One day you will realize Baidan, Bongo, but really all of them, the European Union, the government of the United States, also Russia, of Africa's so-called countries. One day you will realize they're all lying. They're lying about being rulers and legitimate governments, and their lies will become manifest. By the grace of Aldebaran, I have been chosen king over all these lands and all the nations. Welcome to episode 111, by the grace of Aldebaran, number 111. You know, why they chose to do 9-11 on that date, because they were trying to draw attention to the center, the number 10. This is the truth. They were playing a little joke, 11 is holy number, 9 holy number, they were trying to draw attention to the evil unholy number 10.

And this most important Afro beats and the reggae calypso music show Possibly the last 50 years Welcome Caribbean reason welcome to the show. What can I say they try to? Attack my health again. Do you want to hear I had to take? Fistful of supplements to get over of whatever it was and by the way, I do a public service announcement now because maybe Some misunderstanding can lead to ill health effects in a previous show I said that BMI, this body mass index of 20.5 or around this, that it can be guessed, it can be deduced from photographs of soldiers in civil war or conscripts in World War II on average, for example. But some took this to mean that this might be healthy or that I was recommending you get to a 20.5 BMI. And I think this is probably difficult and unnecessary to be…

I speak to Menaquin on 4, who is expert on such thing, and he believes around BMI 22 is appropriate, not 20.5. Now 22 is still low for today's standards. So for example, a six-foot man at a BMI of 22 means around 162 pounds. And that seems low maybe, but it's probably right. In other words, if you're over, let's say, 6 foot 2, 162 pounds, over BMI 22, it should be muscle. If you're over BMI 22, but in fat, I suppose what I'm trying to counter is the propaganda. The feeder culture propaganda is constant bullied into everyone's mind, it's Zog America, where at work fat women bring donuts, leave them on table, you need to get some meat on you. You need to snack and all this kind of thing. You're constantly told this.

You are too skinny. A real man has some meat on him. Well, yes, if it is muscle, but if you, as you can search for yourself, fat deposits beyond, let us say 10 to 12% or 13% and that might be at the high end, but more than 10, 11% body fat and you can look this for yourself is not good for health. It starts to already give you slight metabolic syndrome, metabolic ill effects. Fat has no value whatsoever beyond that amount. So when you tell people that, for example, you can keep to 1200 calories a day when you are cutting or trying to lose fat and that is unpleasant. It's not a good feeling to be 1200 calorie day, but for a cutting diet it can be done and you will not lose any muscle really or you will not get sick on that if you do it right.

But then they say that for an old woman or you cannot possibly live on that or you have to be a real man you must eat. And I think people who say this have unfortunately internalized some propaganda. If you rely on people like Guenet, you spell G-U-Y-E-N-E-T, he's a good writer on nutrition, you can look up writer Guenet, who wrote books Hungry Brain. But you can learn from that is the propaganda we're trying to counter, the feeder culture propaganda, because it's constant normalized in American culture, and now it has spread to world culture, where I think maybe Mexico is number one obese country in the world, I'm not sure. But this constant, you have to eat, you have to feed. And I even heard of men who got girlfriend and the girlfriend decided, we need to get fat together.

And that's an extreme case, you may think, but in fact, the New World Order is that girlfriend and if you lift weights or are a bodybuilder, this message will be pressed to you in a different way, also non-stop. They will tell you, you must eat, do not cut too much or you will lose muscle. Constant hears this. I was telling people that I skip dinner, just I have one drink with maybe one slice of cheese or two olives and they say, oh no, you will lose muscle. I've seen people actually spiral into overweight and even obesity unwittingly And slowly because this mindset, no, you cannot cut that much, you will lose muscle and that fear or you will get sick or something like this. So you have to be ever vigilant now on the other end and you must ignore, if you're a

girl I say now because most men do not get so called warned about anorexia or bulimia, but many girls get warned about this. And you must ignore those warnings. Nobody is saying to be an abused girl and to get bulimia. But you know, I'm telling you, yes, even if you're not a girl, you must be like neurotic girl who want to be model and very much cut diet. You will be able to tell if you get too skinny. But most people probably should skip dinner and have instead a martini and olive in this. And even so, I just wanted to give you this public announcement that the 20.5 BMI I mentioned is a historical observation that can be deduced from photographs of old-time American men, which should, however, tell you a lot. But the 22 BMI is appropriate, again, unless you exceed that in muscle.

And the other clarification I wanted to give is regarding the supplement Chaga, which I've recommended a number of times. It's a black mushroom that grow on birch in cold climates, and I believe in it. It is a strong adaptogen. It gives energy, almost like coffee. I like to mix it in coffee. I often have it when I do these shows for you. I think it's one of the best supplements I've tried, but I must warn you that using too much can damage your kidneys. You can look up oxalate content in chaga, and it has damaged people's kidneys. I say this only because some of you I've seen after I've recommended. Some people say that they take too much of it, they drink a liter of it per day or something like this and you will need to steal a kidney from Bangladesh if you continue that way.

Please be careful. And now with the sanctions on Russia, I'm not even sure where you can get Chaga anymore because the best Chaga is said to be from Siberia. The company Sayan has some lift over, and I'm telling you this because I've already gotten some of their remaining stock. And I hear there are some American companies who source it in Alaska, I suppose it can be grown in Canada. But I lost track of these, it has to be grown on birch. If you've ever seen white birch forest, they're very beautiful, that's where this grows. And it isn't just the cold that leads to this chaga mushroom having these adaptogenic properties. It needs to be exposed to extreme stress, extreme shifts in weather, such as you find Siberia from very hot in summer, extreme cold in winter.

And this, it's an amazing thing, the plants and the fungi, chaga and eleuthero and rhodiola are all cold-weather plants, or fungi, whatever, and the more they are subjected to stress, the more compounds they release that actually also help you with stress when you eat them. And Eleuthero, even on a cellular level, apparently help with cellular stress. So anyway, enough health talk. Health is a matter of birth and of will, if you're lucky. Look at Trump. He can eat Big Mac. But then someone like Nietzsche, who is sickly his whole life, as are many great men, Scriabin, my favorite composer, also very sick his whole life, and many others, and for them it is a struggle to reclaim health, but you should never believe fools who say Nietzsche did not live his thought.

He had a very bad hand dealt to him, in actually same way Caesar, who was epileptic, and both Those men overcame illness through diet and rigorous exercise, hiking sometime 12 hours a day at the height of his life. He also lifted weights and a doctor at the end of his life said he actually was in extreme good health physically. His brain was gone. By the way, not from syphilis as people lie, but he had a nervous system and brain degenerative disorders saying that his father died from. But physically he was sent by his doctor to be a muscular, strong mountain man. He lived a life of freedom. A lot of complaints about him are from a kind of vulgar, lobster, risotto type crowd who think he cared, for example, that he lived in a very small room when he traveled to Switzerland

or things like this. But if you love discovery of mind and history, he led almost ideal life. He spent summers in Switzerland and winters in Italy. And yes, he lived very modest, but it didn't matter to him. So anyway, speaking of this, two episodes ago, on show 109, I was talking about ancient Greek mystery religions. And there were several I discussed. I didn't get into Orphic rites, but I think I discussed the Samostreis, the Kaberi, and the Eleusinian mysteries. And these are at least as important as the Olympian rites, which most people know of that when they think of ancient Greek mythology, they know Zeus and Apollo and so forth. But these, as I tell you, often had a main tutelary function, utilitarian political part,

where they were the source of laws for the city of protection to this or that city. Whereas it is said by some that the Eleusinian mystery rights, for example, these were the ones located slight outside Athens, that they were the precursor to Christianity in some way because they were not concerned so much with law or custom or political role in city, but with man's soul, the salvation of his soul or the promise of eternal life or some such. Anyway, this is said about them, as about some of the other mystery rites I discussed, the Orphic rites and so forth. But I tell you my own position on episode 109 and what these were, some of them at least in their beginnings before the ossification of tradition and priesthood.

And this is a very peculiar thing that happens in Athens at the end of 400 BC. Now, I mean to tell you I disagree with that interpretation that they were a precursor of Christianity, but I do think they were a celebration of eternal life in its own way, in a chronic Greek way. I don't want to discuss, I refer you to that show. But something very peculiar happened in Athens at the end of 400 BC. There is a tyranny there, a junta in Athens, the so-called Thirty Tyrant, it is called, at the end of the Peloponnesian War. When Athens loses and this government, a pro-aristocratic, anti-democratic, oligarchic regime is backed by Sparta, it gets installed in Athens and one of its founders and leaders is a man called Kritias.

Kritias does many things which I will talk about brief on episode many bad things so bad that he basically become the Greek Hitler and for the next 70 years or more basically this example of this man Kritias is example of evil violence and depravity of his time much like the satanic Hitler is for our time and Kritias thought and his ideas. He was not especially original thinker So I mean to say the world of ideas out of which he came it becomes the unmentionable is very interesting Forgotten time in history and I will talk on show but one of the so-called Terrible thing Kritias did he went to this place Eleusis where these mysteries I discussed were held And now you must remember that for the Greeks these rights were so sacred much like passion of Christ and stations of the cross and

and the celebration of the resurrection and Easter for Christians now, which is why, when some years earlier, Alcibiades, who I extoll in my book, but remember Alcibiades, one of the reasons he got exiled from Athens, and he was denied leadership of the expedition against Syracuse in Sicily and many such things, is because he profaned. He was accused of profaning the Eleusinian mysteries with his friends, of having a dinner where basically, you know, they did a parody of the Eleusinian mysteries in his house. So again, imagine if politician now was found doing a parody of The Passion or doing a black mass on Easter at his house. Even as crazy as things are right now, I think they would lose election, they would be publicly disgraced.

I mean, Biden and Pelosi have to pretend to be good Catholics. Remember, it's not exactly what some on the social conservative right say, that religion is completely attacked. In fact, in many ways, the opposite, the left today try to take upon itself the mantle of piety and religion ever more so. I believe one of the greatest dangers for future humanity is so-called Christian Marxism, but I talk this some other time. So Alcibiades, and I'll talk maybe this on a show, but he's accused of profaning the most sacred Eleusinian rites. And for this another thing, such as the desecration of the Herms, which are another cultic religious object, for all of these enforces, I don't remember did I talk, you know, as I know what

I talked about on last show, I mean on show 109, in the most general sense that I talked to you about the Greek mysteries, but I actually forget, after every show I forget what I said. My mind is wiped clean unless I go back and look at the note or this. So I don't remember if I told you about the Herms, which were basically statues with a gigantic protruding phallus, which Foucauldian, these are academic classicists in their vulgar stupidity, interpret these as billy clubs, phallic symbols to beat women on the head. Oh, it's a symbol of patriarchy. Camille Paglia's right to make fun of this, they actually were not that at all. They were, for example, used as boundary markers in ancient prehistory, and they had a different cultic meaning.

They were not some kind of ideological, hand-handed support for patriarchy. But in any case, they were seen as very holy symbols. And besides profaning the Eleusinian Rites, Alcibiades and his homies were accused of the desecration of the Herms, these holy phallic objects. And for all this and for suspicion that he is therefore about to overthrow the democratic government, Alcibiades is accused and basically he's exiled or actually eventually sentenced to death in absentia and of course he was not going to take the risk right of the standing trial in in Athens so and who of all people who by the way later resigns this accusation and charge against Alcibiades because he was later absolved of this but why was he absolved it is this same Kritias I'm talking about right now who was a

relative of Plato's Kritias uncle of Plato and in other work he was from one of leading families of Athens but so I tell you this Kritias he later become leader of the Thirty Tyrants so this thing with Alcibiades happened before expedition to Syracuse and then the Thirty Tyrants happened at end of Peloponnesian War, you can think 404 BC or so. And among the many naughty things that Critias did during the brief rule of the 30 tyrants that he led, he went to this very holy place, Eleusis, and he massacred, just massacred all the priests and everything. Didn't just profane the rites as Alcibiades was accused of doing, he massacred. And this might be unusual thing for modern to think about because Because for our time, this ire against religion is associated with the left.

But here you have a man who is anti-democratic and holding extreme, you can say, radical right oligarchic ideology of natural human hierarchy. And in any case, for his time, he's associated with the aristocratic reactionary faction and with Sparta specifically, like all the reactionaries were. And he just wastes all the priests and everything. So why would he do this? So I wanted to talk this on this episode, it's just a beloved topic to me, maybe you find interesting as well. And I think it reveals much, it's not just a historical topic, although that's interesting too on its own, but I think it reveals much about political permanent realities, and so even for our own time, although the application to our time is not straightforward.

Because these categories, left-wing, right-wing, are just tribal signifier now, mean almost nothing. And so how do I convince you mamzers among you who listen to Alex Jones and also these dirtbag left podcasters and other so-called people who say that the neoliberal elite are the real Nietzschean eugenicists and so forth? How do I convince people who cannot convince of somebody who's not socially conservative, anything other than left-wing. Well, it is tedious to argue against the wrong thought like this, but if I feel like I may talk a bit later on show maybe about this confusion over time. I must take a quick smoke or a break and Brennan is in studio today. He is doing my nails. He's doing my toenails. I will be right back. Yes, welcome back to Show Caribbean Rhythms, episode 111.

As for Critias and his destruction of religion, Critias, the leader of the Junta, 30-tyred Junta at the end of Peloponnesian War in Athens, around 404 BC. It didn't rule long, it ruled less than a year, but caused enormous damage. I will tell you one quick explanation for why he destroyed religion, which I think is half true. It's not my explanation, it's Don Kagan's explanation. That's right, please kill SPLC goons, they can come up with theories about this, theories about me. But I knew him, and one of his students, Peter Krentz, wrote I think one of the only historical books dealing with this important but not much known episode of the Thirty Tyrant, End of Athens really, it is End of Athens Golden Age.

So to a special interest of his, Don Kagan, by the way, is completely unlike his family, who for unfortunate reasons they all got into the commentary business, it's like a family business for them now, and his daughter-in-law, Victoria Newland, who is an utter ghoul, a ghoul on the make. But you know all of them are insane. Fred Kagan, you know he is insane. He is a very fat, insane, warmonger man. But you should not blame the father for the sons, or the rest of the family. I think it's Fred Kagan and Robert Kagan, they are Iraq warmonger, Libya warmonger. Every war they love. But I never knew them, and you should not blame Don Kagan for them. I've seen them on YouTube and so on, and in manner, at least, how he acted, Don Kagan was very different.

He had very Bronx, working-class manner, and he had been, I think, a football player and so on. He was very no-nonsense. And anyway, we became somewhat friends. He didn't know me too well. I kept my views from him. But I can say this now because he died. I didn't keep all my views from him. But I can say because he died and if he was still living, I don't want to smear really anyone by association while they still live. But he liked some of the things I say about Alcibiades and other such, even though I suspect he thought I was a psycho and he did not like my interest in the Indo-Europeans and in prehistory and so forth. But he was a real historian and a scholar, not a political hack. So actually, talk of contemporary politics or any such thing, which in general I try

to avoid with Normies, but he never brought it up with me. And if you're interested in good lecture, historical lecture, you can find his lectures on ancient Greek politics and history online. And I was speaking to frogs, you all know, to a small black cat, Sharnaya Koshka, but others also. frogs you all know, I was, you know, about him and they were not even really aware of his political views or his family associations, they didn't know it's the same Kagan as the Fred Kagan and so forth because Don Kagan doesn't really mix those views with his teaching of history. It would be a failure on his part insofar as he did that. And I think Steve Saylor, he say that Don Kagan history of Peloponnesian War, he has

a political agenda, because it takes this war that Thucydides supposedly presents as a morality tale of imperial overreach, because Pericles, the leader of Athens, he gives famous funeral oration praising Athens' democracy and praising the empire, and soon after he does this, very bad things start to happen. The plague happened in Athens, and then Athens attacks this other democracy, Syracuse, and It loses catastrophically. And the traditional interpretation is that this is Thucydides' understated hint of overreach, that Athens became hubristic in its imperialism, the commentary on the craziness of empire. Whereas in his book on Peloponnesian War, Don Cagan makes the case that Athens could have won the war in Sicily, in Syracuse.

But I think that's implicit in Thucydides also, because they got rid of Alcibiades, who came up with a good plan, and they replaced Alcibiades with the cautious General Nicias, who messes everything up with his hesitation and so forth. But the other point is that Kagan is making this case with Iraq in mind. And you know, I think that could be true, but even if it is, it's a rather side point and his lectures and books and so forth, but especially his lectures, if you listen, they don't beat you overhead with political point. And again, unlike his crazy progeny and that family and so forth, Fred Kagan, actually in his youth, he did some good and objective historical work on Russia in his youth before he turned into foaming-at-mouth war propagandist. I'm not... I haven't read that,

but actually paleo-con type people told me that he did that. So I blame what happened to that family on the ghoul woman, you know, Victoria Nuland. You know who she reminds me of? If you watch, The Shield. And there's this woman who starts to ruin everything. It's Shane's girlfriend. Shane is Vic Mackey, the main character in the series The Shield. And Shane, his partner's girlfriend, I think her name in the show is Mara, she appears I think in Season 3, It's one of the great example of destructive Lady Macbeth Harpy, that type in modern entertainment, one of great example. From one of the most entertaining and smartly written show maybe ever. I think Shield is my favorite show. I'm watching it again now.

It's the true story of what America was becoming, had become already in the early 2000s. It could never be made today. It's funny, there are some episodes where they are hunting, for example, killer in Koreatown, And the Koreatown community leader, who for whatever reason, he's at the police station and he gets special consideration, supposedly to find this killer, but he's secretly passing information to the killer. And at one point he says something like, you know, the Koreatown gangs, they have their role. They keep out the blacks and Latinos. Can your department do that? Can you think of show that does that to you? But it's true actually. So you mean street gangs actually have a purpose, and when they disappear, you lose your neighborhood? Really? I didn't know.

So you mean it's not enough to just buy a gun if you're isolated and... But look, that's for another show. So anyway, Don Kagan mentioned this episode of just the massacre at Ellucis, and he talked to me about it, and his take on it was, I think, half right, but he said something like, this was a right-wing revolution. That part's true. And people often think of Jacobin French Revolution or of 1917 Russia, and they think only the left can be radical revolutionaries like that. But Hitler also was probably a right-wing revolution, Mussolini as well. And this critias was something like that. And just like the relations in Germany in 1920s and even 30s, the relations between the Nazis and the old-line German aristocrats were not so good.

So, you know, the German Junkers and the other aristocratic classes, they call the Nazis street-archings, and they had tremendous contempt for them. But Don Kagan's point was that he sensed in a critical massacre of this most venerated right at Eleusis, of the priests and the attendants there, that he sensed that same, you know, the ire of the lower-class Nazi for the stodgy traditions of the old-style reactionary aristocrats. That same tension that exists in Nazi Germany between two versions of the right. And I think maybe his judgment in this is slight clouded by some bias, however. At least, sociologically, I think this cannot be the right explanation for what happened in Athens, because Critias himself was from one of the most blue-blood families of ancient

Athens, think equivalent of Roosevelt and such. So there is no question I think of class resentment or tension in his actions, but where Don Kagan was right in saying this is yes, there was an anti-theological and anti-priestly anti-religious faction within Nazism that is undeniable, and it existed not just for class reasons but for ideological, objective idea reasons, rather that. So Critias also had anti-traditional, anti-religious motivations similar maybe to some of the Nazis, but again not for class reasons, but I'll tell you why maybe on the next or future segment. And this is not the only blasphemous thing that Critias did, by the way. At one point, the leader of not the democratic faction, but the moderate oligarchic faction,

Theramenes, who was an important figure in Athenian history himself, especially toward the end of Peloponnesian War. This same period I'm talking, the revolutions of 411 BC and 404 BC, the 404 BC is when actually everything ends and 30 tyrants come in and the walls of Athens get taken down and everything blows up. And Theramenes during this time is the leader of the moderate oligarchic faction and Critias is the leader of the extremist or radical oligarchic faction. And they end up fighting and Theramenes pleads sanctuary at the religious altar and you're supposed to honor this and not kill people who asked for sanctuary at an altar but Critias simply had him removed from altar and executed, paying no respect to the gods.

And I think all this was deliberate and you can very well understand it in the scheme of relation to some of the Nazi faction, where on one hand in Germany you had traditional old school Christian aristocratic reactionaries, traditionalists on one hand, on the other then you had the progressive so-called, but really the revolutionary or radical right, which was not traditionalist, not religious, and had, you know, class you can claim all you want, but it had genuine, actually, objections to religion, based in their understanding of life of men, and of nature, and of history. They didn't like Christianity for the same reasons Machiavelli hints, they thought it made men weak, and so forth, and I don't want to get into this now, but I will talk briefly

on this episode about this, about what this man, Critias, believed. Why he did some of these things. But it reminds me now of how this girl who attacked me, she stopped recently, but Tara Isabella Burton was one of these Christian traditionalist type journalists who used to focus on me. She has thankfully stopped and thank you for ignoring me Tara, I mean it if you're listening. Do not write about me anymore, I don't need the publicity. But she used to write, I don't know, she wrote several articles attacking me, and even tried to embarrass me with an interview around the coming of my book. But this backfired on them, you know, I don't know who assigned it to her, people thought they had an in, you know, the far right beat, we're going to take them down, but they didn't

expect me, you know, and it only gave publicity to my book and to my account, I'm sorry Tara, But because these threads, like she's the best example of this, there are people who say they see the destitution of modern life, they supposedly see that, but they believe that any naughty political action is inappropriate, or even naughty speech, no, no, no, the solution has to be some kind of personal religious recommitment, but as they are afraid of anything but the most cosmetic political and social changes, their so-called spiritual reawakening All it lead to is, as I say, put bell and whistle, religious accoutrement on this iron cage that keeps modern men into a beaten down and domesticated animal. And I didn't know that religion was supposed to be some ornament to man's domestication,

but that's what it is for them. I didn't know it was supposed to be something to reconcile man to his brokenness by a smothering and suffocating gynocracy. There is religion and religion and people like Tara and not just her but many others You should read this if you want to know who these people are. It's not just her. She's Minor player in this but there's very mule or that faker and many others and you should read article by second city bureaucrat theories of delayed Informatization if you search that you should be able to find it and it's really the best article ever written about the internet, and freedom of thought, and the awakening in true and forbidden thought on the internet that I'm proud to have been a part of.

Because trans, and these online Christian conservatives, they want nothing more than to censor so-called Nietzscheans and Nietzschean pagans, and of all things, if you can believe, this is their concern, their focus. Me and three or four other guys who make flawed memes, to censor and hick their people like Not a word do they ever say about how their religion is made a mockery of in this farce of holocaustianity. Nothing like that. No, no, no. The real danger is instead me and a couple of friends posting something about ancient Greece or talking about Nietzsche and Spengler and Mishima and Ingres and Selene and so on. That's the danger to them. Their regime leaks pittles. But anyway, it was funny. So she interviewed me and I confuse her by talking about the Ashkenazi and...

No, it's not all Jews, it's the Ashkenazi, just ask Ariel Tawaf, look up his book. But so, you know, they don't really know what to make of it when you limit it like that. Oh, it's the Ashke. Oh, you have to know how to drive the wedge, you know, the knife into a supposed coalition. It's a nice joke you can play on them. You can't hope for much more. You cannot sway their audience, you know, but so at some point in this interview, I I don't remember exactly. She's talking to me about thread this and thread that and how am I a thread? And I tell her I am not a traditionalist. I would not call myself a tradition. I'm not aware of any traditions that I cleave to and people like that. They thought I was being funny and trolling her, but I wasn't being funny intentionally.

I was being sincerely autistic in my reply. I mean, is that the only possible orientation for a man of the right? Because before 1940, many smart, fashionable boulevards in Europe did not think so. They thought there could be something like an anti-traditional right. So anyway, I've discussed this on episode maybe before, I don't want to cover the differences between progressive and traditional right, but I talk instead now about the ancient variety, this man, Kritias, and others like Kritias, who they were, what they believe in, and why. Why they decide to waste the priests at Eleusis? Why right-wing Greek Hitler man attack religion? Why? I will be right back. The 400s BC Greece and possibly before a shocking new doctrine came into the world.

I think its origin has to be divine or something like that. that. I remember Victor Davis Hanson saying he believed in the divinity of Jesus because the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount seems to him so out of place in the Mediterranean of that time that it must have a divine origin. And this may or may not be true. I don't know enough about the Bible to say one way or another. You know, the Bible has always left me cold. I'm honest about this, unlike other people. I've never had any interest in it. I try to make myself read the Bible because some of the poetry of King James Bible is very good. I do enjoy that. And then I try to make myself read it for historical knowledge and to understand literary things and so forth. But that's an artificial reason.

But still I read it, so maybe actually in the end I know more of it than so-called theologians do, some of them. But I can't help the fact that aside from the over-the-top Semitic poetry, which I enjoy very much, and you can hear even Osama bin Laden when he, you know, he puts on the Semitic thing, the Arabic flowery rhetoric. Same tradition, you know, not as artful as in the Bible, but I enjoy that always. But I never had any interest in these doctrines of the Bible. Not to speak of Koran or other things which is unreadable to me, but the Bible itself is It's just not an appropriate book for Eurasia, you know, for the lands of Hyperborea and the north. It should have been better kept to the desert of the Middle East and maybe exported to Africa.

And I object very much to the public posturing, to the Pharisaism spreading now on the right. In 2015 and 2016 there was this public awakening. I had not the slightest interest in politics, getting involved in it in any way before that. But in 2015-16, what happened had nothing to do with religion. It centered around Trump and his humor and his lampooning of the stuffed shirts. And here was a man, in any case, who genuine Christians supported even though they knew he himself was not religious, because they knew he'd fight their enemies and would do more for them than these pompous, stiff Republicans who always flaunt the Bible and they always pretend to believe and talk about their personal face and this and I remember this with

leftist newscasters and neo-con never Trumpers they were trying on television to scold Evangelical Christians in South Carolina and other places. Oh, how could you vote for this man Trump who was divorced and he Actually has an attractive wife, you know, he's hyper sexualized Don't you know he talked in vulgar ways and he dated playboy models, you know He doesn't have an ugly wife like I do, you know, and he doesn't flaunt going to church Did you go to church today? You go to church you pray today now, how can you stand this? How could you but anyway, so they asked how could you go for him and not for an upright? Family-style pious man like that nice Ted Cruz Why don't you want that nice Ted Cruz who talked like an undertaker preacher almost all these guys

by the way who came in 2017 and that now they pretend to be the voice of the right and I'm an integralist, I'm a nationalist. They came into 2017 before that they were for Ted Cruz all of them you know the same GOP bullshit you know so but that was the question to these evangelicals on television why wouldn't why don't you be for Ted Cruz or any of these other ostentatiously religious republicans, you know, you've been given them many why you want to go for this chaos of the many. And the answer the guy they were hectoring gave was, you know, we evangelicals are very much acquainted by now with fake preachers and snake oil salesman politician who come and invoke the name of the Lord. And we roll our eyes at them by now because these GOP demagogues like Paul Ryan, that's

That's right, the demagogue and others like who pay lip service to religion to try to mislead us, to try to, oh, I'm playing to the people now, they've never given us anything, so we'll take a chance with this guy, hypersexual, yeah, you've been hypersexualized, so anyway, that's all changed now for whatever reason, we're back, we're going back to the ostentatious pharisaism of the Mike Pence Republican Party, and every right-wing public figure feels the need now to go, oh, now I have, it's my turn now to declare my Christianity to the world and the purity of my faith heals me with the Bible? Did you pray today, hello fellow believers? Who likes this crap? I will not name anyone, but please stop this, it's very cringe-induced, so whatever, what do you use?

Greece of the 400s BCE, this is also a very unusual and shocking doctrine come about. And you do not need to hear it from me. I will read for you from an academic article I was browsing this week. I'm reading now. Plato's uncle Critias, antiphon of Rhamnos, that's another sophist. Thrasymachus of Calcedon, that's another one you may know from Republic, I'm interjecting now. This is the article, it says Plato's uncle Critias, Antiphon of Ramnus, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon and others made an entirely new application of the notions of fusis and nomos. This means nature and convention. They made new application of notions, new notions of nature and convention. According to their theory, all human laws, including the moral laws which are common to all nations, were mere conventions.

If one looked at nature as a whole, they contended, it became apparent that it was always the better, that is, the physically stronger and mentally more gifted who ruled the others, and that they did so for the benefit and in the sole interest of the ruler and not of the ruled. Nature knew of no right but the right of the stronger and the better. All the moral and political laws which were at variance with this natural law were nothing but an invasion of the weak by which they tried to deprive the strong of their natural right and prerogative. The born aristocrat, however, must shake off the fetters of these effeminate moral and political doctrines and must by force or deceit or by whatever means he sees fit to use, regain the rule which is his by nature.

This doctrine gave an excellent foundation to the struggle for political power of the most radical and ruthless among the aristocratic youths. And so on and so forth. Isn't that nice? What do you think of that? It's remarkable if you can take a step back and think how were Greeks of all peoples? Greeks were the only ones who were able to give birth to such thoughts. Because, okay, by now you may be acquainted with this kind of thinking. You may have heard of it. You may even believe yourself to be superior to it because you heard about it. Oh, I heard about it in philosophy 101, therefore I know it. No, you don't know it, but okay, you may have heard of it. And it is true that by now all peoples, nations, and ethnic groups have over time,

some of them most quite recently, but they've over time developed their own take on Machiavellian thought, their own Machiavellism. But monkey-see-monkey-do is relatively easy. How did this thought first come about in the first place, in the Greeks? Because it came about in nobody else. Some people say some Buddhist factions, but you know, the Indians, I think, imported it also from the Greeks. Maybe, because it's not quite like this in very early Buddhism. In later it is, and it's probably imported from the Greeks in that case, but if you really become acquainted with what traditional thought is actually like, I mean really ancient thought, with what traditional societies look like, and don't think now of Western Christianity,

which comes about quite late in the history of the world, and which was itself touched by philosophic thought and is in conversation with it. Even if you say, oh, Christianity tried to co-opt or successfully co-opt or incorporated the philosophical tradition. But really traditional societies, which were not acquainted with these ideas, the idea that such thoughts could come, I think, is almost inconceivable. The rule of tradition is all powerful in a truly, let's say, traditional ancient prehistoric society. me for a long time how such thought could come about in this particular people and there are two ways you could go about it. Please excuse the interruptions, they are doing something I think, they are trying to attack me with allergic attack. I think it might be I ate

too much, I ate a whole bar of chocolate before this show. Maybe they are trying, they put something chocolate but there are two ways you could maybe go about to explain how such thought could come about that maybe there was something native to the Greeks themselves, something unique in their being and their mythology that prepared them for such thing. Or on the other hand, something the bureaucrat told me when I showed him these paragraphs the other week and he asked also, how could the Greeks alone have come up with this thought? And he continued, think of the suffering they must have undergone to come to think like this. Think of the centuries they had to spend under the vilest palace courtier priests and all all of their bullshit, their unjust, moral-fag, effeminate bullshit.

And I mean, I think he's right. You need both, some type of native element, some type of physical, spiritual power, something in their own mythology and so on that prepares them to rebel and spring against this, which is almost universal, but then you must also need some intensification of this moral-fag abuse to cause that reaction. I mean, you're trying to bristle against this right now yourself, if you're in, well, anywhere, but if you're, for example, in high school or college, or if you just witnessed this anxious line, moralistic bullshit that goes under the name of woke, and it's inescapable. Which is not new, right? The woke thing in the United States has been going on for decades, but okay, it blew up now.

Some of you can avoid it, actually, it's not in all industries, but we're all surrounded by it. Some people can't avoid it. So whatever the point is, you can see how it works. It causes a reaction among normal, anybody who has any life left in him. So of course this is like a reaction to moral faggoty. You know what it's like, you know how it feels like. So anyway, these three thinkers named Critias, who ends up being the Hitler of his day after his literary life, Antiphon of Ramnus, Antiphon of Athens, that's a part of Attica, and Thrasymachus, And you would know Thrasymachus from the beginning of Plato Republic. So you can look there, and it's unclear how much Plato distorts what the people he talks about actually believed.

You know, there's also another man in Plato in the dialogue with Gorgias, Calicles, similar theory about morality and life. But I'll tell you about Antiphon first. It's an interesting case, and I have to read some passages to you on this rather long segment. I hope it's okay, I hope we do not put you to sleep. Some of these passages are longish, they're short, but they're longish to read on radio entertainment show like this, but I think I have to read them for you, for Antiphon for example, because they're unusual thing. Everyone reads Plato, you will have encountered Thrasymachus on your own, but very few know these fragments from men like Antiphon or Critias. By the way, the internet is utter crap, utter garbage.

It used to be that if you search on internets, you could search, for example, antiphone fragments on Google and they would show you a translation or even just the original Greek but they would show you a translation of antiphone's fragments. It was very easy to find or anybody, anybody like that, not just any ancient Greek because there are many obscure ancient Greek thinkers. Now anything you search like this, you get 30 idiotic academic articles which make trivial points which you cannot access anyway unless you have access to things like JSTOR or whatever. And it's almost impossible to find the original texts. Google is just useless, but DuckDuckGo doesn't really work either. The internet has been made useless, these search engines, pages and pages of useful

material were wiped clean. So these are relatively short, but they're very revealing, so that's why I'll read them to you. They're not easy to find, they're short, you will forgive me. Now you remember that Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, they were not the teachers of Greece, okay? If you want to know revealing what was going on in the 400s BC, for example, at the the height of Athens, the height of all Greek classical culture. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle are not so useful, do not believe the lies from professors and pedants and so on. These, the Socratics, they were the minority faction of their time even, and their writings survived and were promoted for various historical reasons that I believe don't have to do with

the innate merits of their thought, and certainly did not have to do with their sway over Greece of this time, of the 400 BC, I'd say even maybe of many of the 300 BC. It was the Sophists who were the teachers and the intellectual masters of Greece. And the Sophists were no-nonsense, like I say, so much no-nonsense that very early on they provoked a backlash among the people. So famously Anaxagoras, who was early philosopher, you know, he said the sun is a rock and so And Diagoras and other philosophers of Sophists, their words were interchangeable, but they were forced to leave Athens, leave cities and so forth because of atheism, for example. Who forced them out was basically the middle class. You could say it's the whole city, but the middle class was outraged by their atheism

and other things. So these doctrines, however, continued to be taught to the aristocracy in a relatively more quiet voice, because aristocrats could pay for it, it could be kept private, relatively. They taught young aristocrats who were ambitious, they taught them the arts of rhetoric and how to persuade the multitude. Maybe it was taught in whispers, so as not to upset the people as much again as somebody like Anaxagoras or Diagoras, the famous atheist, who led to their exile again. But I say only relatively quiet, because as you will see in a moment, Critias and Antiphon were rather loud-spoken and clear. And so I tell you now, here is a fragment from Antiphon, Antiphon the Sophist, fragment 44. Excuse if it's a little long, but I read now from Antiphon.

Justice then is not to transgress that which is the law of the city in which one is a citizen. A man therefore can best conduct himself in harmony with justice, if when in the company of witnesses he upholds the laws, and when alone without witnesses he upholds the edicts of nature. For the edicts of the laws are imposed artificially, but those of nature are compulsory, and the edicts of the laws are arrived by consent, not by natural growth, whereas those of nature are not a matter of consent. So if the man who transgresses the legal code evades those who have agreed to these edicts, he avoids both disgrace and penalty, otherwise not. But if a man violates against possibility any of the laws which are implanted in nature, even if he evades all man's detection, the ill is no less.

And even if all see, it is no greater, for he is not hurt on account of an opinion, but because of truth. The examination of these things is in general for this reason, that the majority of just acts according to law are prescribed contrary to nature. For there is legislation about the eyes, what they must see and what not. And about the ears, what they must hear and what not. And about the tongue, what it must speak and what not. And about the hands, what they must do and what not. And about the feet, where they must go and where not. Now the law's prohibitions are in no way more agreeable to nature and more akin than the law's injunctions. But life belongs to nature and death too, and life for them is derived from advantages and death from disadvantages.

And the advantages laid down by the laws are chains upon nature, but those laid down by nature are free, so that the things which hurt according to true reasoning do not benefit nature more than those which delight. And the things which grieve are not more advantageous than those which please. For things truly advantageous must not really harm, but must benefit. So anyway, he keeps going like that, and then, excuse me, they attack me with cough. But one striking sentence from what I just read for you is, for he is not hurt on account of an opinion, but because of truth. And this constant refrain among this faction, let's say, that the laws and morality of the mass of men are just opinions, and only the laws of nature are true. And he continued talking about laws of nature, what they are.

He says, according to the law, they are justified who having suffered defend themselves and not themselves begin action. And those who treat their parents well are justified by law, even though their parents have treated them badly, and those who give the taking of an oath to others and do not themselves swear. Of these provisions one could find many which are hostile to nature, and there is in them the possibility of suffering more when one could suffer less, and there is in them the possibility of enjoying less when one could enjoy more, and faring ill when one need not to fare ill. Now, if the person who adapted himself to these provisions received support from the laws, and those who did not but who opposed them received damage, obedience to the laws would not be without benefit.

But as things are, it is obvious that those who adapt themselves to these things, that justice proceeding from law is not strong enough to help, seeing that first of all it allows him who suffers to suffer, and him who does to do, and does not prevent the sufferer from suffering or the doer from doing. And if the case is brought up for punishment, there is no advantage peculiar to the sufferer rather than to the doer. For the sufferer must convince those who are to inflict the punishment that he has suffered. And he needs the ability to win his case. And it is open to the doer of evil to deny by the same means. And he can defend himself no less than the accuser can accuse. And persuasion is open to both parties, being a matter of technique.

This very unusual, it sounds, it sounds like he's saying that it is, he's giving advice for how to prudently break the law. What do you think about that? I must take good break. Yes, forgive the pause, but they do something to attack my throat, and also, I hope you enjoy musics on this show. I want to take many breaks, so you enjoy musics of special frog. You know who you are. But what I read for you, that you have, if maybe I didn't put you to sleep because I know language of antiphon is a bit pedantic and too logical in style, but you have a very clear statement what I just read for you on antinomianism, and in this case how to get around the law that was made by the many against nature to let men of superior stature be harmed,

how to get around that. And actually, Antiphon, despite his views, he is sometimes misused by modern lying scholars to say that he supported egalitarianism or democracy, and they based their opinion on the following short passage, which I read for you now. This is much shorter than what I read for you before. So he say, I'm reading Antiphon now, same fragment, number We revere and honor those born of noble fathers, but those who are not born of noble houses we neither revere nor honor. In this way we are, in our relations with one another, like barbarians, since we are all by nature born the same in every way, both barbarians and hellenes, and it is open to all men to observe the laws of nature, which are compulsory.

Similarly, all of these things can be acquired by all, and in none of these things is any Many of us distinguished as barbarian or hellene. We all breathe into the air through mouth and nostrils. We all eat with hands, et cetera, et cetera. He keeps going like that, supposedly. I end reading him now. So that may sound to you egalitarian shit library indeed, but they mishear a couple of things. Antiphon is saying here he's not, I think, making ultimately an egalitarian claim. He's arguing that the distinctions or hierarchies that exist by convention or by national distinction are false. This is to be expected because he himself, for example, Antiphon did not come from a distinguished bloodline. If you encountered Antiphon at all in classical Socratic literature, you may have, if you

You read Xenophon's memorabilia. He appears there, I think, in the first book. These are Xenophon's memories of his teacher, Socrates, and Antiphon appears there as blaming Socrates for not taking money for his teaching. So he was a money-taker for teaching knowledge. All the Sophists did this, but he's presented in Xenophon as especially insistent on this point. Like Thrasymachus, and maybe others, he's somewhat of a pleb in his personal background, but he still believed himself superior by nature. And so the purpose of the passage you just read, you just heard, excuse me, it was not Antiphon being necessarily a universalist egalitarian moral fag, as someone like Karl Popper, or some of the other low IQ ethicists who follow Karl Popper would have you believe,

But Antiphon is positing, again, the false distinctions of man-made consent and convention against the real ones of nature. Because remember what I just said for you is a fragment of a fragment. You don't see the rest which comes out in the other things I read for you before, which show men of nature, so-called in Antiphon, somebody like this, would show themselves especially in crisis situation. And in his own life, Antiphon was a member of the aristocratic party in Athens, not the democratic. He was one of the leaders of the coup of 411 BC, and this was the first overthrow of the Athenian democracy. And the Athenian democracy had existed for about 100 years or so by this time, by 411 BC. Excuse, they attacked me.

And Antiphon set up this anti-democratic regime in 411 BC, he was, you could say, the intellectual fount of it, the ideologue, or people would say today, of the oligarchic regime of the so-called 400 that got set up during this time. It did not last long, this regime, like the future one in 404 BC didn't last long either. And this is very complicated political story full of intrigues that I would better leave for another time. But basically this coup against democracy in 411 BC Athens, it happened sometime after Sicilian expedition because Sicilian failure, the failure of Athens to conquer Syracuse, left the city bankrupt and it increased the burden, especially the tax burden on the upper classes to basically expropriatory level of taxation.

So you know they did a little coup, they couldn't take it any longer and Alcibiades was actually the main political actor, instigator behind this coup. He said he would return to Athens and help in the war and he would bring Persian help because he had been exiled to Persia or he had taken refuge there and that he was friends with the Persian ruler of what is now modern Turkey, the Asia minor, the Anatolian province, but that he would only return to Athens to help if the regime was changed to something less crazy than the crazy democracy. But like I say, it was a short-lived change, not a regime that lasted. But it's interesting though, before the democracy was re-established, there was another intermediary

kind of transitional regime between the oligarchy of the 400 and the return of democracy, that is. And this was the government of the 5000, if you can call it a government. And it's interesting because this is only time as Thucydides says in the first person, he starts talking, and it's the only time he says that Athens had a good government. He believed this short-lived arrangement of the 5,000, which is what the coup of the 411 BC turned into, but he believed this short-lived thing, Thucydides thought it moderated the best between the claims to rule of the few and the many, and it began to lift Athens out of a terrible decline, it started to slide into this decline after the defeat in Syracuse. But it's interesting, you know, this kind of the 400, if you see the rule of the 400

as an oligarchic reactionary state, and then the 5,000 would be something less, a kind of moderate oligarchy, something in between the oligarchy and the democracy, you know. This is only time Thucydides says, yes, this is good government for Athens. It was basically a government by the armed hoplites, the people who could become the heavy infantry, and too bad it didn't last. But it didn't last, by the way, because Alcibiades was not willing to get bloody. He was a very wily man, but he was not a Hitler type, he was not bloody. And Antiphon, the leader of this coup against democracy in 411 BC, whose passages I just read for you briefly, he was executed after the return of democracy. Thucydides say he gave a very brilliant speech in his own defense, he explained his cause,

why he believed in it and so on. Testament to power, I believe this, but there are other speeches of Antiphon that have survived I think. He wrote speeches for trials and so on, for money, if you were sued or suing someone you paid Antiphon and he wrote you the speech to give before a giant jury. But so much for Antiphon then, I read for you this passage which not many people know And which is maybe, again, sorry, a little bit pedantic statement, but still clear profession of might-makes-right antinomianism. Perhaps focusing on the trickery aspect. And if you want to see an exaggeration of this view, focusing more on the might aspect, the might-makes-right aspect, I read for you, again, because I may have read it on previous show, I don't remember,

but I'll read for you if I read it again. I'm sorry, it's a very nice passage. This is Calicles from Plato's Gorgias, and it's a fictional character. But I read it for you because you can see this view in its shocking splendor. So I am reading now from Plato's Gorgias where Calicles is talking. The truth, Socrates, that you who pretend to be engaged in the pursuit of truth are actually appealing now to the popular and vulgar notions of right, which are not natural, but only conventional. Convention and nature are opposed to each other, and so if a person is too modest to say what he thinks, he is compelled to contradict himself. And you, in your ingenuity perceiving the advantage to be thereby gained, you slyly ask him who

is arguing conventionally a question which is to be determined by the rule of nature. And if he's talking of the rule of nature, you slip away to custom. And he gives some examples, he gives some examples of this, I'm going to skip over that, where Callickli starts to talk about where the laws come from, where morality comes from. He says, Callickli says, the makers of the laws are the majority who are weak, and they make and distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves and their own interests. And they terrify the stronger sort of men and those who are able to get the better of them in order that they may not get the better of them. And they say that dishonesty is shameful and unjust, meaning by the word injustice the desire of a man to have more than his neighbors.

For knowing their own inferiority, I suspect they are too glad of equality. And therefore, they endeavor to have more than the many. This is conventionally said to be shameful and unjust and is called injustice, whereas nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, and the more powerful to have more than the weaker. In many ways nature shows this, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior. For on what principles of justice did Xerxes invade Helas, or his father invade the Scythians? Not to speak of many other examples, but these are the men who act according to nature, and

yes, according to the law of nature, not, perhaps, according to the artificial law, which we invent and impose upon our fellows, of whom we take the best and strongest of them from their youth, and tame them like young lions, charming them with the sound of the voice, and saying to them that they must be content with equality, that the equal is honorable and just. But if there was a man who had sufficient force, he would shake off and break through and escape from all this. He would trample underfoot all of our formulas and spells and incantations. He would trample all our laws which are against nature. The slave would rise in rebellion and be lord over us, and the light of natural just would shine forth. Anyway, he keeps going like that. You should read it. It's very nice.

Of course, this, you know, do you like this? I remember one time I was telling people about Noozik and modern windbags. I think you can skip reading modern so-called political theory windbags altogether. And you can take, for example, the definitions of anarchy. And of course for a modern, let's say, anarcho-syndicalist or something like this, everything works out perfectly, because if neutered, capenized subjects are assumed, the neutered men are assumed to be the citizens or subjects of a modern left anarchist state, totally defeated smothered male are posited as the subject. And so, if you read a modern, boring anarchist thinker, it's all about morality and ethics and how everything would work out great, and everybody would shake hands, whereas the views

you just heard when I read them, to these people who are, you know, talking about Nozick and other things, they said, wait a minute, this sounds like real anarchism or the real consequences of it. This is what it would look like. And that fakery from the modern so-called political thinkers who win back about fake anarchy and statelessness, that's a bunch of garbage, that assumes all men would naturally act like Rodrere or like Bernard Henri Lévy and such, or who would look to such men as leaders. But what appears first to men outside government and convention, outside all custom, is the rule of the stronger, which is something that modern philosophers like Rousseau and Hobbes, they can only avoid this conclusion with a cheap, let me speak, let's say, a sophistic trick even they use.

And this trick they do is they assume a large physical distance between men. In other words, they assume men is solitary nature. And if you imagine orangutan alone in the jungle, that's one thing, but that is actually not the natural unit of men outside of law. It is gangs that form around charismatic and wily and violent supermen. And it's these gangs and their leaders that are the natural givens, the natural givens. And it's not a long orangutan-like man living with his mate alone in an isolated forest. But anyway, these views all had consequences, you see. And Critias, Plato's uncle, he held views very much like some of what I read. And he became leader of the Thirty, the tyranny of the Thirty, that again was installed with Spartan backing at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

And this was much more, you can say, right-wing or far aristocratic, far radical than the coup of the 400 in 411 BC, and how to put it to you, the essence of the coup at the end of the Peloponnesian War that destroyed Athens. Its ideology was, Septilians must die. This was its ideology, Septilians must die, Jigichad, they killed more Athenians than died in the Peloponnesian war itself. Most accounts say they executed about 1500, which is, this is huge number given Athens at the time had maybe 30 to 50,000 citizens. They destroyed the docks. Why did they destroy the docks? They did not want Athens to be a sea power because democracy was connected to the sea and the navy and so on. The navy, because Athens needed to maintain an empire, it needed to maintain a large navy

and the sailors, they said, well, we're fighters, so you need to give us a right to vote now and to be part of Europe. Same thing that happened in the United States with Andrew Jackson, the armed men. He expanded the franchise because how could you deny the franchise to armed men? Same thing happened in ancient Athens. This group that I'm talking of, Kritias, was extreme radical. They again destroyed the docks and so forth. But this attitude was widespread among conservative aristocratic reactionaries also. They hated the navy, or even if they didn't hate it, they looked suspiciously on it. And they were not for the empire. It was the democrat who was for the empire. The aristocrats were suspicious of the empire.

They were wanted to very moderate and whether this is because of high minded reasons such as well we shouldn't focus on foreign conquests but on the perfection of our own virtues at home or whether it was because of reasons you might find among traditional conservatives or paleo conservatives also in United States now who are very much against foreign adventurism. It could have very much the same reasons, you know, not just a paleo conservative. Many conservatives were against Iraq war. They got ostracized from the party by Bill Kristol and that gang and their witch hunts. But for example, Michael Savage was very much against the Iraq war and so on. Many conservatives were. And you can think, well, in ancient Athens, some of the pro-aristocratic right-wing conservatives

may have been against foreign adventurism for similar reasons. They may have been, again, because they believed energy should be focused domestically for the cultivation of virtue. But the other reason could have been because of this, because empire required navy and navy required sailors and sailors then became backbone of democratic states. So in any case, finally at the end of the war when Athens lose, the far right aristocratic faction of Critias takes over and they totally destroy the day, they destroy the docks and so forth and because democracy again was connected to the sea and they expelled from the city all the dirty smelly plebs, the people who were crowding the streets of Athens with filth.

This day-to-day thing is very important, you know, I mean can you imagine your city become congested like this, I think you can if you've lived in United States the last 20 or 30 years, you've seen sometimes quite nice smaller cities become complete congested. New York has become nicer, but a place like Boston, for example, has become much more crowded. The traffic gets much worse, not just there in many other cities, I don't need to tell you what happened to California, Los Angeles and so forth, but imagine your ancestors built the city, build the fortress, you can trace your bloodlines back to the founders, and you want a clean orderly city because, you know, and then it becomes rich and successful,

and because some city bosses can get an advantage from it politically, it becomes glutted with plebs and filth and 56 percenters who stream in, and you know, these day to day things Things I mean to say are of extreme importance, much more so than high-minded ideas. So this they took over the city and they kicked out all the plebs, isn't that great? They cleaned the streets of the city. And then of course, what I said, the numerous so-called blasphemies where Critias wasted and massacred the Eleusinian priests and the attendants and many such things. And I'd like then to read for you a couple of excerpts from Critias, who is a literary figure himself. And I'll read for you two things side by side that are not very long. And you can judge what his ideology was.

You can compare perhaps to what I just read from Calicles. So I'm reading from Critias now. There was a time when the life of man was unordered, bestial, and the slave of force. And there was no reward for the virtuous and no punishment for the wicked. Then, I think, men devised retributory laws, in order that justice might be dictator and have arrogance as its slave, and if anyone sinned, he was punished. But then when the laws forbade them to commit open crimes of violence and they began to do them in secret, a wise and clever man invented fear of the gods for mortals, that there might be some means of frightening the wicked, even if they do anything or say or think it in secret. Hence, he introduced the divine religion, saying that there is a God flourishing with

immortal life, hearing and seeing with his mind, and thinking of everything and caring about these things, and having divine nature, who will hear everything said among mortals and will be able to see all that is done. And even if you plan anything evil in secret, you will not escape the gods in this, for day of surpassing intelligence. In saying these words, he introduced the pleasantest of teachings, covering up the truth with a false theory. Isn't that a great line? He introduced the pleasantest of teachings, covering up the truth with false theory. And he said that the gods dwelt there, where he could most frighten men by saying it, when he knew that fears exist for mortals and rewards for the hard life.

In the upper periphery, where they saw lightnings and heard the dread rumblings of thunder and and the starry-faced body of heaven, and the beautiful embroidery of time the skilled craftsman, when come forth the bright mass of the sun, and the wet shower upon the earth, with such fears did he surround mankind, through which he well established the deity with his argument, and in a fitting place, and quenched lawlessness among men. So I think for the first time did someone persuade mortals to believe in a race of deities." Okay, end quote, of what you think of that, however, however, consider it together with the following passage, I'm reading again from Critias, it's just one sentence, I begin with birth, how can a man become physically best and strongest if the father takes exercise

and eats well and hardens himself, and the mother of the future child is physically strong and takes exercise, end quote, that's Critias also, in other words, you know, what do you think of that? Do you think these two things I read for you go together, this kind of antinomian atheism? And the second thing I read, he was, in other words, a right-wing atheist gay Nazi bodybuilder and he died at the gates of Athens fighting a martyr for the true aristocracy of nature, you know? Now there's, you know, an interesting thing I close on, this segment. This scholarly article I mentioned that I was skimming at the beginning of last segment from which I read a little, which, interesting enough, this article was written in 1941 by

Kurt von Fritz or something, I think that's his name, and I think very much he had the war and the ideological conflicts, World War II in mind. And the thing is, in certain articles, many scholarly articles are almost worthless, but some have interesting fact or information, but in certain articles, even if you don't have new information overall, there are sometimes asides that are very full of meaning and the The author doesn't even himself realize what he said, you know? And I read for you, I read for you this now. It is remarkable how much all these men, he's talking about the philosophers, not of the 400s, but of the 300s BC, who followed the men Critias, who I just described for you, the Hitler of Athens, right?

And this scholar is talking about the following century and the thinkers of the 300s BC coming after Critias' bloody coup, his bloody tyrannical thirty-tyrants' regime and so forth. So this is this scholar talking now. It is remarkable how much all these men of the 300s BC, these thinkers, how much they had in common, in spite of the violent controversies in which they engaged with one another. The bloody excesses of Critias' regime had caused such universal disgust with his principles that professed immoralism disappeared rapidly from literature, as well as from everyday political discussion. All the authors of this epoch lay very great stress on the moral qualities of the ruler or of the ruling class.

You know, again he's talking about the thinkers that came after Critias who I just described and I read some of the things of his immoralism or amoralism, aristocratic amoralism for you. But the thinkers this guy talking about are many of the ones you know, Plato, Aristotle and such, and Isocrates and many others. And think what he is saying, and it's echoed a bit also actually in Plato's seventh letter I think, where he says that the regime of Critias made the democracy before it seem like a golden age, and that Critias was reviled by all. But think the implication of this, what this sounds like. I mean, Critias became to the Greek world of the 300s BC what Hitler is to our world. He became the embodiment of evil and the gravity and darkness, the ultimate villain.

And all the thoughts he had espoused became tainted by association, in the same way all thoughts and philosophies associated with Hitler are tainted and taboo in our time. Now think of us, not me, because okay, I don't care, I'm anonymous and you can say I'm reckless, but actually I've been so actually in my real non-anonymous life too, which is I lost all my real life friends and I was canceled before canceling was a thing. But for people who are less reckless than me, which you should be if you can and if you want to, but think of the constraints they have to be under if they want to speak the truth. Steve Saylor, for example, he's quite restrained in what he says, maybe to a normie of extreme boring variety. Steve Saylor is the extremist, but he's quite restrained.

He can talk to the middle in other words. But many others less controversial than him. Charles Murray, but even less controversial than that, who might be with us, who might be 100% with us, or it doesn't matter, they might be with the truth 100%. But because of Hitler, they have to be very discreet about many things, be careful how to express themselves, for example, anything touching on human biodiversity, or race, or natural differences, especially between groups and such. But now look what I read to you. The thinkers of the 300s BC were in similar situation and they lay very great stress on the moral quality and on morality generally. And is it because they genuinely believed this to be true and because they themselves were genuinely outraged and shocked by Critias actions?

Or did they have to express themselves this way because of general atmosphere in which they lived? Which is again so similar to our own, at least in this regard that a body of thought came to be seen as demonic because it was associated with a demonic political actor who tainted all of it. And either way you look at it, whether these men were sincere in their outrage, I mean Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates and so on, or whether they were sincere in their moral disturbance at Critias example, in which case they were prisoners of the emotions of their time just like the plebs were, or whether they were merely being careful not to offend public sensitivities, the way someone operating in normal world today has to be careful not to trigger the Hitler emotions.

In both cases, what you have is that the birth of Western philosophy proper, because it's assumed by many to begin with that Plato and Aristotle and so forth, but actually the birth of Western philosophy tradition proper takes place in a time, I mean to say, tainted by moral hysteria and moral exhaustion. Yes, there were philosophers before Plato, but Western tradition, philosophy proper, come from Plato, Aristotle and so forth, unfortunately, and again, this time, tainted, full time of moral hysteria, 300 BC, where entire body of thought was censored, taboo, untouchable. The views of sophists I briefly summarized for you before, I read for you a little passage or two, they are not so much disbelieved or disproven. How would you know if they were?

Because in any case, whether they were disproven or not, necessity compelled the writers during this crucial century, the 300s BC and so forth, necessity compelled them to rail against any views like Critias, and to rail against them promoting moral faggotry. And again, whether this is sincere or whether these writers, some say they left clues that they could consider all things, even taboo things objectively, or that they even believed some of Critias-like opinions themselves in secret, some people say so, but that would have to be so occulted and so hidden that it could therefore be denied in interpretation even to this day. So what I mean to say is that the entire edifice of Western philosophy tradition, as built

on Socrates and Socratesim, and later popularized and philosophized Christianity, is built on a century of thought, the 300s BC, that lived under the shadow of its own Hitler, just like we do, and therefore it lived, I need to say, under especially heavy taboos, that is how Western philosophy tradition is born, where, you know, these men had to go out of their way to say, we're not like that, we're not like that evil Kritias, no, not us. And I mean you see it in the accused of our time as well, this attitude of having to disclaimers, and that reaction against the thought of Trisimachus, Antiphon, Callicles, Kritias, which I believe Their views are the truth and the way. And that reaction against truth is a lie. And it's actually a series of pretty lies.

And you know how lies can work actually for a long time. They can keep you going a long time, especially lies can work if you have eventually new peoples of great energy to feed on, like the Germanics and so forth. Peoples who have countervailing instincts of great power to balance corrupt lies out that you instill into them. But eventually the lies catch up to you. Eventually the lies catch up to all mankind when they spread everywhere. So anyway, these are depressing thoughts. You know what I'm saying. I don't like this. Brennan will now put on the music by our frog friend and I will be right back. There is new conservative so-called Matt Walsh movie, What is a Woman? I have not seen this, but some scenes on YouTube exist and he provoked leftoids into claiming

there is no truth. And I think this is a bit misleading. Many of these views I say in show might sound superficially to you like shit-libery, like leftism. So I insert this disclaimer here, appendix to show. I know this, okay, I know the left says certain things that sound like the views I explained in this show. But it's wrong to believe these are leftist views. Given any of these men, Critias, Calicles, Thrasymachus or Nietzsche today, do you think any of them would be leftists or side with the left? If that word means anything at all, these men would not side with any doctrine that held egalitarianism as something desirable, that the left itself can be elitist in practice. This is no surprise because any movement will have to have elite leadership and because

there is a leftist tradition stretching back to Jacobins of French Revolution, which states something like, we need an elite-led dictatorship so we can educate the benighted people away from the traditions that hold them in shackles. But it is the ultimate belief of any leftoid, assuming their sincere ideologues, not just an opportunist gangster, but this process of education of the masses which needs a dictatorship, in which the masses are liberated from tradition, that this will result in a natural equality of man being re-established, whereas for the other thinkers I mentioned, the stripping away of customs, traditions, religions, and so forth, reveals natural inequality of man that had been suppressed.

So in any case, after Machiavelli restated some of these views, and they spread, and got repeated actually even maybe before Machiavelli in various traditions, such ideas are now for sure less shocking to you than they should be. And I said should be because for all the supposed familiarity many have with them, with the antinomian views I said before, might makes right, antinomianism and so forth, but for all the familiarity they're very rarely digested and assimilated and allowed to manifest themselves and I mean not just in action but even in the other views a person holds. So someone can repeat all the things that sound like this and espouse openly something like relativism even. But these are just statements of, oh, I'm a fancy boy and I'm familiar with these views.

I hold some of them to be what a sophisticated person believes because all sophisticated people believe truth is relative and morality doesn't really exist. But I will not let them actually affect any of my own moral convictions, which come from where and which I do not call actually moral convictions. I don't know. Don't ask me this. So you know I mean to say when you see in Matt Walsh movie what is woman and he corners some of these leftoids with questions about what is the truth and most of them react indignantly and violently and they say they protest that they do not think such a truth such a thing as truth exists and that they find the very idea of truth to be oppressive and so on. And then these unreliable conservatives, in which I count Matt Walsh by the way, remember

his position on the, is it the Ahmed Obree case, where he jumped to the defense of the so-called jogger who was scoping out the neighborhood to steal, and Matt Walsh say something, oh this is what manly men would do, this is a guy thing, they like to look in construction sites, it's a guy thing. So the Aubrey case is a bigger test for me than the Rittenhouse thing, because it shouldn't have to get to Rittenhouse situation. The men who were destroyed by this fake corrupt legal system for defending their neighborhood from a criminal, scoping it out, I mean in the Aubrey case, and the guy actually grabbed their gun by the way, it's not like they just hunted him down, they were policing their streets because they didn't want it to get to the Rittenhouse scenario they

didn't want it to be known their neighborhood was easy prey and to end up eventually unable to walk on their own streets or with burned buildings like the Eloi of Minneapolis so it's just one of the most corrupt outcomes this Aubrey verdict an example of how the state is using common criminal as a way to attack its rival what the state sees as its rival the white middle class a big plump chicken with much property for the taking but anyway so much for Matt Walsh maybe you know you can call me when he changes his view on the Aubrey case maybe he learned this lesson but the movie what I saw with the little clips on the surface on Twitter and YouTube he does some good trolling for example he goes to Africa he gets the Maasai tribe and or whoever about their opinions on

gender and that's funny I know it's trolling well assuming it's trolling but But who knows, maybe it's genuine nigga rap worship, you know? Nigga rap. I didn't use the R, the hard R in this case. But I don't know if it's trolling for him. Who knows with these cigar and whiskey conservatives, I have to tell you, they're a bunch of queens. Brokeback McCoy and waxing romantic about Juan and the abuelita on the rancho. But anyways, okay, he gets these leftoids to say that they hate the idea of truth because it's oppressive, and of course this is something conservatives of this type love to jump on, these empty declarations, because it allows them to go back to the trite conversations of the Bush years and before, where they can blame the left as godless relativist hedonists.

And you know, on one hand it's good for them, this talk, because it's what they know, they're comfortable debating against that. On the other hand, it's safe talk, because you don't have to confront the left on its actual moral convictions, beliefs that put the left actually closer to the inter-hamway militias of Hutu power. You don't have to confront the fact they want to massacre you in the name of promoting equality and eliminating oppression or any such things. You don't have to talk about race. You don't even have to talk about the subject, supposedly, of this movie, biological sex. You can turn it into an abstract conversation about what is truth, about relativism versus absolutism and all such nonsense. And here come, I am sure, the think pieces on this movie.

Tracing the tranny thing and the mass castration hysteria now, tracing it back to something like Hegel or lift Hegelianism or to nominalism or who knows what else. It's all very safe. It's gay and safe and false. Ellen Bloom, you may have heard of him, he's the most famous Straussian. He led the conservatives into a dead end on justice subject in the early 1990s with his book Closing of the American Mind, where he confuses immoralism and amoralism and he took people on this empty road with thinking about relativism, relativism versus absolutism, as if that is the debate, as if relativism was what defined the left. If any leftist comes at you with such crap, you can ask them why does it matter to them about white supremacy then, or any other supremacy.

Why are they concerned about oppression? Why is slavery wrong? If the truth is oppressive, so what? Why shouldn't the transgender be refitted with cat ears, cat ears, and sold in slavery to Iran, or even to the Washington, DC, Vermula Tran cats, you know, that whole bunch, they like the cat boys. does anything matter? You know, as an East Bloc, you know, I grew up Communist East Bloc, failing atheist communist society. And relativism, real cynicism, real nihilism was all around. And I knew and know many types like that, and a real atheist and relativist is not like these moral faggots, okay? The signature character of the left today is moral indignation and rage. They're not skeptical people, they're not mafiosi on the make, disillusioned with

all moral convictions, it's very easy to corner them as moral fanatics. Even in that one statement, truth is oppressive, I ask again, what's wrong with oppression? I mean, the statement itself disproves itself. How do you know oppression is wrong? And many such things. The point is, left is not relativist, but it invokes relativism tactically as a way not to have its moral convictions questioned. So they will try to question yours, but then they will pull this, oh I don't believe in anything, all truth belongs to, it's relative to peoples and nations and individuals. But it's easy to corner them that they don't actually believe that. The other reason they bring it up is they associate moral language, specifically the

word moral, with religion, with bourgeois or middle class values, and of course they see all such things as having the whiff of middle class solid life, which is to them They are taught that it's low status, so they don't genuinely want to think of themselves that way as moral or this. So if you confront a mentally ill BPD girlfriend on why she calls me about not recycling, and you make fun of her moral convictions, she will go on lecture about, you know, this pseudo-philosophical lecture about how morality doesn't really exist and she's not interested in morality, I mean, both sides are comfortable with this. The Conservatives are comfortable indignantly scolding the left for its relativism and godlessness.

And the left is very comfortable pretending to be that, and not the schoolmarm moral fanatics. They are. It's a big reason I think both hated Trump, because here you have a fun-loving, iconoclastic man who shows the establishment to be moral fag stuffed shirts. And neither the establishment left or the establishment right are comfortable with that because they are there to play this minstrel show for you where they pretend to disagree about these, you know. And there are even more exotic views now, not only on the right, but also some of you may have seen the post-left or the dirtbag left or some of these podcasters who actually want to identify the occupational class or the new left in general with Nietzsche, with eugenicism with views like I described in this episode and so on so it's

Alex Jones actually even says some of these things so it's very hard to address these points and argue them that it's just they're so stupid The existence of an elite and even a justification for having an elite is not again a political arrangement That is Nietzsche and necessary or a Machiavellian or anything of the kind excuse me You see how they attack me now while you'd need Nietzsche or any kind of antinomian like critias who not only don't care about social approval but get off on flouting it, why you'd need that kind of ideological machinery to argue, for example, for sexual liberation or the sexual revolution or to argue for gay rights or tranny rights, all of which are movements explicitly petitioning for legal sanction and for social approval and recognition on

egalitarian grounds or whatever grounds. But for social approval, that's very strange to me because somebody like Nietzsche or Critias do not care about social approval. One could much more easily make the case that it is tradition and religion that promotes egalitarianism and leftism today. At least if you look at, for example, who funds refugee charities are Jewish organizations like HIAS, working together with the Lutheran Church, with countless Catholic NGOs and charities and legal funds and many such things, are they all working together to promote dysgenics and refugee mass migrations and so forth? I mean, okay, go to any megachurch and they will all have food for Africa drives. This their biggest thing, how to feed Africans.

Just indiscriminately balloon populations that cannot feed themselves, that turn even the slightest surplus into more hungry mouths. You know the story. I could much more easily make a sad case than anyone can make the case that the current ruling class, call it what you will, occupational class, that they're Nietzschean, even though if you've ever met any of them, the actual thoughts and words of Nietzsche are seen as embodiment of evil for them. And even though they expend considerable effort to rail against so-called Nietzschean radicals, four or five of us online, know the reigning thought of our time is de-divinized Christianity. They took all the best parts of Christianity, they took the religion out of it, they kept

the moral convictions of it, and then they pretend that they are relativists, that they do not believe in anything, that they are hedonists and so forth, but none of those things are true they are naturalized Christians as Nietzsche called them a socialist like Rousseau is more Christian than the Christians in his morality he's not saying they are religious Christians it's a perversion of Christianity in some way of course but this is just anyway quick appendix to show I wanted to tell you not to fall into the left's self-serving lies about itself where you know it tries to present itself as transgressive movement of relativist, hard-headed people, of lovers of science or nature, which they are not, or of fun-living hedonists, on the other hand, as they are none of these things.

They are the heirs of the Jacobin, they are the moral skull sisters with a machete in the head. They are the de-religionized Christian fanatics, the fanatics of Christian morality without Christian religion. But ultimately that translates into a perversion of Christianity that is machete fantasies. The heirs again of the Jacobin, moral scolds. Listen to Calicles and Critias. If you want, do not listen to the left. Listen to Calicles and Critias. If you want this, form small secret gangs to be a shield against the left's fanatical machete ideology. But above all, whether you do that or not, you must muck and expose them because your Your mockery drives them to rage and to overreach and to expose themselves, to lift the skirts over their heads in front of normies.

And this what we must try for because normies will be horrified to see that bulge in those panties on the left. Very good. Until next time. Bap out.