repeat the same thing, but now with this pill-pull Talmudic casuistry that's very transparent, where actually nationalism comes to mean fighting Russia for the sake of Ukraine or maybe next Ingushetia or some other country that's never existed before. But anyway, so all of them are praising this e-girl recently, right? They had her speak at this conference, and I will not mention her name. She appeared about a year or two ago.

She pretends to be this or that. She gratuitously attacked me over some things that the research team actually dredged up some tweets of mine from years ago. I'd totally forgotten about them. I don't know how they found them. Not that I don't stand by them, but it's rather odd. They found these tweets that no, not me or any of my friends even remember. They have a research team, in other words, and they dredged these up that I laughed at some schizophrenic e-girl. You hear that's the big problem. I laughed at the schizophrenic e-girl, I'm mean to e-girls. Two weeks before, the same people were saying that I'm too nice to e-girls, or that my followers, whatever that means, are too nice to e-girls, then they do this, I'm too mean to e-girls.

And so she attacked me over that, whatever, right? But so they dredge up this e-girl, she come out of nowhere, she's an ex-vice journalist, she just repeats non-takes, which is fine, but it's not fine when they try to replace us with these watered-down versions of what we say. And for some mysterious reason, this e-girl podcaster, she's invited to speak at Hazzoni's Europe, Hazzoni's conference in Brussels, where they, you know, it was the two minutes of putler hate as faking as nationalism. And of course, now they'll say BAP is jealous. Frog Twitter is jealous. They wanted also to speak at nationalist Mossad conservatism in Brussels and to share the dried overcooked lobster and Vienna sausage canapes at luxurious Brussels Howard Johnson's, right? This is always their line.

You're jealous of this. But okay. So look, forget her. I'm actually not even attacking her specifically. I'm attacking what she said because it keeps getting recycled and it's been said time and again over the last few months, over the last two years at least, and it's been promoted now by all these dissident right, new right, nationalist supposedly types, it was promoted as so wonderful. So what was she saying? She's going off in this clip about how liberal individualism has disconnected us from each other, how it's made us see each other as commodities. So now you cue now, of course, the dark intimation, the slight jab at neoliberal capitalism, class analysis, this what Sohrab Amari promotes, right? So Lockean capitalist individualism, you see, has made us selfish consumers.

And so we're not reproducing, I believe she says this, we're not reproducing because we're not genuinely loving each other and having a connection with each other. We're not forming families to invest in children and sacrifice for them and for the future of our communities and this type of thing, you know, because capitalism and commoditification has destroyed us and Lockean individualism. And if you think this is edgy new stuff, this is things that have been parcooked in the lukewarm pages even of National Review for decades, okay? This kind of habits of the heart, boilerplate about community conservatism. But it's just totally false, you see, forget this stuff, it's been repeated in our circles so forth nonstop actually about hyper capitalism.

You may have heard this line, and consumerism, and neoliberalism, and all of this, and how the problem of modernity is Lockean individualism, liberal individualism. How can any of you believe this? Let me ask you, how many of you were beaten over your heads with Lockean individualism in high school? I went to high school in America, and I think I remember being brought in with many other things, but never Lockean individualism. It's just not the dominant ideology of our time. It's very far from it and probably the thing is if you ask those girls who this eagle at the Nationalist Conservatism whatever Mossad Conference in Brussels, if you ask those girls who the speaker was criticizing, those childless women or men, who she's criticizing as them

being in the grips of this hyper capitalist consumerism and this selfish individualism. But if you ask those people, but especially the women who are the gatekeepers of baby making after all, right? Because you know, women could just choose to get raw-dogged by chads and they could get pregnant, right? They're the ones not choosing it, or also marriage, if you think marriage is a prerequisite for that, but they're also the ones not choosing marriage. There are many eligible bachelors who would be happy to marry them, they don't choose that. But if you asked them why, well, let's not say if you asked them why. If you ask them what things they believe in, I would bet some money on this, do a survey but a real one, I'll place a bet with you, a high bet, whatever good money you want to

bet that not one of these women, not a single one will mention luck or individualism and just so you don't think I'm being disingenuous, they won't even mention anything like that in their own stupid words, whatever they may be. along those lines, when you ask them what are the things you believe in life, how do you think people should relate to each other and such things, what are your values, whatever you want to ask them. You know what they'll tell you they believe in? The same things the speaker at National Conservatism Conference says you should believe in, they'll tell you they believe in community. That's a big word with them, in interpersonal zis, in belonging, in the necessity of curbing our selfish desires for good of the community.

They'll talk about their identity and who they are and discovering and no, they will not agree with white nationalist ideas and many of them will have a mixed view of religion, although not as negative view of it as you might think. But not one will say they believe in these things that the post liberal right or the post left, whatever you want to call it, any of these things that they claim are the problems now. In fact, their views will sound strangely familiar to you. They will criticize capitalism. They will criticize the destructive effects of competition. Competition is evil, the evils of individualism and selfishness, and how it's a white male and patriarchal ideology to oppress the weak and so forth. Individualism and competition. These are dirty words.

This is just wrong in so many ways. When America was Lockean, Lockean society actually had a very high birth rate. How do you get past that? I know these post-liberal people can swing it all they want about how well Well, you know the high birth rate of Locke in America was only that way because they didn't really believe in Locke at the time You see the residue of their inherited traditional religion or community. You see that's what gave Rise to high birth rate. It's false the America in 19th century and even before did have extreme individualist competitive type Yes, kind of Lockean view it is they did it was not just you know, and In any case, I don't think that's true for this argument to work. You'd have to say that now finally in our time

Lockeanism and that type of individualism has finally triumphed over tradition and community and all such things But I see nothing of that sort, you know, you've heard it before if you went to high school in America Did you hear a Lockeanism or anything like that? that. Anything like that. I was an immigrant. I mean, you know this, I've said it before, and I was never once beaten over the head with universalism, with individualism, Lockean or otherwise, or any kind of similar language or the praise of capitalism. And note, I'm not saying actually that these things are necessarily good or true, right? Because I also think from my view that they're not good, but you go way off if you misidentify the cause and if you think that these are what's causing problems today.

Anyway, I'll I will be right back to discuss this more in a moment Right now is a cloud has descended. It is a rain non-stop for days. I cannot leave Where I am. I'm just looking outside. That's going to be flooding soon. I think they're using harp weapon Weather weapon technology to stop me from telling you the truth and last night I tried to I was going to record and I took I took Zyn, which is a nicotine pouch you put in your mouth, a little bit like chewing tobacco, but it's actually just a nicotine salt, it's a six milligram citrus flavor, and I strongly recommend caution, because it is so strong. This combobulated me for many hours, I'm barely recovering now. The Zyn destroyed me, maybe they laced it with something, you know.

I thought I was ready for it with a little bit of smoking every day, but it's much stronger than you think. So I was telling you the problem in America and West education now and dominant ideology is not universalism, it's not Lockean individualism under whatever name. I've told you before, it's not secret I'm an immigrant to America, I was an immigrant, I left, actually, America a few years ago because of extreme polarization and it got to where if you say the word Russia or Moscow, someone would tell you they're triggered. It was getting this way and I believe that there were cryptids, that are cryptid beings from Indian times in America that are roaming the land trying to... I saw a man with a deer head running through the forest, I did not want to go to that continent

for a while, I'm afraid there are spirits. So I was an immigrant to America as a boy and I had a view from outside coming in and I remember very well and markedly what I was beaten over the head with in school. Do you know what I was beaten over the head with? Encouragement to embrace my roots. What is your heritage? This kind of, you know, a place of bigotry and parochialism, you know how far this goes? Like if you say you are learning Italian or whatever, or ancient Greek, and then you're immediately asked if you have Greek or Italian roots, like this could be the only reason to study a history or a language. And I find this disgusting. It's an embrace of parochialism, of community center chauvinism, you know, you must be authentic

to who you are, be with your people, you know, join your people. It's the Hillel community center mindset, you know, and if you meet some Jewish guy in college and they're all studying, you know, not just Plato, but Plato and Jewish thought. What is that? Oh, I study Aristotle and Jewish thought. Why is this considered normal or anything more than, you know, if you imagine an Armenian, I study physics and Armenian thought on those same physics. So I think these types of people should be invited to leave universities to join ethnic madrasas and to study their own ethnic buttholes to their content. I mean blacks, I will not even mention, right, there are blacks who go through their entire lives studying black studies in college, black studies this, black studies law school, and

then black studies position in academia, or a black activism job in NGO or a government department. So it's just whole self-contained human centipede of ethnic fart-huffing. I remember the gays are the same. I remember watching Jerry Springer one time, Jerry Springer television impresario, he had shown television. There was a gay dude and he was encouraged to go to San Francisco and be with your people, you know, this phrase, you know, do you remember language like this from your time in school or on television? Do you not just see it constantly in media and elsewhere? This is a dominant ideology of our time, and please don't say, oh, it's different because you are an immigrant, that's why you were told this.

But you know, people, as you see right now with Russia, people from Russia and that part of the world, unless they're being weaponized against Russia as Ukraine is right now, people from that part of the world don't really get POC pennies. They don't get people of color status, quite the opposite. It's considered okay to call them oppressive step-ogres and so forth. So it's not as, you know, I met American-born students and so forth who were also very much into their own special ethnic heritage. My family, they go into the details of that and they're encouraged to do that. I suppose for one group it is not allowed and for adjacent groups, in other words if you are German or Anglo, probably that would start to raise eyebrows because it gets closer

to the core consistency that's not allowed to do that, right? And it's inconsistent and unjust that all of this, this embrace your heritage thing is forbidden for one group only, white people, which really in the United States is a shorthand for real Americans. So this whole program, this whole ideology, is a way to deconstruct and take apart America as a nation. And that's a huge inconsistency in what the ruling establishment says yes, and it's exceedingly cruel to tell white kids that their ancestors are evil and racist while you're encouraging others, including immigrants, to be true to your people, which is, by the way, if you You are an immigrant, or let's say if you're a black guy, you're a mulatto, whatever, and

if you don't find that incredibly condescending, somebody telling you that, I don't know, there's nothing in you, I think, but, you know, excuse me, but yes, to be true to your people. But everything I've said so far does not mean that the dominant ideology of America is universalist or individualist. It's quite the opposite. It's a kind of worship of the ethno-narcissism of others, but that's not universalism under any kind of definition. Many of you are critical of Jews, and I should be, or you should actually be very specific and say Ashkenazi Jews, or actually the intellectual leadership of the Ashke, and rightly so it's to be critical of them because it's a form of corrupt ethnic gangsterism in the form of an intellectual movement.

But the problem of the Jews in this sense, their problem was never with particularism or nationalism. They have a problem with your nationalism sometimes. But if you listen to talk radio or many other such things where you hear people casually mention their opinions, you frequently hear Jewish intellectual guests or hosts or even callers and they go out of their way to defend, for example, even Muslim or even Greek or whatever ethnic pressure groups in America, right? Because they sense that if those come under suspicion, so would they. So they're nationalists and chauvinists through and through. And maybe this is topic for another time, because it's very complicated, the rivalry between Jewish chauvinism and Western Universalism.

But their problem was never with nationalism, but with Western Universalism, with Western Imperialism. It's why they had a problem with Hellenistic Seleucids, with Rome, with Byzantium, and With Russia, all of them were multicultural Western empires, but Jews actually get along pretty well in places like Netherlands, which were less imperialist in that sense, far more of a nationalist place. The struggle of the Jewish intellectual is with Western cosmopolitanism and Hellenism, not with nationalism or tribalism. Philo of Alexandria is a very old case of this actually, with his absurd, insecure musings about Plato as a Moses for the Greeks, it's just a wonderful early case of chutzpah, right, where Philo starts to mention that, but we were philosophers, right?

So Hazony is actually open about this. Hazony's model is the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Roman rule in ancient Israel, against Roman universalism, against Roman imperialism, and this was repeated in our time by one Abba who is a Jewish fascist, and he described himself as that, so I'm not using it as a slur. He was a Jewish fascist, he was the mentor of the Netanyahu family, and he interpreted his struggle against the British Empire in the same way as the Bar Kokhba rebellion against humanity and Hellenism. He was replaying it as a revolt against the British Empire. And this might, again, be topic for another show. But when you hear, for example, even people like Jeninga Rubin or others like Billy Crystal,

and they try, hypocritically, to lecture Americans about not being identitarians, or Ben Shapiro for that matter, who say that, you know the line, that America is not an ethnic nation, but an idea. It's a propositional nation based on notions of justice that is open to all and such things. And they're going to hold you to that idea because it's supposedly your ideal as they see it. And through this, they try to selectively target the nationalist feelings of other groups that they see as their rivals. But it is not a statement of their objective belief because they show through their own lives that they do not believe in that. In other words, if identification with American idea as they claim it were enough, then Jeniger

Reuben and Bill Nignog Crystal, Bill, I hate the man, Crystal, I'm not saying I hate him but, you know, he has this attitude, oh I hate the man, he has a racial chip on his shoulder like a black college girl, you know, but if their belief in the American idea, the nobility of it, if it was enough as they claim it is, then they would not need to also identify with Israel or to identify so much with their own people, you see. So Crystal Mentor, his teacher Harvey Mansfield, as far as I'm aware Harvey Mansfield does not travel to London to visit his roots the way Bill Crystal ostentatiously goes to Tel Aviv or whatever. So I mean to say in their own lives these people show that lack of belief in the sufficiency of the American Universalist idea.

They're saying it should be enough for you, but they're showing it's not enough for them, at least how they understand it. And the Ashk Jews, like other peoples, it's not just them, but the Armenians, for example, they're a signature case of the failure of assimilation, the failure to truly embrace the American idea, which indeed is a kind of universalism, but not how they imagine it. The people who embrace this in America, this universalism, they are called white people now. And now, after they, having abandoned their own ethnic prejudices and origins and their ethnic rivalries against other ethnic groups, they didn't bring it over to the United States. This was the bargain, the American bargain of assimilation, the so-called American Hellenism, American civil religion.

After they've given that up to join America, the rug is pulled out in our time and they are said to be something made up and a new ideology is introduced. They're said to be not real. White people are not real, they don't have a legitimate group being, and this new ideology is introduced, that of worshipping the ethno-narcissism of marginal communities and of validation and approval by central authorities of people's parochial ethnic chauvinism and bigotries. But the white American, which is to say the founding American who embraced the original American idea, they are seen then as uniquely outsiders to this, as opponents to this, as oppressors of so-called POC, which of course includes the gays and the others.

So you know, it's the white men who get in the way of the self-actualization and authenticity of Bill Kristol, as also of a college chick who experimented with lesbianism, or of someone who is, you know, his parents are Arabs, they left, they make highly vinegared Middle Eastern food and now they identify as Palestinian, or of a 95% biologically white dude with no nappy sort of nappy here who become leader of NAACP because he identity black, identity Africa, we was pharaohs and other invented histories like the golems of the shtetl and this kind of third worldist embrace of your roots and the white man get in the way of that. Do you know how much contempt I had for this when I was encouraged to, you know, you must go into the war and embracing folds of your community, it's who you are.

No it's not who you are. It never really was, not entirely anyway, and not for greater men, but certainly not now in this age of prefab, democratized and cheapened ethnic bigotries. It's not who you are, not even for less than greater men. And to make this your selling point as the anti-establishment, how stupid is that? To whose experience does it correspond when you go railing against a Lockean individualism, or universalism, or colonialism, and many other such thing, when we were all beaten over the head in regime scruels with this very language. If you're a white kid who's smart in high school and your dumb ass low IQ teacher will speak very much this same language, this stuff coming from Vermula and the post-left, the

Catholic conservative intellectuals or the post-liberal, whatever they call themselves, the sorab amari, the compact crowd and this, it all sounds very much like this. Plus they add some bells and whistles from Catholicism or some markers of traditional nationalism, but their criticism of what the problem is today corresponds to no one's complaints about what's wrong with upbringing and life in schools now. Believe me, you soft-handed gay fucks in DC and you fat e-girls on the make. No one is seeking to have you and some dude with a carrot in ass named Gladden Pappin or this or Lindsey or some commie living in a rat hole in Bronx or Brooklyn, lecture us about community and belonging and the need to have your life directed by some bizarre effeminate schoolmarm like yourselves.

So I get a bit of subject, but I will be right back. Come back to show I spoke to Frog recently who told me after he listened to my episode 103 on identity that for some kind of orientation type meeting for a job or college, I don't His group was asked do any of you identify as veterans? So you listen to this? Okay, you see that you're not are you a veteran? But do you identify as one? No one before used to speak this way It's a kind of second-order experience of life Where you're always taking stock of yourself because you believe in all seeing social eyes there to appraise and validate you you're living vicariously entirely filtered through the imagined consciousness of this kind of a a Reddit-type moral hive mind. Teacher says it's okay. And this, what I meant, of course,

you know, when you are a veteran, that invites you to think about the kind of veteran you were. Whether you were a combat fighter, like Ernst Junger and Gabriele D'Annunzio, and risked your life like the Austrian corporal. Whether you did it out of love for your nation and its ideals, or otherwise, out of a genuine sense of wanting adventure, or some other real and noble desire, I mean, or whether you were a jagged desk jockey who was there to fill out a mark on your resume or just as bad who was there to take part of the military and then the veteran identity to belong to an identity of this. And of course the word identity erases all these distinctions because an identity is as much an identity as any other. I identify as a computer programmer. I'm a hacker now.

I have the hacker nerd identity. I wear glasses like this, you see. So are you a good computer programmer? It doesn't matter. I'm equally part of the computer programmer identity either way. So you see what this means. It selects for not even for company men, not even for yes men, but for a certain type of broken creature who desperately seeks validation, who wants to be seen to be something without necessarily being it, who wants to perform, so these types must be avoided, I think, precisely in the forging of any true society. The focus must be on some other very different things. In other words, I've thought for a very long time, much longer than the theorists of nationhood in our day, I've thought long time what it takes to make a secret society, for example.

So you think about that for a minute. Do you want someone to join your party core or secret society or mafia or call it what you will, do you want someone to join it who is highly capable, therefore who has a lot of personal pride inevitably, and who joins you because of total, let's say, near fanatic devotion to the higher cause that you also believe in, to completing the certain tasks you've set out for yourselves, and who's bound to you by the bonds of friendship and loyalty that emerge as part of this fight, as a practical necessity, someone who joins for the fight, who then develops loyalty to you and to the society, again out of the practical necessity of struggle for the higher cause that you have both put above yourselves, in which you genuinely believe.

Or on the other hand, you want this person to join because they want to feel like they belong to something, because they are so-called exploring their identity, because they want to be seen by others or by themselves as imagined as seen by others, and this second order always outside yourself spectator attitude because maybe at bottom they're lonely or they feel deprived and want to be part of something. They feel that without that they are nothing, you know, they were, oh, I'm exploring my identity. Do you want that type instead? I don't know. I think the question answers itself. I would not trust this last type of person to wash floors in my Wewelsburg. On the other hand, in healthy historical nations and tribes and various societies, including

let's say even a mafia, of course a member will take pride in being part of such and such a group for sure, especially if it's a very exclusive fraternity or some other such thing. And it may be that the common run of folk, for them it may be expected that they get maybe even most of their sense of worth from group membership, but that's a sad thing. It's a sad allowance you must make to the weakness of the many. And in any case, it's in no way to be found in a new group or its core, not a new group that will succeed or last. In that case, there's usually an inverse relationship between how much self-worth they take from mere group membership, which is really group narcissism, if it's just that on its own.

But there's an inverse relationship between that and their actual value to the group. So again, you don't want people to join because they feel they want to be part of something. It's a big reason, actually, many of us are non-frogs. We despise face fags also for this reason. People who come on our side, not because they actually believe in what we do, or they want to fight for it alongside us, but because they got swept up by the excitement of being part of a movement, or because of the media attention, or any such thing, and their ego is then involved. Because we've all seen how such people often turn out to be backstabbers, often. And you know, think about human self-interest, it's such a strong element, so overriding

of everything else, that even if you're able to successfully found secret society mafia like Hassan-i-Sabah assassins, or a mafia like the KGB, and you're full even of ideologically committed, highly intelligent fanatics, you still have to have a threat over their heads, like you betray us and you and your family get the blade or the bullet. You still have to do that, otherwise something like KGB doesn't really work. So you know, this is what man is like, he is vicious, he is faithless and changeable. Which brings me to the question of those moral thinkers on the right who try to take insights from evolutionary psychology, sorry I'm going on slight tangent again. But they try to take insights from evolutionary psychology or sociobiology about group selection

and such, and then they try to make a human morality or prescriptive moral law out of It doesn't work, okay, you cannot take insights about group selection and the supposed biological basis of altruism, which are observations about how animals act, and I could add only certain animals, not felines for example, about how they act, and then say, well that means that you have a duty as a man to do such and such for the sake of the group survival and the spread, or for the sake of the spread of such and such genes. That doesn't make any sense, no one will be convinced by that. No one will give up their and their own children's advantage for your nation or group or whatever if it has this type of public justification.

And if you cannot compel a man to sacrifice his own self-advantage and even to be willing to give his life or part of his family's life, you don't really have a moral law of any great weight, do you? Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac. Why? Because God told him. And why Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter? And in Roman history, many stronger examples of self-sacrifice and even of sacrifice of one's own sons. And you go around telling people these academic half-science abstractions about group selection and what, how is that supposed to convince anyone to do any of these things? It's not half serious even, and Steve Saylor is the smartest of these guys, but even he doesn't go that far. And I find his explanation of race and nation as extended family, he has this race is kind

of like a very extended family and it's a very interesting idea. But think of that for a moment. How many cousins you might have? I mean, I have some cousins, I don't know some cousins very well, I have not talked to them in years and you've come to know your extended family and often even your immediate family and a lot of assholes. You want nothing to do with them, and you're supposed to sacrifice something for a fifth cousin now just because of shared genes. What is that? And keep in mind, I'm not even recommending here the dissolution of the nation or of the race or any kind of such practical globalism, but I'm just saying that the reasons given by the utilitarian sociobiologist moralists of our time, are not all that convincing.

I go on many tangents, you see, but they are all the same thing. So man is a wicked and selfish animal, and the work of a moral law and of tribal binding isn't easy, it's almost never just a matter of free choice. And I identify as, fuck off with this whole thing, the need to belong to something, it It has the feel, I repeat to you, the feel when you meet these people from community center, Armenian community center in Buenos Aires, you go, there is a street with the Armenian community, it's our community center, Hillel community center, or some other ethnic community center, or Sunday church group, populated by these kinds of people, usually kinds of girls who live in these petit-fogging parochial lives. It has nothing to do with why any of us on the right are in this.

I believe, many friends believe in the self-directed and sovereign individual, totally self-directed. Luck isn't my thing, it's not the answer. But the attack on liberal individualism, specifically as the greatest cause of problems in our time, that attack is suspect, it's suspicious. It's the mark of racially dubious types, I think, racially dubious, I mean that. Non-Anglos, including those who cannot get the Anglo spirit. I am not Anglo, but like Joseph Conrad, I admire Anglo spirit. They cannot imagine a Robinson Crusoe. To be self-directed offends them. To me and many frog friends, the core tenet of any rightism is extreme elitism, and discrimination, and valorization of soul and blood aristocracy.

Very rare man actually who can actually do something without party permission or approval. Faustian man is his own reason. I take much delight in this irresponsible intrepidness. No man is an island, maybe, maybe not. But only some men can tame an island and for this they will never be forgiven by the conjuries of undifferentiated men, or girls usually, you know, this is what, this doesn't always mean all this lame post-liberal talk, it reminds me of this type of girl who go around talking about, you know, and we are social beings, obviously we go in pair or in groups, we pair up and man is a social being and we all need to belong to something, we all need to feel wanted and our thoughts are entirely conditioned by language, with social interactions and so on.

I'm not doing the gay self-satisfied voice that such women faggots use and all, but you know it's this empty sociality for the sake of sociality, which I have repeated is really a devolution of mankind to the dark swamp of pre-Aryan muck existence celebrated by the tranny makers of The Matrix in their unholy Zion, if you remember, I think it's the second Matrix movie, you know, I like Christianity of a kind because Jesus, you know, he stands alone against the mob. That's how I like to see Christ, the man against the world. Do you understand? One of these ditz girls can't get her mind around that. To them, Jesus is an incel, do you understand? And not only because he did not get his own, but because the idea to them that you stand

against the many, against the authorities, against, God forbid, against status, and against status vanity as such, that you're ousted from society and willing to die for your beliefs. To them that's an insult. It's become this shorthand, you know, Robinson Crusoe. Imagine what a Redditor would think of Robinson Crusoe. So excuse, you see, they attack my throat now with rays. But these are heroes of mine, Robinson Crusoe, Heraclitus, men, as I say, who are a world into themselves. And now you can criticize me and those like me who say, you know, you can say this is not a social theory. You can say, well, this is all very nice, but it cannot be the basis of a group or a nation or such thing. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I actually think it can, because if properly spelled out all the consequences of this universe of ideas, if I spelled it out for you, it would lead to other idea of rule of the strongest or ruled by contest, including by dual and physical contest, which is a state of things I'd agree to, and any man who believes these things would also agree to it, even if I knew I wouldn't win that contest, because the logic of the Agon is fair and noble, but leaving aside this extreme elitism and love of Robinson Crusoe and Achilles, okay, you don't have to go that far, but you can certainly recognize that universalism, cosmopolitanism, science, love of natural discovery, these things are not necessarily the same things as leftism, liberalism or so-called individualism.

If by that you mean a situation where you become an atomized placing of the state or its proxies, it doesn't mean egalitarianism indeed or in ideal. You can have a scientific or science-loving imperial state with a universalist morality or belief that is nothing like what we have now and does not have any of the pathologies of the world now. It might have other pathologies, but not these ones. It would look maybe like a modern update of the Roman Empire, or of the Russian Empire if it was not, you know, run by ape-freakants. But it'd be something like the Roman Empire that would fully recognize biological facts, biological differences in hierarchies, both between races and within, that would subsume

economic life to some extent to the power of the state, in particular to the grand projects of the rulers of the state that would reward human excellence and promote order and hierarchy, but not the haphazard hierarchies from cultures, historical cultures based on religions and other such, but on the true letter of values as discovered by science and biology, which is the queen of the sciences. And none of this would imply, for example, economic destitution of a working class or the social atomization or ennui of intellectuals or the breakdown of the family or of manners or of cleanliness in all its aspects. None of it would imply racial or even national balkanization or Babylonian mixing on the other hand. These are all non-sequiturs.

These are pathologies that I believe come from quite different sources. And until such a state can be founded, I hope one day at least some of us in near future with my friends we can found fortresses on edge of world where we will be the armed party of truth, of science and nature. The party of science and nature but now armed. And where we can embark ourselves on great ventures and experiments that these pathetic community-centered nations of broken self-regarding fart-huffers can no longer tolerate. They can suck themselves off while we explore moons of Jupiter and ocean under Antarctic and many such things. This my hope. So this is why I try on this show to tell you I have a great problem not just with identity talk but entire idea of group belonging as that thing that defines a man.

Man defined by empty sociality is subhuman. I believe in a race of armed Heraclitus. Very good. I will be right back. I say shout out to my friends in the club tropical meme laboratories chats You are helping corrupt discourse in the Western world together We will take the world into vortex of hatred and racism But so I saw recently movie as a last duel by Ridley Scott I want to talk it for moment. I see Steve Saylor also did short review of on own site Steve, did you do it because it's Oscar season or because you saw me announce that I would review this movie on the show? Are you listening? Steve, I am coming for you, Steve. You attack Putler? I joke, you know, I love Steve. Steve Saylor is best journalist in America and I'm not using that as a slur in this case.

He's a genuine journalist, the best that can be, not just journalist, but blogger, essayist, Whatever you want to say. I hope everyone supports Steve Saylor because basically half the normie media has been living off his takes and his insights and facts for more than a decade now. Douthat and Iglesias are the better known ones who use... But all these guys just copy many things from him without attributing it, of course. But I think maybe Saylor is wrong about this movie, The Last Duel. It's a movie by Ridley Scott, which I didn't know this, but Ridley Scott began his movie making with The Dualists, which actually is just wonderful movie. You must see if you haven't, it's on level of Barry Lyndon Goode, and it's a movie exciting

confrontation of primal characters, of the madness of the fight and of rivalry. It's a movie on par with, I think, a good novel, and not a drop of sentimentalism or didacticism or anything cheap like this, but this one, the last duel, is also about dueling about two knights in the late 1300s who have to fight a contest to determine the truth, the superior truth to be revealed and who the winner is, the original meaning of trial by battle. And it's about rape accusation. Matt Damon's wife accuses Adam Driver or Diver, I don't know, do women find this guy attractive? diver, I think he was the love interest on the first season of Girls, and I keep seeing claims that he's hot or attracted by zoomer girls, and is this true or is it affectation?

I hope it's affectation, if it's true then the dysgenic desires of current generations have gone farther than I thought because he's exceedingly, Saylor is very polite, he calls him odd looking, but he has the face of a 56 percenter, right? If you don't know what this is, look up the 56% meme. But I think Adam Diver is 100% white, actually, but he's a 56% white, which is some kind of atavistic aboriginal type. But I hope they just claim they like him. But anyway, he plays the Losario Alpha seducer type in this movie. And the other knight's wife, Matt Damon's wife, accuses him of rape. And they have to fight over, this is the plot, but really it's told from three different points of view, the same story is told three times, each with their own telling of the

truth, which would have been a good idea if it wasn't, as Saylor points out, and just it is reduced to an empty conceit in this movie because in the last telling of the story, which is the woman's telling, the fade out when it says the story according to, excuse me, the truth according to, it has the, it fades out to simply the truth in the woman's telling because, you know, when a god speaks, meaning a woman, you cannot question it. So this is a whole different story from his first movie, The Duelist. The last duel is a bad movie and just crazy. I think actually it's one of the most insane things I've ever seen. Saylor again is much too polite. He point out, I didn't know this, but the writer of the screenplay is a feminist Jewish

lesbian or it doesn't matter if she's actually a rug muncher, but she is that spiritually, okay? Why Ridley Scott wouldn't just write his own movie and he's just phoning it in, outsourcing the writing to this woman. Also an old forum lore is that the New Testament was written by a Jewish woman as an attack on Rome. I'm not saying I endorse that idea, but this is something that white nationalist Nazis, whatever you want to call them, they used to spread this on forums. It's a very interesting idea. One of them had a developed theory about why this was the case. But anyway, why he outsources the writing to this woman, a lot of established older men do this in a variety of fields, I've seen this. Maybe they think it's gentlemanly to pass the baton to some cunt like this, but I think

it's also kind of simping, they get off on it, they become sexually senile. In this case, however, I think it's different. I think maybe Ridley Scott was possibly coerced into this, because this is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. It's basically, I think it must have cost a hundred million dollars, I think, to make this movie. And it's basically a $100 million expensive Reddit post. And I say that without any exaggeration. It's a Reddit post as a movie. Saylor calls the script lowbrow and moralistic, but he's much too of a gentleman and polite. It's one of the most misandrist, men-hating movies I've ever seen, maybe the most. There is literally not a scene in it whose ham-handed point, ham-handed, is not to drive

home that men are disgusting, violent, stupid, creepy bastards who they trade innocent, sensitive and intelligent women like cattle. It's as if you spent this amazing amount of money and effort to make the minor quibbling point of some graduate student in women's studies. I mean, that's what got to me, the insanity of the contrast between the immense effort this movie took to make and the pettiness of the political moral point it tries to beat into you in every scene. The effort was immense. The cost, of course, of the actors, but I can't imagine how much time it took Ridley Scott to build some of these historical sets. The village in front of the castle, the castles, some of the camp settings in nature, the battle scenes I imagine some of these sets took weeks to build.

And that's the other thing, besides the pettiness of the political point, let's leave that off for a second, some of these sets, this is another way in which the movie is just such an insane waste, some of these sets are shown at a glance, really, for maybe two or three seconds. Sets that took weeks or months to build are shown for three, four seconds at most. So I couldn't understand the insanity of that because in other movies that I was going to review for you on this show, okay I will do it next show because it's a long show already, but you take two movies that I was going to discuss that are also about rape accusations or actually rape and kidnapping in some sense, but I will talk next show about Passage to

India by David Lean and Woman in the Dunes, a strange Japanese art movie from the 1960s I think, and those older movies, there's just beautiful cinematography, but it lingers on every scene and it has the characters do various things within each set. So it's not a waste for the director and it's a pleasure for the audience to sit and to delight in that. The same way if you saw Barry Lyndon, you may remember how many of the scenes are set and arranged and filmed as if they were a painting from that time, and again the camera lingers on them. The duelists had something similar in it, but in this one, the last duel, is just some of these, again, just quick glance, which is why my friend Loki say, it may be this

movie is maybe a Hollywood black cube humiliation ritual that Ridley Scott had to go through this or something. I think he was coerced into it. I cannot understand it. It's so insane. And then there's a third way in which the movie is a waste, the color scheme. So if I can make an analogy, imagine if you are a great cook and you were to take great efforts expensive to build an elaborate historical period meal, let's say, from court of Queen Elizabeth or historical Ottoman imperial cuisine meal with 50 courses and so on. And then right before presenting it to guests, you douse everything in the same sauce, the dessert, everything. You put, I don't know, raspberry gastrique or whatever on it. Just douse everything. You douse gravy on everything.

And even if it's great gravy, you know, you're mentally ill, right, if you do that. So that's what's done with this movie. It has this same very fashionable now green-blue-gray coloring. It's the, I guess it's the IKEA, whatever, is a standard for, oh, this is an art movie. I suppose they think it looks sleek and elegant and dark and existential and whatever, and it's not that it's a bad look necessarily. It's especially appropriate in some of the night forest scenes in this movie. And in Dune, the recent Dune used the same color scheme. I think that's a mistake also. But it would make sense for Dune, for example, in the home planet Caladan, Atreides' home planet, which is a watery planet. But then Sallusa Secundus and then even the red desert planet Rachis, they're shot in the same way.

So why do these? By the way, Dune is a good movie, I enjoy. But Menaquin On 4 rightly say to me, it's not that it's such a great movie, it only seems good to us because Hollywood makes such moralistic, tedious crap now, and this is only good by comparison, Dune. But it's an okay movie, I enjoyed it. I would have made it an hour longer, you know. Again, the pleasure of showing an alien world for the viewer, just let him linger on it more. Show Paul Atreides hiking on Caledon or something like this. Show with calmness the plants and an alien water world, which is like Iceland or Scotland. But no, even this movie, Dune, it feel rushed at almost three hours. And Sallusa Secundus, an amazing planet, is shown for under five minutes again with beautiful sets that are shown for a glance, and why?

And all the same color scheme, blue, gray, green. But the last duel is this color throughout with no change. And I suppose they're trying to make the point, again, otherwise the same point that's pressed ideologically in the script, but here they're trying to press the point visually, that this is a depressing, backward, bleak place that, you know, before the wonders of gender reassignment surgery and widespread ready available fentanyl and locust diets or whatever, before the wonders of that, the world was depressing and so it has to be shown in this color scheme. Every scene, although the movie happens over a span of decades, they showed large sections of these men's lives, but almost every scene is in barren winter or autumn I think.

Or it feels that way, cold, bleak and brutish, when in fact medieval Europe was much more colorful and any bare reading of history shows this. it was a far more sensual and even sexual time, a more carnal time than a modern individual encounters today. But at least you can say, well, can you at least say that they had summer too? They had summer a new invention? They had summer too, Mr. Scott, Sir Scott, they had summer too in medieval France, you know. You can show summer colors and the sun and the red and such of flowers and many other summer festival things. They had cheerful festivals with colors and the summer sun on the river and they had summer in medieval France too, Mr. Scott, you know, not just in Los Angeles.

The summer was not just invented just in Los Angeles, Sir Scott, where you and Sir Weinstein and Lady Holofzener who wrote your script and where the three of you meet to finger a 14-year-old Ukrainian girl in Hollywood Hills. That's not the only place that summer exists, Sir Scott. That's not where it was invented. You can feel free to show medieval Europe as something other than a dark and benighted hell where we didn't have the wisdom of people like Anthony Ferchi and Elena Kagan to guide people's lives to freedom and fun in the sun, Sir Scott, with your mask on. But yes, the most relentless waste in the movie is not just these visual mistakes but it's on the ideological program which is very, again, ham-handed where the woman is shown

as this innocent, sharp-witted, sensitive, elegant creature, this flower that is roughly traded between two evil incel men who are shown as typical men of their time. So on one hand, there is Matt Damon as the stupid, strong, brutish knight, and he's shown as what a woman understands as an incel. He's perpetually snubbed and frustrated and marginalized at court and in society, constantly failing. And I don't know the original story of this night's life, by the way. And unlike other so-called podcasters, I will not recite for you Wikipedia. I think that's a betrayal of my audience. I do not do that. If I read about him, I will read primary source, not Wikipedia. I don't know about his life, but I doubt what they show in this movie was true about him. But whatever.

this way, even though the facts of his life actually shine through all that laid thick on interpretation. And you see, in fact, he was probably a virtuous and uncompromising warrior. As a friend put it, I think Kashi, Kashiwagi said this, maybe this character Matt Damon plays is even of a pre-medieval type, just a Conan type who's ready to fight at any moment, who will never back down or compromise on any principle and who objects and refuses to take part in the decline of morals in his society and among the aristocracy. But again, to a woman that's an incel because he's out of favor with high society, you see, so if you lose favor at court while being manlier and fighting them and not being as dissolute as a drunken court, you're an incel.

And now there's a reason I focus on this incel thing because the Adam Driver character, his knight is also shown as an incel. And this may not seem obvious at first because he is superficially shown as somebody with many girls and many women and many orgies even and popular at court. And some women say he's handsome in the movie. And in his telling of the story, there is a flirtation between him and the woman protagonist who he rapes, a kind of courtship even. But when this gets retold from the woman's point of view, which is presented again as the truth unambiguously, it is shown that Driver's character imagined that flirtation where he was a charming alpha, he imagined the courtship. So it's shown that he was not an alpha seducer or lothario, but a lech, a lecher, a man-whore,

or other words that such girls use to carouse to prostitutes or other oppressed women and servant girls, and that this oppression of servant girls went to his head and made him imagine himself a great seducer. And of course, the running premise of the movie is that there is no such thing as seduction coming from a man. It's all coercion, that men are invariably gross, that they're brutish, evil, disgusting creatures and that the movie as a feminist movie is written in awareness of the post-manosphere, post-hartist time. And so it tries to challenge the idea of the alpha who is good with women and actually to deny that this exists because, you know, of course women obviously they do not love to be seduced, you know, they either do the seducing, in which case of course they're

dissatisfied also because they view the man as lower but forgets that, that's beyond the awareness of this writer, but they either do the seducing or it is rape. And in fact, the movie, the underlying premise of the movie is that women hate disgusting men, which means all men, you see. The attraction between men and women is problematic, and men attempting to make a move is creepy. And it's not just creepy, it's delusional, how dare a man think to have this presumption to talk to a god. The words of consent open the world, right? So this is a message of movie and of many other movies. I was watching just now Cobra Kai this season. And there is just, it's this attitude ubiquitous, there is a similar scene in Cobra Kai later

season in which the blonde guy coach, what is it, Joseph Lawrence, the blonde guy coach character, he's trying to recruit high school girls for his dojo. And again, this act of trying to recruit girls and having the presumption to talk uninvited to them is seen as supremely creepy and problematic because of course, women just naturally hate and hate men. And they hate men's disgusting delusions. And you should never approach a girl and the human race should die out. Are you people insane? And I'm asking those of you on the right who have embraced much of this view with some traditional bells and whistles and trappings again, but you push the same crap. For example, I remember this episode not long ago, a viral tweet, many tens of thousands of retweets I think, many of you promoted it.

Not my friends, but the, you know, the trad e-girls and many such. There's a violent tweet a girl posted about she was rejecting a man who was making advances on her in a cafeteria or something like this, and it was getting sold as young girl rejects older pickup creep who just will not leave her alone. And of course, lost in that story is that she was 18, and I think the guy was 19 or 20 or something. What she did was actually incredibly cruel and gratuitous. And when I pointed out, you know, these people I talked about on this show earlier, the post-liberal community and family, the third world is socialist, they jump at my throat for pedophilia. You know, this is a kind, everything I've been saying, I was a kind of feminist conceit

that if you allow it to spread in this world now, where we live now, when there are no traditional ways for men and women to meet in terms of arranged marriages and such. And where courtship does depend on men having the confidence to make first move and to introduce himself. And you morons are trying to pathologize that. Would you like to see the extinction of the human race or of certain nations? And that's the running theme, actually, of this movie. In many ways, the portrait of the Adam Driver character is more Miss Andress, more men-hating than the portrait of Matt Damon, because it tries to show that the Alpha 2 is not an Alpha, there's no such thing as the Alpha. You see, he's also an incel, he just doesn't know it. He's a delusion.

And the woman, and this is really the most bizarre part of the movie, the woman is entirely a modern woman. She has nothing to do with her own time. She's totally removed from her time in the movie. It's as if the movie is shot as if they had transported a smirking, hyper-aware female grad student to 1300s France, and she's there not understanding why she's there, and making entirely modern Reddit facial gestures, mugging face for the camera for the audience to show the audience that she's puzzled about everything happening around her, about being treated this way. She doesn't understand why. It's not normal. And to make a common cause with the audience that, look at this, this is the attitude of of the movie, look at this, isn't this just absurd

and irrational and ridiculous and barbaric? And aren't these men just so gross? I've never seen a movie just made in contempt of its subject matter, of its time, of its characters, as much as this one, combined with, again, the amazing effort that went into the money spent on actors, the sets, and so forth. It makes no sense to me. It must be a humiliation ritual, you know? I mean, the whole point is, don't you want to, wouldn't you be happier living in quarantine with a lesbian Nicole Holofcener? And I don't care if the scriptwriter is actually a lesbian or not. One way or another, this cunt is married to a woman. But that's the message especially to the girls watching the show. Wouldn't you be happy living with Nicole in the Upper West Side? And yes, the woman is, in the movie,

all she does is make Reddit skulls to show unity with the audience that is invited to look aghast at just these stupid and backward men, and how dare they believe that truth is settled by a contest of physical fight. After all, we know now that truth is decided by Dr. Fauci, who is the science. He said he's the science, and by a council known as the Epistemic Authority. It's not true until Twitter's safety council determines that it's true. And those who practice the true science, the secret true science against the evil, fake science of the establishment, whatever that may be, it's a long-running theme of shows. It was the underlying theme of the Chernobyl show and of this other show they had recently about a comet or climate change, whatever it was.

It's this theme that there's a secret science, we have to make it the epistemic authority. How dare these stupid men in armor not know this, and of course forget that the men shown in the movie end up colonizing half the world 100 years later and that it takes now 20 years to build a subway bathroom. Forget this. We know, however, we're very much superior to these ugly, stupid, barbaric white men that they just love to rape women, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, you know, medieval France was just a rape fest in this movie, more rape than chimpanzee bonobo colony. One of the most absurd part of this absurd movie is when the mother-in-law who hates the main woman character and approaches her to tell her to keep quiet and to suck it up

because she too was raped in her youth and you just have to learn to look the other way. You know, the Me Too movie, okay, I get it, but why would Ridley Scott lend his name and And just tremendous effort that took years and weeks and months of set constructions and costume and so on. Just to make this rehashed point, you'd hear from Gender Studies TA and I watch Rome recently, the HBO series Rome, and I love Milius, but whoever they had write certain episodes of that, it let creep in similar type of academic pedantry. There's a line in it, Octavian, have you penetrated someone today? And this kind of, you know, you can imagine a gay grad student who studied Foucault putting that in the script. You know, ancient Romans didn't talk that way.

They may have had a low-key bisexual attitude that is misunderstood by modern audiences, but they didn't talk that way in a penetrationist, masculinist regime. Put that in the script. So I don't know. It's excusable because Rome was still an okay series despite its own sometimes ham-handed political points about, you know, it was trying to support English Labour Party against the Tory toffs, you know. But it's not, it's still an okay series, it's not as bad as Les Duell anyway, it's a hundred million dollar Reddit post, like I say. Is it possible to make historical movie because you love a historical period, not because you hate it? Is it possible to do this without trying to emphasize some kind of contemporary political or social pedantry? I don't know.

I have idea myself for making such animated movie about the steps, anime miniseries, four seasons or more about the history of the Turkic Ashina wolf clan, lords of the step. Maybe one day I will be able to make it. But more on that and more on rape on next show because I will talk more rape movies and such. Rape or so. Until next time. Bat out!