140 million people without power, total blackout Bangladesh, blackout months. It is, their power grid is gone, and the Bangladeshi engineers have tried to, I hear, fix the electric short circuits on Bangladeshi motherboard with paneer, with paneer cheese, but this predictable outcome when you try to use paneer to gum up, to glue up the electric short circuit. I joke. I like Bangladesh food. I think it's similar maybe to Indian Calcutta or Bengali cuisine. I don't know if that's true, but I like that with the fish curry or whatever. I miss this. I am now in dreary northern climate with terrible food. The stereotypes are true. The northern climates have very bad food. This is why northern countries import, so Holland

import the food of Indonesia. Those are actually two extreme overpopulated countries. Holland and Indonesia extreme overpopulation. Bangladesh, 140 million people packed into very tight space. I have no idea what people mean when they say overpopulation is a myth. Schopenhauer is is complete correct in his time that overpopulation, the evils of it are hard to imagine, but unless you are able to go in middle of total wilderness and survive on your own in a place where there are no people at all, which very few people have resources or skill to do this, almost anywhere in the world you go is overpopulate. The only place I've experienced without that is Iceland, and there indeed you can drive out of a city within five to 10 minutes, you can have complete solitude.

But that does not exist in mainland Europe, almost at all. You go outside the city of Lisbon in Portugal and it's just one gigantic suburb. Same with Germany, same with Holland, Netherlands, complete overpopulation of the densest packed places in the world. Not to speak of Central America or many such, where I had dreams of finding solitude in the tropics and almost no such thing. Anywhere that is accessible by car, even dirt road, you turn around on a hill that in Iceland you would have nothing but you and the gods and complete empty landscape and in a place like Mexico or Costa Rica is one small hamlet on top of another on every small nook and cranny you will look in. But it's true what they say about northern cuisine. It is bland, Nietzsche call German food, he say it is paperweight.

It is pastries made for paperweight and the insipid style to serve soup at the beginning of meal, which has now been universally adopted, was still called alla Tedeschi, the German style in older Italian cookbooks. I never like to eat soup at the beginning of meal. The Asians have better, either as accompaniment to main dish or even after, as a broth after the meal is better, but I miss very much as you may tell, I miss Spanish food. I will do show on Spain and Spanish cuisine some other time, but I miss this. They make stew with almond flour and saffron. It's called Pepitoria stew, and it's a very simple peasant dish, very old Spanish recipe found in the oldest cookbooks. But something that simple, in northern climates, it becomes impossible, any northern food impossible

to digest, impossible to digest, you know, I miss that. I did a lot of damage to the European cause before I left Spain. They had already passed a law that you could not put the air conditioner at a setting lower than 27 degrees in the summer, which, if you know, European summers, almost any city on mainland Europe is impossibly hot in the summer. It's hotter than many parts of South America, for sure, and 27 degrees become unbearably hot. Of course, they couldn't enforce that in people's private apartments, so they say they pass assets for public buildings and for stores, and it was extreme uncomfort. And already the Euro-poors are heading in this direction, where limited how much hot shower you take, their leaders hanging them.

I thought so-called liberal democracy, the Western so-called regimes were supposed to at least deliver comfort. I thought material plenty was one of their main selling points. But now you're supposed to live Soviet lifestyle. And where I grew up in a Soviet-type environment, they had not so much blackouts, occasional blackouts, but in the winter they would occasionally cut the heat. So I would have to heat myself before going to school in front of a stove at times. And this makes me extremely impatient with Americans who like to give stories of their so-called material deprivation. I did not feel deprived, by the way, but if you leave Soviet-bloc countries, this perhaps experience you've had, or you would get bananas or oranges once a year, it was a special occasion.

But now, West Europeans are expected to live this way and to transition from meat to insect powder and to cut their similar law in the upcoming winter, which in Spain by the way is quite cold. Madrid gets very windy also, so the temperature you see online is actually misleading because Because much colder in person, wind penetrates wherever you live and they say 19 degrees Celsius is the highest you can set your thermostat. And in places like Switzerland, I hear they are enforcing it even in private homes. But I'm just trying to tell you I did a maximum damage that I could before I left Spain. I was there in August which is extreme hot month, unbearably hot. Well it's beddably hot because it's dry. Madrid is basically built in the desert because Philip II had Asperger and he said we will

have this new capital because it's in the middle of country and he built it basically in the middle of the desert. So it's Spain's Los Angeles. So desert heat is more tolerable and I hear a place like Rome in the summer or Tokyo in in August is unbearably humid, you cannot even breathe. But Madrid is very hot and I used to put air conditioner blast, maximum blast, I would leave it all day long, even when I wasn't there I would leave it on, I would leave big screen television on, I put YouTube, beach channel, you search beach scene, no loop, Because I like background noise the same way that, excuse if I repeat myself, I don't remember what I even say last show, but Dick Cheney like to go hotel room with Fox News already set to, so I think it was so he wouldn't feel lonely.

I like this background noise, I put beach or forest sounds in the background for a stream sound, by the way, this kind of natural white noise. If you have trouble sleeping, you put headphones with natural white noise. You search forest, stream, no loop. It must not have a loop, because some of these programs trick you. They put the same sample, five minutes, or even if it's half an hour, over and over again for five hours. Your brain starts to notice a loop and finds this extreme, it rejects it. It rejects it as unreal. It becomes extreme discomfort. So I would leave these appliances on all day to waste energy and help Putin. I would take one hour long showers. I've always done this by the way. I wasn't doing this just to spite the Euro-poors and there you have to live with less.

Is that the new selling point of the European common market and American liberal democracies that you have to tighten your belt and live a Soviet lifestyle? I put one hour shower sometime twice a day. It's one of the best places to have new thoughts, by the way, just by yourself in the shower. So I would do this just to stick it. And I encourage all of you, in Europe especially, ignore the laws. If you have a store, if you're a store owner, put on blast. As winter comes, put the heat on blast. a lookout, contract with the other store owners on the street to have a lookout so that if a government janny comes along to check on you, an inspector, they will give a text message warning you that you can set it down and pretend it, you know, and but just leave everything on blast.

Just max out the European power grid. You know, yes, do it to spite them, teach them a lesson that they cannot lecture you. It's an upcoming climate change lockdown. They have successive lockdowns. The Wuhan fake lockdown, the climate change lockdown, and in other countries they will try to do a forced lockdown on you by letting criminals run rampant, which they've already done in places like United States and Brazil. But Europeans get tired in some way of status quo. They elect Meloni in Italy. Her position on Ukraine is questionable, I understand, but she's very good. She ran a party with the flame logo. Why is this important? After World War II, I think 1947, there was a successor to Italian fascist parties that had this same logo, a flame.

People noticed this and attacked her, and she refused absolutely to back down. She's a veteran of street battles against communists. So she's an old, genuine, hard-right street fighter, and the many of the things she says about saving Italian heritage, the Italian people, stopping possibly immigration, I think no matter what happens, having someone like Maloney in Italy, which would be a major coming in ground if, let's say, the European elites were trying to stage tens, or I'm afraid they They would even try a hundred million Africans to come into Europe after Gaddafi was destroyed from Libya and the Italians are very upset about that because they have long-running relationship with Lydia, excuse me, Lydia, yeah, Lydia, ancient Lydia and the Koreans, yeah.

The Etruscans actually are from there, but that's another story. But no, Italy had a relationship with Gaddafi, Berlusconi did to stop migrants coming in from Africa, and the French especially, but other Europeans and NATO destroyed that. The Italians are still very upset about it. Having this unapologetic, basically fascist as leader of Italy, may stop the European plan to flood, I would have guessed tens of millions to maybe even a hundred million Africans, which I thought would be the next social media hysteria after Wuhan and after this Ukraine They would flood Europe with tens of millions of Africans under a food shortage crisis hysteria or climate hysteria. Maybe they would try to meld them into one. But if she is there, I think very high chance she could stop it.

And I speak to a friend who knows her. I will not, I never kiss and tell, I will not even say if he is European or American, but he knows her personally. And he realized I don't like her Ukraine position because why she would do this? Why subject the Italian people to deprivation just so that United States, Victoria Nuland, who is a heifer who should be baking briskets, why sacrifice the welfare of European people and actually not just that but sacrifice European industry, German industry might fail without Russian energy. Why sacrifice this so she can have a career and use the poor Ukrainians as kamikazes against the Russians? It makes no sense for Europe, this rivalry against Russia, I think, is an enmity to Russia, a holdover of the Cold War.

In East Europe, I can tell you, it is entirely an old people thing. They still harbor justified maybe resentment for the Russians, but for things that happened 50, 60 years ago in some cases, because even with Russia's nominal domination of the Warsaw Pact, in fact, after, let's say, 1968, Russia's oligarchic institution, the Presidio, decided we will not do this anymore. We are not going to militarily enforce Warsaw Pact membership and communism. So it was actually the local commie elites, many of whom are still in East European governments, so-called post-communists. It was them who oppressed the people since at least the 1970s. It was not the Russians, so you'd have to go before 1970 to find real Russian malfeasance

in East Europe, leave aside Germany where they had troops and so forth. But even so, the old people harbor this ancient resentment or old memories of Russian. And they're real. If you talk to old people in East Europe who experienced German occupation versus Russian, they have very good stories about so-called German occupation. They talk about how German soldiers fed their chocolate rations to local children. They were always kind and civilized, whereas Russians would steal everything. They steal chickens, basically all the stereotypes you see repeated now in Ukraine, which may or may not be true. But I knew old people in East Europe who were saying the same things. This is just how Russian, this is how Russian Africans act, Russia is basically Africa.

But they haven't really done that in Europe proper for again, more than 50 years. And so it's an old people thing in East Europe, the younger people are not interested in being used as kamikazes against Russia, I can tell you that. Which is why all of these East European countries, including for example Poland, which has such a big mouth, and we are all, we are 40 million Polish strong, and we are going to refound the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Empire. We will have an empire stretching into Siberia. They really do have some grandiose talk like that, but it's just talk because for all their talk and for all their warmongering against Russia and their warnings. When you look at Poland, they spend very small of their GDP on defense, and they do not have

national military service the way, for example, Finland does, or Switzerland or Israel. For some reason, tough talking Poland, see, the Polish have other priorities because the Polish youth, like almost all youth from East Europe, they don't live in East Europe. They have gone, because of the EU, to West Europe and some work in white color and many more work in blue color thing in West Europe. That's one of the unsaid things when people talk about migrants and foreigners in West Europe. A lot of them are East European who, by the way, should not be there under a so-called white nationalist unity. You wouldn't care, but I do care. East Europeans don't belong in Madrid and Paris and so forth. they are, you know, someone like me, I do not come to take jobs away from the Spanish

or the French, you see, and I do not come to change their demographics, I just come to take their women, that's different. But this friend, he explained to me Maloney's position on Ukraine, which again does not otherwise make sense to me, from a European sovereignty point of view, Europe should try to live together with Russia maybe instead of pushing it with China. But he explained to me, and I want to tell you, because it's a holdover in some way of Cold War rivalries, what are the factions in Europe? Why somebody like Maloney, who is European, in this case Italian nationalist, and skeptical of the EU project, she does not want to leave, and by the way, neither does Orban or many of the people in East Europe, because they get a lot of money and benefits from the EU,

So almost no nationalist leader in East Europe wants to leave the EU. They want to drag the EU toward what they see as a center-right or right-wing view, as opposed to the left-wing establishment that is French-German, and that is the point. A European rightist, let's say, like Meloni, who is an immigration skeptic and wants to do many of these other kinds of reforms, they are against the EU establishment, which is basically France-Germany, and they are the leftists, they are the ones with the anti-fascist rhetoric and so forth, and they are the pro-immigration fanatics. But the EU-French-German partnership is not so much that they are pro-Russian, but they They are much more pro-Russian than these other types.

They, for example, do not like so much American war-mongering against Russia or trying to increase tensions between Europe and Russia. They want the Russian energy. And before the present conflict, where they were forced to side against Russia because they invade the country, so it's very hard to stand for that. But before the present conflict, especially the German left was very much for living together with Russia. You will hear European rightists now, they do not like this man Schultz, they blame him so much. And even now, the French and Germans, although they are providing some benefits to Ukraine, they are providing very little, for example, French. I saw a statistic recently that France, despite its big mouth in this conflict, France is

providing something like 3% of the weapons to Ukraine and Germany, I think 9%, whereas the vast majority of the weapons are coming from the United States and the UK, and of course there's a lot of East European enthusiasm. Again, I do not think the people of East Europe, at least the young ones, are for this pointless conflict with Russia, but the governments certainly are. In any case, in Europe, this friend told me, who knows Maloney and knows European political scene very well, he said, well, in Europe, if you want to be against the EU pro-immigration leftist establishment, which for both practical and some historical holdover reasons from the Cold War is aligned with Russia, you have to be pro-NATO and you have to be pro- essentially

Victoria Newland, unfortunately, and you have to be pro-American, you have to be for the Atlantic alliance, because France especially is against that alliance and wants Europe to go its own way under its own leadership together with Germany. And I say to him, why? Why are these the only two factions? And he very honestly tell me, I think unfortunately is true, it's because these countries don't really have sovereignty. Italy is not a sovereign country. It's some type of pipsqueak toy country where Giorgia Meloni, if she decided to go her own way, she would be either de facto aligned with the French and the Germans and their left wing establishment, which hates her and what she stands for, the fact that she wants to stand for Italian identity and against immigration.

She'd have to go with them. And if she doesn't go with them, she'd be alone and without foreign support, which in Italy, Italian politics since the days of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines, it's all mattered who support you from abroad, right? So what can she do? Her hands are tied. These are the two factions on the ground. If she wants to go a based immigration skeptic way, she has to go Atlantic Alliance pro-American way. And America say, you support our foreign policy, you support us in Ukraine, and that's the price you pay for being allowed to do your Orban-type immigration skeptic program. By the way, I think she's a lot better than Orban. Orban is good, but there's a lot of nonsense about Orban on the American intellectual conservative right in Washington, D.C.

They are very much focused on his religious conservatism because they don't want to focus on his immigration skepticism and national identitarianism and so forth. But this unfortunately, and by the way, this is not endorsement of support for Ukraine or that she has to side with Atlantic Alliance because Italy in fact has no national being of its own. But this is, in fact, a holdover from pre-existing alliances is very hard to get out of. In Finland, for example, I used to like to ask the European right when the Ukraine conflict starts, I asked them, why are you against Russia? What has Russia ever done that's bad to you? Well, people in West Europe could hardly ever answer that. But Finnish posters gave me a very complete list showing that Finnish left-wing politicians

are supported by Russia. The same people who support multiculturalism, so-called, or minority rights, they don't have that many migrants and so forth in Finland, but they have some. But the same people who support that and support open borders for Finland and who are against Finnish national identity, they are pro-Russian and they are supported by Russia directly some time with money and such thing. Unfortunately, as you saw from recent Putler speech, a lot of which his speech was good, but it was also a praise of anti-colonialism and he fell back on his boomer comfort years in which he remembered the Soviet Union as the rallying point of the global colored south against a colonialist imperialism of capitalism and so forth and he still

uses that rhetoric and unfortunately that rhetoric is tied to operational alliances that have endured for example between the Finnish pro-immigration left now they're promoting pro-immigration and Russia Russia support against some leftists also in West Europe and unfortunately they support leftists in in South America, where this is problem in Brazil. The factions in Brazil are mixed up and messed up also. You see, Bolsonaro, he did much better than people thought he would. I speak of Brazilian friends. They tell me there was almost no campaigning being done, either by Bolsonaro or Lula at the, There was campaigning by local people at federal level, municipal level, and so on. But tensions are so high that Lula and Bolsonaro themselves basically did not have rallies

or campaigns that were very open. This is what I'm told. I don't know. Because it would have come out with violence. And what happened was Bolsonaro did much better than expected. They said he would get 35% of the vote. They were off by about 10 points. I think they still used fraud on him. He probably did get over 50% this time. Remember, he won the last election in 2018 with 55% of vote, I think, which is quite rare in modern elections. For whatever reason, across countries, they're always 49 to 51, 50.2% to 48.6%. like it's always one percentage difference, which is very questionable in itself. Why this happens everywhere? Is it real? But he won 55%. I think that's because of a Trump-like effect where they weren't expecting him to win, so they didn't cheat big enough.

Because the cheating in Brazil on elections is epic. I was there when I was witness myself to the selling of 5,000 votes. They were owner of some bakeries, they had, I guess, local political pool over their employees, and they were selling 5,000 votes to a candidate for deputy, local, federal deputy, something like that. Some equivalent of a congress member. And because voting is mandatory in Brazil, you do not get your social security check if you don't vote, the votes just get sold and bought en masse. And nowhere more than in the Northeast, which is a very poor area, and that's the stronghold of the so-called Workers' Party. They don't actually work. They are Lula's base, the open communists, basically. And the cheating there is epic.

So they probably in the last election in 2018, Bolsonaro probably got 75% of vote, I guess. And they cheated. They were not expecting. still ended up with 55%, which is great. I think he won this time also. The polls were wrong in some of these local races in Brazil by 30 points in some cases. It's never, Glenn Greenwald had thread on this, the most wrong polls that have been in any recent election. But while the polls swung 20 to 30 points actually on average in other races, in the presidential race, they were only wrong by about nine points. So I think they stole that, otherwise it would be another one of these effects. Like happened in 2020 in the United States, where Trump supposedly lost, but the congressmen and senators who are much less popular than Trump, they did very well.

And that really never happens. in a presidential election, the further down ticket so-called candidates, they ride the president's charisma, which is what happened in Brazil. In this case, Bolsonaro's party did extremely well. So even if Lula wins the second round, which will happen, I think, October 30, but I think he will lose actually. But even if he wins the second round, he will have hands tied. But you see what I say, it's not usual, it's extremely rare, or actually never happens that a very charismatic candidate who had come out of nowhere, technically loses by very little, but his party has historic gains. That is more evidence of a fixed election. But why I tell you about factions in Europe versus factions in South America?

Because unfortunately Russia still supports the left in South America. They have supported it since Cold War days and they continue to. Those are lasting operational ties and friendships. They don't just go away with supposed change in ideology. They go away with a change in patronage and so forth, which might explain why the United States left has turned against Putin when they were before that for Russia. But in places like South America, where direct patronage existed and in some case maybe continues to be behind the scenes, Russia supports this terrible thing called the Puebla group, which is an international left group aligned with open communism, aligned with Obama and Biden, and they have been winning elections throughout South America.

Venezuela is in large part funding it with oil money and leading it together with Cuba. But they won in Argentina where the rat man connected to Cristina Kirchner, what's his name I think, Alberto Fernandez if I'm not wrong, he is face of rat. But he won there and he's an open commie and open so-called social democrat in Chile. Same thing, they tried to change a constitution in Chile that failed. But these are all the efforts of Puebla group. The riots you see happen throughout South America, in Chile before the election, in Peru. The rise in Colombia also, they won elections there, Colombia will sink back into communist terrorism likely because the new leadership will refuse to fight against them. But these old ties from Cold War exist and Russia supports this.

Meanwhile China also supports the left in South America. China hates Bolsonaro. It is said, Brazilian friends write me, they are very upset because the military in Brazil is said to be owned by China. And Bolsonaro tried, for example, to invoke military help when during the pandemic there were lockdowns planned. He tried to stop the lockdowns and he had actually under the law presidential authority to do so, but the Supreme Court illegally arrogated to itself that authority and said, no, the local governors are allowed to shut down businesses. Which of course, even the people who believe in the whole Wuhan mask thing and vaccines, everyone concedes now that the lockdowns are a gigantic mistake. He was very good on it. He tried to stop it, but he could not.

The Supreme Court essentially assumed a dictatorship and arrogated powers to itself that were very clearly not its own, he tried to invoke military help, but the military refused, you see. This unfortunately, Bolsonaro problem like Trump, he has no institutional support. He has massive popular support, but I am not sure that either of them is a revolutionary enough man to invoke popular support, to call people out on the streets. That's really only move that either Trump or Bolsonaro ever had, otherwise they're being sabotage by every institution in societies. But so traditionally in our factions in South America, it was the United States who sometimes supported the right, sometimes. That's actually very much exaggerated because the same way that you see America now threaten

the Brazilian military, saying that if they interfere in the election or if they stop Lula from coming to power, that the United States will do such and such, they will cut security cooperation, they will cut funding and so forth. The United States was doing that during the Cold War as well. You wouldn't know it from leftist rhetoric, which say United Fruit Company, Banana Republic, United States coming to help American companies. It almost never happened. The American companies who had a lot of money invested in Chile were begging the CIA openly to come and stop Allende from taking power because he said he would nationalize foreign businesses. Well, CIA refused and people forget Allende was actually elected in 1970 and ruled for three years. The CIA did not stop him.

It was local Chileans who had had enough of craziness he had imposed on their society and instability and basically having East German Stasi officers running all over Chile making a replay of red gangs, let me put it that way, red gangs. So this situation in South America now where actually United States which was always for the South American left and always tried to intimidate in Peru the generals like everywhere else were middle class professionals. They were almost the only professional class in society, and they wanted to protect middle class interests, and whenever they do that, the United States tries to interfere. So at times it is true the United States helps the South American right, but this is actually very rare.

But now with Biden in power and Obama, who is basically part of the Puebla group, this is why he goes and congratulates people like Lula, they are brothers in spirit. He congratulates people like Chavez before that. And now, basically, Bolsonaro, as the Brazilian right, has no foreign support at all. This problem there. I will be right back to discuss more politic. Excuse me while I get coffee. Back to the show, Caribbean Rhythms, episode 119, and yes, I hope regular scheduled programming will return soon. I am aware of delays. You must accept because I have been set up by international Puebla group, by the gnomes of Zurich and possibly the Illuminati conspiracy, pedophile network tunnels underneath the state

of Kansas, 40,000 children were freed by the efforts of Jeffrey Sessions and Donald H. Trump trust the plan. But yes, I believe regular schedule programming should be written very soon. In any case, the recent reverses Russia has experienced in Ukraine. And you may have noticed a note, perhaps a resignation in my tone in the last segment. I am upset at Putler. I'm upset at his Norwood socialist, wholesome socialist speech about protecting native peoples against the capitalist aggression of the West and this kind of rhetoric. He's falling back on platitudes of his Soviet upbringing. And in particular, I'm not saying he should come out and support Bolsonaro openly. That probably wouldn't necessarily help Bolsonaro.

But Brazil has been, like Argentina and others, very good about not getting involved in piling on Russia. It abstains from UN security resolutions that attack Russia. At the very least, Puthler could himself abstain from giving support to the leftist conspiracy, and it really is a conspiracy. I covered it on one of these shows, I forget the number, but they meet every few years and they plan, openly conspire, to use liberation theology, Catholicism, wholesome, chungus, traditional socialism, so-called, to push under this disguise. They push terrible policies that will destroy what is left of the thin, the very thin crust, the veneer of civilization that doesn't exist in Africa anymore, but it does exist in South America.

The layer of the Spanish and the other European migrants later who joins them, the layer of European civilization, which Russia is unfortunately helping to erase by allying itself with the so-called disgusting Puebla group, which has now taken over Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and if it take Brazil again with Lula, they will use these countries as a base to launch international operations. And I'm afraid that Russia is back to its old Cold War tricks. But it's experienced reverses in Ukraine in the last week or two. And now, as a result of this world historical analysis, according to the week's news, this is a pundit intellectual specialty. So there is a guy who confuses Fukuyama arguments. He believes that China's stupidity on zero COVID, where you see constant lockdowns, extreme

repression of Chinese, still putting them in their own homes. You can't leave your house in some of these cities, lockdowns are still enforced, you need to get into anywhere, you need the passcode and so forth, while the West has, at least for now, for the most part, gotten past the lockdowns. And so this guy, I don't want to say his name, it's Richard Banana or something, but he say that the examples of China's apparent failure on Wuhan and Russia's reverses in the Ukraine, that it proves Fukuyama's thesis is utterly stupid, confused about Fukuyama. Russia and China were never really examples against Fukuyama's thesis about end of history. Fukuyama was saying that liberal democracy does not have serious ideological challengers after the end of Cold War.

But Russia and China were never serious alternatives against Fukuyama's thesis. I know people presented them, they presented Islam especially after 2001 and attacks as some kind of challenge to Fukuyama's thesis. Those are stupid arguments, they misunderstand Fukuyama, he's wrong for other reasons. In fact, Japan and Russia and Hungary might be forms under which liberal democracy actually survives. Russia is a liberal democracy. You have to remember Fukuyama wrote his book in early 1990s. At that time it was not a given that liberal democracy must include wokeism or must include open borders or that it has to be opposed to national identity. In fact, classical liberalism is completely compatible with nationalism in 19th century Europe. They went together very well and even

Even in modern form of liberal democracy after 1950, it's not at all a given that liberal democracy must, for example, include open borders or attacks on national identity and so forth. Things like Maloney might be actually the form under which liberal democracy survives. This guy and many others who, again, are doing historical and philosophical geopolitical analysis according to this week's news. I think it's foolish. Next week, or a month from now, if Russia wins again, they will talk about Sam Huntington and how he was right. And they will talk, they'll be back to talking about Dugin, even though Dugin has nothing to do with the Russian theory of state right now. But people who make this argument confuse American and NATO power for Fukuyama thesis

liberal democracy, and the two are not the same. You know, it's possible actually that United States is becoming something else and that liberal democracy would survive in other places, in other forms, Switzerland for example, liberal democracy. Maybe that is the model under which it will survive. The biggest example of challenge to Fukuyama claim, I think, actually comes from United States itself. And I'm not talking just about the trans thing, which you can say is a side issue still very small, or the Wuhan successive hysterias, although it isn't just Wuhan, right? It's Wuhan, it's Ukraine, it's the next one, the climate one. These are successive hysterias, which they challenge Fukuyama's main claim in that book that the same way that if you let dog if you allow a dog to become stray

dog many of you don't know this I used to play with stray dog when I was a small boy they were my favorite friends they are very lazy they sit around most of the day doing nothing other time they like to play they like children I used to train in particular my favorite doggie she she was beautiful beautiful And I used to train her to attack nasty old people who live in In park close to where I grew up and I trained this dog to attack them. I love the stray dog the half wild dog and The lazy dog human type this what Fukuyama was saying in the same ways that you let dogs If they're free they lie around most of the day. He was saying well this kind of laid-back laid-back human who is not really animated by any strong political passions.

This is the future of man, at least in the near term, because it is the type that embodies the values of liberal democracy. Which is a nice point and possibly true actually, but it's completely at odds with what you see now with these successive social media hysterias like the Wuhan and so forth. But okay, leave that aside. Let's grant for sake of argument that you're willing to forget what just happened with people getting locked in their homes and medical tyranny. Although you should not forget it, it's very significant that Sweden, uber liberal Sweden, right, shit lib Sweden, and Japan of all places were the ones that enacted the fewest restrictions. In fact, Japan is by law not allowed to enact medical tyranny because it's part of their

constitution, having to do with things that were believed to have been done in World War II and so forth. So it's very interesting, yes, Japan and Sweden too, by the way, they did have restrictions that came from social consensus. In other words, people willingly didn't go to movie theaters at height of pandemic and so forth. And it's same in Japan with the mask. Actually as many of you who have visited Asia before know, it's a custom in Asia to put mask on during flu season anyway, now it's just become much more common. But you can go without a mask on in East Asia, it's just people will look badly at you, someone may say something, but it's not a law like it was in the West, it was not a legally enforced tyranny, you see, medical tyranny.

In Japan and Sweden, whatever measures were taken against the pandemic were done by social consensus and they were done willingly by the people. And that's very interesting because I would say these kinds of examples, a small well-run Nordic country with actually limited immigrations the way that Denmark, social democrat Denmark is enforcing some immigration laws now and actually for a while under the table in Nordic technocratic style, professionally done and doing it well, but that and Japan may be the future of liberal democracy and their response to the pandemic is therefore very significant. So I don't think you can overlook that the Wuhan hysteria is a point against Fukuyama because in the center of so-called liberal civilization populations were taken by a kind

of emotional response and emotional human type that is not possible in a liberal democracy. When you have middle-aged crazy, really crazed women who are fuck crazy, for whatever reason they're fuck crazy, they have not been themselves, they have not been regulated in some time, and this becomes somehow a hysteria engine of these societies. Whatever it may become, it's not liberal democracy. But okay, I tell you, even let that go, okay? When you have, quite aside from that, cities burning in the name of negrolatric civil religion, in fact you have the rising up of victimization identities and ethnic groups that are not treated equally under the law and are not expected to, and you have extreme court Judge

Jumanji Jackson just recently, I think yesterday, make point that the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment, is not intended to be race-blind and such thing. These are not compatible with a central liberal authority that manages them. See, the liberal Democrat model is that you can allow and even encourage these fractious ethnic identities because you have a center that holds. But that may not be the case. This is the starship trooper self-image that the WASP has, or now it's the WASP Jew, right? What is their self-image? That they lead a motley, multiracial, multicultural coalition against fascism and destroy fascism around the universe. That is the WASP self-myth. But it breaks down in reality. In America, it becomes ethnic balkanization and not just in America.

is undergoing an ethnic awakening moment, and that happens together at the same time that very large states are unable to meet their obligations. You have crumbling infrastructure and dams and so forth, for example, in a place like California and many other places, United States, because whether it's for economic reasons or the bureaucratic path dependence leading to corruption of some type, these large states are unable to meet economic daily life needs of their citizens. And this happening at the same time that a kind of ethnic identity wake-up moment worldwide, you see. It's this that is biggest challenge to Fukuyama's thesis, America itself. Again, Japan, ironically, a form under which liberal democracy can actually survive.

And some of these people, including this article I read that's been spread around saying that Fukuyama was right and so forth, and he deals with the example of Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore as a supposed counterexample that isn't. He say, challengers of liberal democracies often mention Lee Kuan Yew as a type of monarchy, as a type of one-man rule that works, but they can only mention Lee Kuan Yew because he's the only example actually other dictatorships have failed. I think this misunderstanding of, again, Fukuyama, Lee Kuan Yew, again, not through challenge to so-called liberal democracy, he's very much a hybrid case. You can make case Lee Kuan Yew is a kind of liberal democracy. He's arguably less democratic than France or Canada now.

When you see the way Macron or Trudeau in Canada treated protests seizing bank accounts, using actually extreme brutality, physical brutality against protesters, blinding them. Lee Kuan Yew never had to resort to really such things. Now Salazar and Franco, they are examples of alternative regime dictatorship types. And it's true that they do not offer a real challenge anymore or at this time. But what such argument overlooks is that Franco and Salazar, although they were successful holding patterns, they did not provide actually challenges to liberal world order even at the time they were at their height. They did not have the charisma to. They were local phenomena, successful resistances, as by the way, despite all of these arguments,

I think Russia, China, and so forth will resist, let's say, NATO-American domination no matter of what happens. But in my opinion, they are still, China believes itself to be communist even though it's not, but it's some kind of weird hybrid thing. And Russia is a liberal democracy by almost any 19th century definition and by I'd say most 20th century ones. Now again, Franco Salazar, they could be used as counterexamples, but they didn't have the kind of spirited, the kind of popular spirit that could drive them and have other nations say, wow, that looks amazing. I want some of that. They would local holding patterns, local resistances. Mussolini, by contrast, he does offer a challenge to liberal democracy

for the future, I believe. Even Alan Blum, who I disagree many think Alan Blum, and he's Alan Blum, not friend of fascism as is well known, but in his review of Fukuyama at the time, even he admitted that fascism has a future. Liberal democracy depends, even when it exists in very healthy form like Japan or Switzerland or whatever, it depends on the repression of fascism both politically and in speech. By in speech, this means spiritually. So it's technically legally allowed to be one, it's in the same way it's technically legally allowed to talk about what, for example, Nietzsche say. But when you look at how information get controlled in a traditional society before, I guess that's a silly thing to say, it's not traditional, they're modern societies, but I mean before

the internet, in a traditional media environment, the way information get controlled in universities, they may teach somebody like Nietzsche, they may mention fascist philosopher like Giovanni Gentile, although that's very rare, but they could not suppress Nietzsche, although I believe they would have wanted to ban him. But in the same way that Machiavelli say that early Christians, although they wanted to obliterate classical civilization, they could not because they were forced to preserve the Latin language. And because they were forced to preserve the Latin language, they were forced to preserve many of the classics that went against what they said and so forth. In the same way, after 1950, these people, rulers of the so-called liberal regimes, who

At the time, and even before, they were blaming Nietzsche, since actually World War I, for German militarism, for anti-liberal sentiment, for fascism and Nazism. And I think they would have wanted to ban him, but his influence had been so great among non-political things, among theorists in other fields, but especially among famous writers and artists and even dancers. I mean when you have someone like Isadora Duncan an innovator in dance art form who is a Nietzschean of Maybe she misunderstood him, but when you have cultural figures like that you cannot really ban him So they are forced to preserve him But what happens is just now you saw maybe statistics should not be surprised you professors in history field outnumber

Democrat to Republican are 33 to 1 and in other fields it's similar psychology something like 15 to 1. So when you have any departments like history or philosophy where the Democrat outnumber the Republican by these margin and by the way the Republican himself is probably somebody hostile to thought like Nietzsche. Probably among Republicans you have 20 to 1 people who dislike Nietzsche versus people who genuinely like and understand what he say. When you have these ratios, what you're doing, why these ratios exist because Nietzsche I think is a relatively clear writer, very seductive students might be seduced by his anti-democratic thought, by his political thought and try to enact it or we have let's say Nietzsche Club, we believe in what he

say, well, anything like that gets shut down very quickly. Yes, they will not send police after you, but people who believe in that are shut out of any jobs and so forth. So in a traditional media environment, what happens, it gets controlled this way. The universities get, yes, you can discuss Nietzsche, but any practical or actually vital understanding of his knowledge of his, excuse me, of his thought gets edited out. The only thing that's allowed is a highly distorted edited version, not just of Nietzsche, I'm using him as an example, of many other anti-liberal thinkers. They get very much edited down. And nothing is allowed to go into media journalism, books published or anything of the sort that goes against party line on fundamental level.

This repression depends, liberal democracy depends on this repression. But this repression, I believe, introduces special distortions. Maybe I discussed that some other time. When they have to do this, it forces special distortions and contradictions to arise within liberal society when it does this. And then, when coming off internet, then they have to become heavy-handed about it, right? Because you see, it's not just me, but you see what I do, what other frogs do. I spread Nietzsche thought in, I don't think I distort it, I popularize it a little bit, I add some of my own things, but you see how attractive it is, they have to keep banning me and they have to keep trying to limit my reach in all kinds of ways and even so, when

you allow it to spread, it spreads very fast, it's instantly attractive, people love it and they feel that it tells the truth of your time. So they have then to become very heavy-handed in their censorship. But yes, this long-term, I would not call it necessarily fascism, because fascism is a Nietzschean response to liberalism and especially to communism, but very much in an early 20th century context that is very statist and particular maybe to that time. Future forms of Nietzscheanism are just as anti-liberal, but they may look quite different in practice. I think long-term this of what Ellen Bloom calls fascism or let's say pan-European meta-fascism of a Nietzschean sort is possibly a long-term challenge to a liberal society

if censorship can wither away, if there can be some freedom on the internet. On the other hand, the inevitable fate of all modern big states because of declining human capital, the decline of these states under the weight of corruption and stupidity of the so-called ruling class, under this weight happening at the same time as ethnic Awakening moment worldwide, I believe this in short term is serious, much more serious challenge to Fukuyama thesis than anything having to do with Dugin or Russia or China, which only the most dead brain, Sinophiles thought could provide a challenge. China cannot solve its problem of the stomach. It cannot solve its water problem. China sucks. It is a red hive. I will be right back. Yes, welcome back to the show.

You might hear sometimes occasional voices outside. I do not want to stop recording, but there is now construction site outside my window. This is what they do, I believe. It's Salvadorians or Cape Verdeans. I don't know what kind migrant worker. It's possible they want to take my beautiful white skin and wear it, like a cape in that movie Silence of the Lambs. I knew a person who believed this. I may have talked about her before, the chess lady who was absolute sure that her hands had been crushed by a black bus driver and she frequently also said the various black moors, homeless on the street, were trying to steal her beautiful white skin. They were jealous of it and possibly to where it is not what is the name of this serial killer. It's not Billy Eilish.

It's Billy something from that movie Silence of the Lambs, which of course should have the LGBTQ tag on it just like Jeffrey Dahmer, but it caused actually riots even back then. The gays did not like this movie. So I was Star Wars argument many years ago. I get in touch with this guy who was writing stupid article about how Star Wars is a mythic right wing versus the scientific and progressive left wing of Star Trek. I think it's Brin or something like this. It doesn't matter. He's a nobody. But at that time, they still answered emails from time to time. And I think if I remember article right, his point was that Star Wars is a kind of mythic story of hero journey where you have a separate class of religious mystic warrior aristocracy

and they're fighting with swords and that this is somehow harkening back medieval fantasies of an older social order and glamorizing the feel of an older social worker and transposing it to the future, which he felt was a betrayal of that future. Because it puts you in that older, mythical, religious frame of mind, or whatever associations he made in his poor education history. But he believed that Star Trek conspicuously, because it has no religion, and it's a society in which technology and social status are not, and I'm not sure actually he's correct about this because Starfleet and Star Trek is a kind of meritocratic academy, but I suppose the point made throughout the Star Trek series is it's something open to all, the Starfleet bureaucracy and kind of military hierarchy,

and regardless of birth, it's open to you, whereas in Star Wars, blood and birth actually played a big part throughout the series. And in Dune as well, which I think these kinds of people also dislike, they think Dune and Star Wars are similar and they try to glamorize pre-modern ways. Whether, for example, Luke Skywalker, who's the leader of Resistance, and he's revealed to be actually Darth Vader's son, and then later this theme is continued, even though they make, they openly try to make anti-blood point when the girl from the most recent episodes was Palpatine's blood relation and she boldly and nobly renounces her family ties in favor of her loyalty to the Jedi. But whether it's a distinction and superiority or

or on the Jedi or the dark side, it's granted by having this inborn quality of so-called midi-chlorians or something like this, which are hereditary and literally, in other words, in this series, whether you are the good guy or the bad guy, antagonist, the main, the powerful people, the voice of God in them is a kind of hereditary power. So you can see why a leftist who wants to use science fiction as a means to propaganda is a future that they had hoped left all these things behind, they would get mad at this. And this guy, I don't even know if, it's an argument you hear repeated, but they use this other language, they say it's a pyramid-shaped social structure of traditional societies, and they claim this is reflected in things like Star Wars or the pseudo-feudal Dune versus

But they considered the novel, scientific, egalitarian, progressive, diamond-shaped, whatever this means, social structure from Star Trek, which they didn't elaborate beyond saying that, I think I'm paraphrasing something you said, the son of cobblers and bakers would be allowed opportunity for advancement and many such things. People used to talk on forums like this. But of course that's part of the Star Wars myth also, and I suppose it was mainly the the focus on blood heredity element and the religious theological aspect that bother him, you know, shit libs, even when they believe in meritocracy and many still actually claim to they, they want to, but they never believe that it's the result of natural inborn abilities.

They think it's because of education, and of having gotten a right education, which may be a matter of luck or of circumstance of birth, but it's a matter of getting a right education, which then a so-called aristocracy, and I would never call a technocratic meritocracy in any case something like an aristocracy, but they believe that such an aristocracy of education is in theory extendable to all. And some say that this was the promise of the Enlightenment itself. In other words, to universalize European aristocracy and to lift everyone up to that level of the the European aristocracy, at least that was supposed to be the original intention of the philosophy and so forth that preceded French Revolution, and of course the opposite ended

up happening where everybody was absorbed into trollhood and peasantry, and hence now you have the Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, Podesta, Lobster, Risotto Club parody replacement of aristocracy. Sir, did you have your daily dose of Chardonnay and New York Times talking points? Please remember, sir, that if you forego this more than a few weeks, you stand to lose your position in aristocracy, a new understanding of class. I don't fully agree with a mold-bug thought on class in modern societies, but it's really kind of anti-aristocracy, by the way, because aristocracy is part of what is, by granting a kind of security, the aristocrat cannot be, even if he enters bad financial times, does not lose that aristocratic social status unless he somehow truly dishonors for himself,

for example, by getting a paying job. It was considered extremely dishonorable to get paid daily or by the week. On the other hand, if you received a semestral stipend, something like every three months or four months, that is a more aristocratic way of getting paid. So remember to insist on that at your job and to say, sir, I may use physical violence against you if you don't pay me upfront every three months. But they could not really lose their inborn aristocratic status. This is a big part of how they see themselves historically across cultures. why Odysseus is very proud to wash up entirely nude on a beach and to address a princess. He looks like a complete hippie pirate who has been adrift at sea and he's completely

naked, but he addresses this princess as an equal and reasserts his true natural status by his body, his bearing, and the way he speaks. So it's actually quite important that for this scene he's entirely nude. You know, the aristocrat, the real aristocrat, I mean, not this kind of oriental fake bureaucrat with long fingernails, but the real European aristocrat takes pride in his nude form. He hates clothes modes. He realizes, you know, the guy who wears clothing, it's a kind of a... But it's very different from the snob upper middle class shit lib who lives in permanent status insecurity. And their educational credentials, you know, this is why they're so brittle and touchy about that. That is their official status title, that's why they're so, you know, they get so snobby

about these things and very insecure when they see people who don't share their opinions. Unfortunately, there is an element on our sphere, the populist hick post-Trump types. These are the kind also of, during Trump campaign, the kind of Republicans who felt embarrassed by Trump's mannerisms, oh, it's so low class, it's so Queens, you know, they didn't want to say it, of course, but he acted like 1960s Jewish stand-up comedian, oh, it's so uncouth, you know, he does not talk like with lilting faggot voice, like college-educated, so-called, I've just been describing, but there is a populist hick post-Trump type who are credentialists as well, though they do not admit this, they believe in prestige and they're incredibly

touchy about prestige things and they just invert this and they pretend to invert some of these valuations, but they still have a kind of bizarre, oh I have a class interest understanding of social life where credentials they form a kind of, well look this goes a a long time and for other things. I want to talk Star Wars, right? So is Star Wars right-wing or left-wing? So many say this is not such a useful concept, but I think it's very useful to understand what Star Wars means when watched by average normies. There is a tendency again among post-Trump leptoids to say, if you pay attention to any cultural phenomena like this, You are engaging in consumerism, in debates about consumerist preference. You may have seen such arguments spread around online, or it's very bizarre.

Star War, Star Trek, less so, but Star War and this such thing are cultural phenomenon. You must understand how Normie sees them, what are inculcating into Normie's movies and now the internet, Tumblr and such thing, much more important than any theoretical treaties in what is fate of ideas among the people, but in its own time, Star Wars was actually seen as America versus evil empire of the Soviet Union. So I think fundamentally this is what upsets shit lib about the Star Wars story, because they all loved the Soviet Union, whatever retconning you hear now about neoliberalism versus the old left and so forth, all shit libs, all leftists, more or less were pro-Soviet. There were some exceptions, mostly about the fact that they thought the Soviets had betrayed

the original intention or were not doing it competently. Some just thought it had gone the wrong way. For example, also when the Ashk, when the tribe of the Ashk lost that franchise or something along these lines, but the left was as much for the Soviet Union and Russia back then before 1990 as they are against Putin now. And I try, maybe say earlier in show, maybe I repeated before, but some of these operational ties have remained, especially in Europe and other parts of the world, which is why these strange alliances still linger now. The operational side lags the ideological, and Putin himself, unfortunately, still caught up in the rhetoric of his boomer years because he thinks that were before and now, you know, he's in trouble, he thinks he can rely on that.

Going with this America as Jedi and this crappy republic fighting, you know, the evil empire, actually this America has always seen itself this way. My favorite American historian of recent years, Hélène Dubérière, points out that all the left-wing CIA, and it had genuine communists and pro-Soviet people in its ranks, but all it had to do to rally support behind many of its foreign subversions of traditional societies and of right-wing groups was to tell Americans that they were fighting monarchy and that always convinced the American public to support whatever the CIA did. One of James Jesus Engleton's first jobs was to work with others to destroy the Italian monarchy. Of course, this man now retconned instead of, if you watch The Good Shepherd, his herald of the WASP old guard.

From the rhetoric online, including Alex Jones' rhetoric, you'd think that they were part of a secret handshake club with the European noble houses and so forth when, in fact, the ECA and the OSS in the 40s and 50s in Europe worked nonstop to destroy all vestiges of monarchy in Europe. They did this often with Jewish labor leaders and with international socialist union organizers, And unions of this type were the CA's preferred NGOs for the color revolutions of the time. The case of Diem in Vietnam, I keep repeating, is just very obvious because it was organized by the labor left. Diem in Vietnam, his only base of support was his brother's socialist labor left union. And the AFL-CIO is interesting, forgotten fact I like to mention, but the AFL-CIO was

is the first to promote the cause of Diện in the United States, entirely a product of the international left. Big part of this same program in Vietnam was to depose the Vietnamese Emperor Bảo Đại. So anti-monarchism is one of the most venerable American traditions. Since 19th century, America goes around Pacific, goes to European colonies, tries to rile up the natives against European rule and so forth. Is this left-wing? It's an interesting question. Did America's revolutionary anti-monarchism and republicanism lock it into a kind of leftist historical revolution? Mollbug and his factions obviously say yes, and there is some indisputable truth to this, because literally in French revolution against French monarchy, it's left-wing. The left was the republican anti-monarchist faction.

They sat on the left of parliament with the far left and the more moderate left, which is to say the libertarian classical liberal sort of party sat on the right wing of parliament next to the monarchists. Neo-reactionaries are fond to quote in this regard one Erich von Kühnelt-Ledding, and he liked to make this point. in Italy and other places, the liberal, again this means libertarian, so-called classical liberal, I don't like that word, but they sat on the right wing next to the monarchists because liberals of that type, I don't mean leftists, but classic liberals and so forth, what actually gets called economic conservatives or libertarians in the United States, they love monarchy because the monarch is only power that is capable, they say, of preserving

individual rights of protecting in particular crucial right to property to protect this from let's say popular redistributive schemes and even American founders many new democracy always leads to the people just voting themselves everybody else's wealth you know so neo reactionaries they like monarchy for this reason and they as well as historically liberals can be actually in alliance quite often with the thrown-and-altered traditionalists of the Franco-type, who these obviously love monarchy for different reasons, the fact that it can protect the church and traditional religious forms from modern leftism, and especially from atheist socialism that has become violent hatred and so forth. But it should be remembered that the two are not as different as is claimed in a popular

mind, or as it appears theoretically on the page. For example, the rallying cry of the Spanish hardcore traditionalists was Dios patria fueros re, God country fueros king, with king coming last after fueros in importance, which is what is fueros. Fueros are the traditional medieval forms and liberties. It's a word with many meanings, but it means basically local codes of laws and customs that have local sovereignty, local estates, meaning privileges, aristocratic privileges and privileges and sovereignties and constitutions, which means these are things that do what? That put great check on any great power. In other words, their rights, their hereditary rights, okay, but real historical rights that were won, whether by local estates or towns or aristocrats, regions and so forth, they're

not changeable, they're immune to intrusions of power, whether monarchical or popular. So in other words, they're liberal, you know, in some sense. And these come in the traditionalist rallying cry in Spain, the monarchists, I mean the traditionalist monarchists, the religious monarchists, before the king. So when Tocqueville speaks of aristocratic or medieval liberties, this is what he means. It's a bit of an inversion from the popular Netflix historical model, which is of increasing democratization and freedom since 1800, which overturns the medieval world of obscurantism and authoritarianism and so forth and replaces freedom and democracy, whereas Tocqueville and thinkers who follow him, like Bertrand Jouvenel, they point out opposites through

that democracy is at odds with liberty in the modern world, that these are the two great principles at war for modern men's spirit, spirit of equality and spirit of liberty, so they say. And so since 1800, the opposite is happening from what the popular conception is. They say a great totalizing power is actually consolidating, eliminating medieval liberties and these traditional rights, and using the claim to furthering equality, that's being used as fig leaf for doing this, for seizing power and seizing the means to wealth. So that democratic authoritarianism is something very possible. So many of you like Hans Hermann Hoppe, he was gateway for many in our sphere from libertarianism to so-called being right-wing and it was by this path he come out this kind of thinking

more or less also so you know I can always tell the leftoid interlopers into right-wing sphere after about 2017 who they do not understand how many frogs came to this by way of Ron Paul and Hop you don't have to agree with that actually I'm not of I don't fully agree with that myself but some of these interlopers aren't even aware of it you know they're quite shocked that people on the right came by that path when it's actually a very frequent route. So yes, the drive to equality destroying possibility of liberty, this reasoning behind rejection, let us say, rejection of democracy and of republicanism and embrace instead of monarchy. And obviously from this point of view, the traditionalist as well as the neo-reactionary,

the American Revolution obviously trapped America into a left-wing social and political evolution. But, you know, you can say, I see what you did there. You said Republicanism and democracy, whereas an American defender, I'd say, America is not totalizing democracy and egalitarianism, of which the founders were also suspicious. It's well-known. They didn't like mob rule and, you know, they looked to Rome and not Greek democracy. And in any case, you know, what concerns me here, of course, discussion of Star War. Is it possible then for a republic to be right-wing. And I think that leaving reactionary and neo-reactionary frame I just sketched out, which is based around their analysis of French Revolution, I think it actually can be.

There could be something like right-wing republicanism, which you can find from ancient world, for example. I must take a short break. There is smell. believe the workers have deployed some extreme brand of Clorox to try to throw essentially the feces of pigeons that they are supposedly here to clean to throw them in my face and poison me and so you'll excuse me for five minutes I will go this and I'll see what's happening I'll be right back if they have not completely cordyceped me with whatever fungi live in the shit of the pigeon I'll be right back excuse disgusting image please think the physique of Pietro Bozzelli he's yeah he's a aristocratic man from Veneto I'll be right back yes I was wrong there was nothing they were had already left and

what happened was one of them had come in to help the other one from inside and I didn't like that he had come in because was wearing shoes that were dirty and I had dropped the covering for my headphones which I used to listen musics while I record this for you and it fell on the floor and so because I do not have alcohols in here I used Hugo Boss men's cologne as the scent to disinfect this headphone and I had forgotten I've done this and that's the smell I was feeling. It's a kind of cologne with a very subtle smell. It doesn't have great holding power. It does not have great reviews. Many of you may enjoy Twitch streamer or you see TikTok, I don't know, Jeremy Fragrance. But I enjoy reading reviews of it where I

see women complain that is Hugo Boss cologne, very popular now used by so-called alpha incels in clubs. I think the word incel is interesting to see how meaning evolves because in this case they do not mean a man who does not have sex with women. They mean incel is a man they do not like who does not perhaps call them after sex or intercourse. I do not know. In any case, I think next show I will go into some length on this because there have been controversies again over the word incel and over young men refusing to sex pork, to sex fat pork's women. But this topic is too important to mix with others I talked today. I am enjoying a record for you. I hope you like. I'm not wearing a shirt. I'm relaxing here. I hope you enjoyed the mention of Pietro Bozzelli. What were we discussing?

In ancient world, you see, there were something like right-wing republicanism, and I'm aware you cannot extend really discussion of right-wing and left-wing before the French Revolution and so on. People make mistake. They think it's universal categories. However, there was something like what people still mean by the word in a loose sense. And in the ancient world, the aristocrats were arranged against one-man rule. They were the protectors, actually, against one-man rule. The tyrant was seen as the champion of the people. So this quite a different model, the Spartan eugenic republic, for example, which anybody who encounters Spartan system today would think this is the most right-wing thing that could be.

He was consistent and thought ancient Greek cities and Rome were totalitarian and that they were historical analogues of the modern totalitarianism in a way and very different from the European liberty that later developed from very different system of European feudalism. But I think anyone casually see a Spartan republic today would say that's a hard right, It served as the model of some of the European hard right in the 20th century. But what did the Spartan eugenic republic specialize in doing in its foreign policy was to depose tyrants. And despite being so-called right-wing, they had a famous saying I am fond of. When the law calls the kings run, this means the king at Sparta. There were two of them. They really only served as generals during time of battle.

But this, again, their specialty was preventing one-man rule and monarchy under some other name from emerging in Greece. Could you say that they were left-wing? I think that is insane. More likely they would be classified among human spiritual phenomena if you want to extend these categories into that. You would have to call them right-wing perhaps. And even in a place like Athens, the aristocratic hetairia, the fraternities and so on, they were to be the guarantors against tyranny, which meant always popular tyranny. And they were the preservers of ancient traditions and knowledge, and also of the older social order. And so this you can say, despite the anachronism of talking in left wing, right wing in antiquity, but it was a kind of right wing republicanism.

You know, we want to stop this demagogue rabble-rouser from, you know, populists from taking power of the state and essentially pilfering us and pillaging our property and our rights to give to this mob of unwashed. So you can see anyway how it could be translated into modern world that there could be a right-wing republic in modern world. And this view, in any case, even if you don't buy into it, an American, modern, small-R Republican would not buy into what I've just said the whole way into the ancient model of what right-wing Republicans we want to call it. But the inverse of everything I've said so far can be true as well. So in other words, if you look Soviet Union, you look China, then of course you say, yes,

can have one man rule or imperial authoritarian monarchical type social form while being left wing, while being left wing revolutionary even. So I think in a sneaky way this is why people like the leftoid I told you I was arguing with or others were on forums about Star Wars versus Star Trek, one being right wing the other being left wing, I think in sneaky way this is why they hate Star Wars because it's It's an attack, very obvious for its time in 1980s on the Soviet Union, and it's therefore actually an attack on the left's own version of technocratic imperial authoritarianism, which in American Cold War small are a Republican frame, that is what the left actually is. It's what the danger of global communism is.

So you hear in their love of China actually when people like Tom Friedman for a long time now but others, many now, complain United States not like China and cannot enact utopian leftist programs, the rational reorganization of human life, cannot do this with authority and speed and resolve like they think China can. And not coincidentally, but maybe these people are not aware that Tocqueville actually has similar comment on the leptoid enlightenment partisans of his time and earlier, the philosophy that preceded French Revolution, because they also were cinephiles. They loved China, and he says they knew nothing about China, but they just made it up. You know, the cinephile is always the same. They love this idea. Why?

Because it's a religionless, secular, as they imagined it, totalizing bureaucracy, you know, with a meritocracy by exam, that type of intellect meritocracy, IQ meritocracy by exam, a bureaucracy in total power by way of credentials, whether they were legitimate or not, with a powerful emperor to enact their dreams with no opposition, no intervening powers like traditional aristocratic estates and privileges or common law, which is actually historical origin of all modern rights, but nothing like that to get in their way. So a lot of leftoids, they hate, for example, American jury system as an irrational holdover of medieval times. What is it? It's an adversarial legal system, an analogue of the dual, wherein the truth emerges by

victory, in that case by physical contest, in this case by legal. But a leftoid or someone of that spiritual type would wish for trial instead by expert judges and so on. the imposition of rational, supposedly rational law as opposed to this medieval, this holdover of the medieval doer, which is the American adversarial legal system. So I get carried a little bit away from Star Wars, but I wanted to remind audience of these debate ideas lurking in background of visions of future presented in science fiction. The political dimension of science fiction, many comment, very important. So you know, Star Trek, despite the democratic rhetoric of those who love it for political reasons and who hate Star Wars for these same reasons,

but Star Trek they love because it's much closer to Soviet-Chinese system. And they hate Star Wars and Dune because as they see it, it draws mankind back to this obscurantist, mythical, anti-scientific world where they cannot exert their rational control society and their technological reordering of all human life. Which is not to say I agree with either side of this view. I am just a sophist. I can make argument for either side and make the other one to look bad. I may argue for the opposite in later show just out of perversity. In any case, yes, I will be right back to talk some more actual scenes from Star Wars series. It's a missed opportunity, it could have been much better, we could have made it better,

We will do this one day, a real space epic, a restatement of Greek and prehistoric myth set in space. By contrast, Star War does not achieve this. It has many inadequate scenes that take you out of sense of fantasy and mystery, except maybe for the first two episodes, and I mean this chronologically, the two that came out in the 1980s because they've been reclassified now as middle episodes in the story they tell. But I mean, except for Empire Strike Back and the one before it, the first one, it failed to achieve, I think, a mythic feeling of absorption, you know, so Lucas tried to go for that. He copied Kurosawa's samurai movie Hidden Fortress and theories of Joseph Campbell about the archetype of the hero and his journey of development.

And Joseph Campbell is himself, I think, an inadequate popularizer. Paglia dismisses him as cheap version of Jung. When Lucas should have been simply inspired by Greek myth directly, not go to the second, or by Wagner more in his, more appropriate to him, the Wagner myth scenes, and should have sought to recreate, there's an old film version, for example, of The Ring, a silent movie version. And you can see in it that they managed to transport, and I hate silent film by the way, and old movies in general I don't watch from before 1960 or late 1950s, I like some things like Bergman has good cinematography, but this is why I dislike the others, the image quality is too poor, it cannot then be entrancing. But in this particular silent movie of the ring they manage it, the scene, the setting,

They're the mythical frame when naively presented is primal and brutal, very uncanny, which is why ancient Greeks, the so-called naive style you see in a good translation of Homer, not Fagles, never read Fagles. But the Latimore actually is quite decent on this, captures a naive style that was just, that was deliberate. It was the standard epic style, Bronze Age mindset style. And a lot of these movies now that try to recreate epic feel, they miss that. This ring, the silent version I'm talking in, get feel of deep Teutonic forest draws you in. Only some parts of Lord of the Rings achieves this. But right now, movies that attempt this, they go instead for self-conscious statements, oh, this is an epic moment, the turning of the tide, we're part of a great story, which

I think are more or less direct lines that Samwise Gamgee tell Frodo in Lord of the Rings at times. But that's not how you do it, this explicit statement. You have to instead copy visually and then feel this naive style that Homer also goes for, to transport viewers to heroic primal Stone Age feel and not beat them over the head. This is epic moment. Lord of Ring and almost all the Star Wars series, it's simply too glossy. The image, for example, is too clear and clean. It looks like music video for commercials. They don't use stylistic lighting and the dark lighting and slow pace to hypnotize you. It's just too glossy and shiny and very fast, and too much also choreographed action. This big downside of almost all action movies.

If you see Mighty Morphin Power Rangers series with their ridiculous kind of dance-like choreographed karate action, it's absurd. When I was a small boy in Soviet Bloc, I liked to watch cartoons and I would be very upset when in afternoons I wanted to watch cartoons and instead it got replaced with, oh, this is now time for programming for our traditional music, and they would show these folk dances, you see. I mean, probably a left-wing traditionalist would love this, so it's so based, you know, a celebration of our national heritage. I hated this. All the kids I knew hated this, trying to stuff it down people's throats, and it was just this kind of absurd hoppy dancing. You might recognize it, Lord of the Dance. Is that what it's called?

Riverside, Lord of the Dance, where they have these jigs. It was like that. And this is what so many action movies look to me now, the so-called karate. It's a ridiculous type of dance move. They look funny to me. It's hard to take seriously. I'm sorry for background sound. I think that the Salvadorans or Cape Verdeans are back and they're trying to stop me recording. If it gets too loud, I will take a short break and come back. It's too fast, these movies, they move too fast, Lord of Ring and Star Wars. They are too business-like and too focused on telling you the plot. I give you a counterexample from other movies many of you know, Eyes Wide Shut. And besides the visual aspect of this movie, which you see, the final product, but it takes

lot of years too much skill to do what Kubrick did in that to reproduce that kind of moody urban decay feel lighting which neither Lord of Wing nor Star War achieved whatever analogs they would have profited from Star War achieved it only in the music okay the music is perfect John Williams score is amazing but the movie I think is mostly unworthy of it the main mythic musical theme of Star Wars is just great popular Wagnerianism and entirely what the movie should have striven to achieve that mood okay but in Eyes Wide Shut okay it's not just the visual aspects and the richness of the imagery and the lighting and the slow pacing it's this these are all stylistic means to also send you message of movie and to hypnotize you but there are certain particular scenes okay plot

deviations such as when Tom Cruise character go looking for costume to attend this orgy ball the the Satanist orgy ball right and I think it's Christmas Eve it's a black mass right so I think he cannot find an open shop and so the movie goes into this digression how he finds the costume and there's this of weird are two scenes I think in total with these Chinese perverts who who are corrupting the daughter of the costume store owner and what happens there. And you take that scene, okay, it's a kind of seemingly strange digression from main plot line, but it's not, you know, it's not weird, that's the kind of thing that transports, it transports you to Kubrick vision of decadence and putrid lust in this city. It's both beautiful and corrupt. But I mean as a plot device,

this what an artist like Kubrick or Polanski, They do. They are not afraid to leave the plot and to explore the world they show you, make you enjoy, too. Whereas both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, despite their total length, they have almost no such plot deviation. Even when they, in Lord of Ring, it's good that they have the feast scene in the beginning with Gandalf and Bilbo. They should have had much more of that and stranger, they should have made it stranger. more otherworldly or when they go in Lord of Ring to the forest elf domain of the Lady of Lorian is not enough even when they do that it feels like they are openly achieving for a plot point it doesn't feel good in Star War again they go into weird multi-species bars or casino these are

iconic scenes right with the with the bars with the different species of alien but it doesn't feel the same because writers of movies show you that in a glance, they don't have development of tension scenes in that that are outside the plot, they don't take the time to go off plot enough as it were, so everything ends up feeling rushed. One track mind, you know, we have to achieve plot points, so this is signature actually of commercial movie plot writing, and it just is not very good, they think they're showing your hard-hitting fast-paced plot that does not meander, but the end effect ends up feeling like TV special, law and order in many ways. So don't confuse what I'm saying, by the way, for intellectual fake artsy digression, which can also be a failure.

In some bad artsy movie, they have fibromyalgia girl whine at length about her emotions and deep dialogue focused and so on. I don't mean that. it has to be dramatic visual stylistic departure from plot. I mean, this is very important even when you have a good, successful television series that's commercially successful. For example, I watch now the original Miami Vice from 1980s, okay, which I will discuss on next show, I think. But this Michael Mann, who has some good movies and some bad, he gets praise, Michael Mann get praised for The Insider, which is just a southern, rest stop, public toilet, homo piece of shit, anti-American, anti-tobacco propaganda. Anti-tobacco is anti-American. But in the movie version of Miami Vice, which Michael Mann did himself, as well as the original

series, there is this exuberant visual excitement, and he gets it from simple, naïve things that at times you go off script just show you scenes from Tropical City, especially in episodes, for example, where they travel to Bahamas, and again it's told a little bit too fast because it's TV and television almost always cringe medium, but he's not afraid to fully and naively enjoy this simple visual excitement, doesn't always serve direct plotline point, it's there to transport you in feeling of dream, not in any overt way plot, you know, So this is what I mean, in Star Wars, you can almost always see the seams of the plot, you can see the springs. So then you can see through it, it doesn't absorb you like seeing through magic trick. Let me give you one example.

I think when Obi-Wan Kenobi is not Ralph Fiennes, what's his name? Kenneth Branagh I think, that's the Obi-Wan Kenobi character in the sequels told by Lucas himself, which are really the prequels, right? He told the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. So in one of these scenes, Obi-Wan Kenobi is chasing the bounty hunter and he puts a homing device on the bounty hunter's ship and he follows him. And I could see immediately what they were doing and I told the screen, why are you following him so closely, I yelled at the screen like a gentleman from black Mississippi, black gentleman from Mississippi. Why you do this? He will see you, of course. But that was the point. Instead of just doing the simple thing, in that case you wait for the guy to get to his

destination and then you get there at your leisure without him noticing you, which he She has to eventually do anyway because of course by following him closely he gets made, he gets noticed and then they have this chase through asteroids that is supposed to be visually exciting but really isn't because it's stupid. They set the whole thing up so that they would have this chase and you as the viewer can tell that. And the chase, besides the fact that this Star Wars uses CGI, which is outdated, it doesn't feel real, feel like cartoon, and of course many people, I will not go into the usual complaints about the movie, which are complete correct, Jar Jar Binks' character, which is supposedly initially going to be a much darker character who is a betrayer.

That's what people say, but as comic relief, it does not come off comic relief as just annoying, and really, maybe Lucas needed an editor for this movie, someone to tell him, yeah, to take many of these things out, but for all its length, it doesn't achieve purpose of transport, and this stupid scene where the homing device, where he gets made, is just one example of many. It's just an excuse to have this chase, but the chase, again, you can see through it. It feels bad. It's like, you know, for those of you who like classical music, you listen Bruckner 7th Symphony, the slow movement in that. And I'm a lover of Bruckner, but the slow movement in that, it feels very contrived. It feels like Bruckner, oh, here I am doing a slow, majestic, romantic movement and I'm

slowly building up to make you feel something, but you can see through it, feel contrived. This problem throughout all Star Wars series, it's contrived opera drama. Even more worse is hem-handed political messaging. It's all throughout, for example, the most recent episode which Lucas was not involved in, but with the girl protagonist, and she kick ass. She He learned all the Jedi tricks in two weeks. Same as Tom Cruise in Last Samurai, another contrived movie. He learned in one winter, he learned all the samurai sword fighting. He becomes samurai in one winter. It's very insulting. Same with this. She learned the mind control trick immediately. The force is so strong here because she's just a kick-ass, tough girl. She takes no, you know.

But besides the casting, right, so they cast this girl as the protagonist. And then, of course, they have to have a contrived romantic tension with this Black Moor who's the infantry, the white-clad imperial infantry, right, in this case still for a republic army. But this kind of obvious political messaging, and then yes, she does ultimately go instead for the emo, goth Darth Vader worshipper, the Hitler worshipper played by Adam Driver, Who apparently girls find Adam Driver attractive. Is this true? I know famous girls who have a crush on him. He's extreme ugly, but I suppose he has this kind of emo, artsy vibe some girls like, but I don't know. But besides the casting and the fact that this character, the girl, who is also Galadriel in the new Lord of the Rings.

I don't mean it's the same actors, but exactly the same character. Almost no change. Exact same. She's also one of the girls in Cobra Kai, and she's also the female kick-ass journalist the redhead in Superman movie It's always the same character lately. It's this evil vicious strident girl character completely brutal Always angry always sparks vicious anger emanating from these it's a one-note character I think they're presented as something that girls should expire to obviously is always strong intimidating woman But I think if I was making such character is because I would want women to be Concentration camp guards because that's what the character is or at best Bernard the dorms who drive the getaway car from left-wing terrorists, but the women were not biting this so then the

Leftist messengers went for the tranny's to do this instead, but I mean besides the casting there is this This ham-handed messaging, let's say in the recent episodes, especially if you remember the casino scenes, and it's about the evil rich, it beats you over the head so much. Evil corporate bloodsucking rich who are living off the poor of the galaxy, who are the salt of the earth, and in general this very ham-handed Howard Zien Chomsky messaging about evil arms manufacturer elites. And this degrades the mythic aspects that arguably made a series a success and that made some of these leftoids I've mentioned angry, because it lessens, when you focus on, right, the whole focus, including of Lucas and the later series, the whole moral focus is on the evil of the arms manufacturers.

But this lessens the fundamental opposition of the dark and the light side, of empire and republic of jedi and sith and it replaces this which is still contrived but could have arguably made into a mythic opposition of great significance but it replaces it with this materialist economic big brain well it's actually just the profit man and like corporations and corporations are using the profit motive to cause war and hyper capitalism causing wars and class interest and so forth and that's the real reason and the ideological sexy imagery of the theology and so forth that is just window dressing for it's all about selling stuff man it's you know it's the messaging about the trade union and so forth and I know

there is also then a counter claim you can make that the empire or rather the sith they manipulate this conflict from the shadows but there are also on the other hand nevertheless many explicit statements that, no man, it's always the evil arms manufacturers. It's always just about the same message in nearly every Hollywood movie for the last few decades. The villains are big tobacco, big arm manufacturers, big oil, or in some cases also big speculators in finance. I know Don't tell that to people in our sphere who think somehow that the current establishment glorifies finance where actually if you watch Wall Street series and many such theories and what is called the big put or whatever it's they have quite a different take that sounds sometime very much like post Trump neo-left populism

you know so I know that if I say this you think I'm defending those things when I'm actually doing is just warning some of you on so-called dissident right which you should not call yourselves that is a dumb name you should call yourself center right and say that you speak for moderation and truth and not that oh you're an edgy fringe but some of you think or some pretend they say that adopting this Chomsky frame as if it is some great anti-establishment position when in fact it is the message of the Hollywood left consistently for many decades it's in every academic setting it's always this message and And which isn't to say that these particular people are genuine defenders of the common men against corporations, I mean Hollywood and leftist academia, but a lot actually think

they are, genuinely, and while corporate wokeism and leftism is a real thing and in fact becoming primary method of regime enforcement now, this I think represents a capture of the corporations by the left, and not as something some leftists, they try to claim it's the inner workings of late capital. This is the rhetoric actually the left tries to use to deflect responsibility for its manifest failures. I like Glenn Greenwald, but when Glenn Greenwald recently blames neoliberalism for Brazil's problems, there is a recent tweet thread on this. When it was his guys, Lula and Dilma Rousseff, who are literal Marxist guerrillas, they run around with a red flag with a hammer and sickle, right? If those people are neo-liberals, then the word means

nothing. And they are the ones who ran Brazil even farther into the ground than it had been before them, and they let loose a wave of crime as a form of racial Marxist terror, which I keep telling you is the modus operandi now of the left. Police stand down strategically and let their racial orc dwarves unleash Marxist terror by other means. And Greenwald and the so-called Old Left, they try to blame all of this on neoliberalism and capital rampant when it's their side doing it. So this is the Left squirting squid ink. And anyway, I think this is the position of old Hollywood, which if you watch especially, In the later episode Star Wars, that Lucas was no longer making, but the casino scene and right after, it just beats you over the head with men, it's the corporate elites and

the rich, it's the rich and it's just they're sucking the blood out of the poor of the galaxy and it's always been about that, you know, so this is the overt political messaging, it makes hard to enjoy movie. And then in the original ones made by Lucas, for example Revenge of the Sith, is the one where Anakin becomes Darth Vader, right? The last episode. So with the duel on the volcano planet and the so-called climax duel, which Camille Paglia, she loved it as some type of, you know, she, I have friends who also believe this, I do not mean to insult movies some of you love maybe from your childhood, but I couldn't get into this and I understand that Lucas, as Paglia says, he tried to go for an operatic dramatic conflict of good

versus evil in this setting of the volcano, but it didn't affect me in any way, it's again too glossy, it depends on this choreographed dance fighting, Lord of the Dance Riverside jig fighting, instead of it should rest on psychological terror, which is much harder to achieve, but it's the only thing that's really effective. And second, I didn't like because the political messaging is so overt and it takes you out of any mythic mood. In this case, Lucas was basically, he was ripping off scenes from journalists and pundit debate during the Bush years. I mean, how more prosaic can you get? I couldn't stomach this when Anakin says, if you're not with us, you're against us. You know, it's copying the Bush line. Oh, it's so topical. Oh, it really makes you think.

It really makes you wisely scratch your scrabbly goatee. As you knock back that IPA, you knock back beer, you're having a normal one after work and talking about grassroots issue, grassroots issues, man. You know, Queen Amygdala, I don't know her name, the girl I used to stock, Natalie Portman, you know. By the way, I have an idea for you, venture capital people are, listen, you have crowdfunding, a fee for famous actress or Instagram thought or other similar influencer or such, crowd-funding their feet to do hard-core pornography, okay? And for some of them there would be so much interest and so much money collected, crowd-funded, that they would, or some would go through with it, okay? Let the market speak, give the people what they want. You like this?

I have only the best and most wholesome commercial ideas out of my mind. So she's in Congress, Queen Amygdala Natalie Portman, and when the Emperor comes to power after emergency vote, okay, so he did a Hitler, okay, so the Emperor Palpatine did a Hitler, and he got the Republic to legally vote him dictatorial powers, right, and she goes, this is how democracy dies, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. It makes you laugh, it doesn't transport you to anything. Democracy dies in darkness. This is profound, man, but with such overt plot springs, and with the wheels showing, And with such overt, heavy-handed political messaging throughout, it takes you very much into television territory, TV special, law and order, Dick Wolf political propaganda

world, more explicit than crude pornography. It takes you away from any aesthetic magic that could have entranced you. And finally, in this same problem, there is depiction of the emperor himself and the sith, which could have been a great opportunity, and it interests me very much. in the episode Revenge of Sith, especially the way he talks Palpatine and the things he says is just so over the top. He's evil, he's a lying evil NSA billionaire. He's trying to take away democracy in darkness, like when he says lying about for a more secure republic or something like this and the way he says it and many such things. It's a lurid propaganda, it comes off as cartoonish evil, but so lurid that in a reply when I talk about the Sith

and how they're actually more attractive than the Jedi because at least the Sith, you know, they serve themselves whereas it's not clear what the Jedi are serving. The Jedi are self-defeating. The Jedi are serving a republic that is just a complete mess that doesn't appreciate them And in other words, they are self-cancelling, right? But in any case, I think somebody saying one of the replies, it almost comes off as made by the Seith or by their defenders, because it's just so cartoonish and over top the depiction of the Seith that you say, okay, actually the people who made this are pro-Seith and maybe they're not showing you what actually happened, but they're showing you the propaganda of this self-righteous, unctuously pious, this shit-lib pseudo-religious order, the

Jedi, their propaganda history of what actually happened, where the partisans of order and excellence are depicted as, uh, lured over the top way as this vision of cartoonish evil, right? So, where the Jedi even, or especially in this episode, they come off as boring, you know, they're dull, pious dopes, okay? So, where Palpatine and Count Dooku, the villains, they're at least a bit more interesting. They're basically the only characters who are glamorous besides maybe Han Solo in the original. And by the way, the character Han Solo in the original is also the only one who redeems the good of the Republic, you can say. If the Republic can be said to be good, it exists because men like Han Solo can have their adventures. But actually, he's acting within the Empire, so...

But despite themselves, Lucas and I think Star Wars writers are maybe even themselves more seduced by the glamour of the Sith, by their sort of how a Democrat sees the aristocratic, genuinely hieratic self-sufficiency. It's incomplete, but they get an inkling of it and they're seduced by it. And also the Sith-frank embrace of passion as opposed to the edited green tea decaf version of the Force that the Jedi embrace, which, you know, they all show only everything I've said they all show only this as evil, right? But even through that cartoon, the original somewhat appears, emerges a little bit a glimmer of the superior, you know? So in the same way that Mad Men, the intention was just to show the wasp of order as evil and corrupt

and sexist, but even the maker of the show couldn't help showing it as awesome and as actually much better than what is now. And even through heavy-handed Communist Party cartoon image, that glimmer of that superiority appears. So actually this was also a problem in East Bloc propaganda about capitalism, as the same weakness emerged when they depicted life in capitalism. They tried to introduce it, but actually they inadvertently show as attractive. So in any case, Star Wars could have been an opportunity to the series if they had actually taken their time and they could have shown, for example, a mankind spread over the galaxy some 10,000 years into the future that had embraced a Schopenhauerian, post-Schopenhauerian

religion with Buddhist characteristics, which is, I think, very plausible, right? Because Tolstoy and many others, they actually believed this would come about, that Schopenhauer had presented the final philosophy and final vision of mankind and that the near future would bring a version of Christianity that would be based on that, and you could, arguably, that can still pass. Mankind can enter, maybe in the short future become a higher IQ somewhat, and then, not that I advocate this, but it could enter a kind of Schopenhauerian phase with a Christian Buddhist religion synthesis coming after it, and maybe after they spread throughout galaxy. But then the series could have shown the theological or philosophical debate that would have naturally

developed because Schopenhauer himself, he says that the decision to affirm or deny is a will with capital W. He believes that denial is of course the source of all good. This is his connection to Buddhism and so forth, very much possible to show this in the Star Wars universe if they had wanted, right in a very pseudo-Jedi way. But he says, anyway, the decision to choose between denial or affirmation of the will is not something that can be determined by reason alone. And so you can see in such a theoretical future universe a counter faction that would have gone in the other direction, and it could have been depicted honestly, and they wouldn't have needed to go big brain dialogue philosophical discussion in a movie. In fact, that's not advised.

They could have shown these two in much greater visual detail. They could have worked out what the culture around each would have developed as over several thousand years, what kind of men developed, what kind of clothes, what kind of behavior would have taken real imagination and then showing it if Lucas wanted to go in this direction of this would have been much better movie and then actually would have been in full a real spiritual and philosophical or religious struggle. The same way that philosophical schools in late Rome were literally fighting in the streets which would itself be a wonderful movie. But here they would be doing it using the resources of a galactic polity. And you know how much more interesting than the direction he actually went in,

he ended up going with this economism of men, it's actually the rich neoliberals, and it's the profit motive, and people wanting to sell weapons. And it's this facile cynicism which can work if you shoot shit in bar with goatee, and as if he's trying to score point intellectual competition, which even if it was true, and it's not, it's totally destructive of the significance of art. You don't need a movie to tell you that point that he's beating overhead. You'd need a movie to work out visually a genuinely spiritual struggle and so forth, like I've been hinting at. So it's really a missed opportunity, and not that I think he should have tried to make a movie on this. He should have just translated Wagner Ring, or even just one storyline from Wagner Ring,

translated it into space, and then let John Williams score guide his spirit in writing. We're the same way I would like to translate Jason and the Argonauts into space, but I think we could do much better than any of these pseudo-mythic movies like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. What do you think? Would you watch such movies? I think I'll start something lower budget and smaller movie in eyes wide shut style I would need help of a director and cinematographer who know how to do this but something in that style or repulsion or the tenant from Polanski or Nightcrawler if you like or if you want this movie Scorsese after hours again is a comedy movie but captured very well nihilistic feeling of loss in a beautiful corrupt city would you enjoy

Should I put effort toward this? There would be no political plot anybody could suss out. It's not just for self-protection But you know if you want a political sermon then do that do not make movie on it This my I hope for any future Star Wars. Very good. I will continue Next show very soon. I come right back Yes, I'll I'll put Lauren I know I you cannot say that any longer put letters become very good until next time