Where do peoples and nations come from? This Caribbean Rhythms, episode 123. There's a lot of talk now about ethnogenesis. How is a people born or how it emerges? And there is apparent disagreement among political philosophers and historians on this question. Some say nations naturally emerge historically over time from peoples growing together in particular location through common experiences in response to this environment, common enemies that arise, common language and habits, again in response to physical and social environment growing together over a long time and language then develop as shorthand to communication and many such thing. And let me give you a favorite example of this from John Julius Norwich, one of my favorite

historians on how he talk, really how the Venetians first emerged as a people. I am reading now the chronicler John Deacon writing about 100 years after the event and he is talking about the Magyar invasion of Veneto, the area around Venice, and when the Magyars coming in, they were cannibal, cannibal people, Asian cannibal people from the Central Asian steppes, and they come in and they were defeated when they tried to invade Venice. Very famously they could not, they were retired when it come to the sea. They were good on horseback but not the sea, and the Venetians defeated them on the sea. But anyway, I continue. The chronicler John the Deacon, writing about 100 years after this event, sees the construction

of this bulwark in a wall that was built by Pietro Tribuno in response to this invasion so that it could be more easily repulsed in the future, sees the construction of this bulwark as marking the moment when the realtine settlement, Venice, first properly became what he calls a chivitas. The term is untranslatable. A city, in our sense of the word, although a very small one, had existed there since the days of Doge Agnello and the transfer of the central government. But Pietro Tribuno's wall and the emergency that brought it into being gave the citizens a new feeling of cohesion and community that was to have its own importance in the years to come. And one can only hope that the few crumbling remnants of it that still survive at the southern

and of the Rio del Arsenale will continue to be treated by authorities of today with the respect that is their due." So yes, the wall is maybe what Trump can build a wall in term two or some other one can build a wall in future and make the Americans into a people also in this way. But the Venetians are very famous as people who arose in response to these historical emergencies over time in an evolutionary sense, and to this you can add the biological component that whatever heterogeneous origin or not, I mean the Venetians were refugees from all over Roman Italy, which was itself 56%, you know, late Empire Mediterranean mix that was late Rome, so that when you look at what a patrician banker looks like from Pompeii,

you look at the statue, it looked like Lloyd Blankfein, or the guy from Eyes Wide Shut, his name, the bad guy from Eyes Wide Shut, I forget. But nobody likes this uncomfortable fact that the Ashka are just descendants of highly mixed Mediterranean late Roman bankers and merchants. Perhaps they're 90% Italian with some touch of North African and Near Eastern as everyone in Italy of that time was, trans-Italian. But anyway, after a while such a people, whatever their heterogeneous or different initial origin They grow together, interbreed forming a relatively close, very extended family over time, so that nations in the Roman sense of the word, not the modern national state necessarily, but ethnies, they are biological realities also, analogous to extended families biologically,

which this seems in many cases to be borne out by population genetic studies. This is also Steve Saylor's definition, which in turn I think Saylor admits he got from Pierre Vandenberger, again read ethnic phenomenon for sociological study of ethnic nepotism, but really Pierre Vandenberger is someone who repurposed ethnic identity as the driver of all historical change, but he does this a little bit under the table. Obviously you'd need both the social and cultural factors, not only the biological, Because the habits, the loyalty and so on, the group cohesion, it has to be compatible with the people's biological predispositions, but they don't arise from them in a one-to-one way. So you need also what I mentioned at first, you can call it loosely the Burkean or English

vision of how people emerges over time in their common experiences and habits and laws that develop in response to circumstance. And then also then, but you do need the biological aspect, because when a norming conservative says the differences are real but they're only cultural, they're only right in a half-way, and actually all sides forget this, but the problem with visible biological distinctions within a people is they become invidious, inevitably, they become markers of difference which can really only be kept over time through some type of racial-cased stratification. So over time a people does become an extended family if it is actually a people, which for example the different cases in India are not necessarily a people, and which is also why

most studies of the ancient world before the rise of nations in the full sense, which only came about, they were not around let's say in the Bronze Age, but many studies of that ancient world are anachronistic, for example when they speak of the Hittite nation and such. keep on attacking my throat. They have put, I'm afraid of this Star Trek's episode and other, they have a symbiont that they put in the back of people's brain, and I'm afraid they try to put this in my throat. But the Hittite nation, when people talk about it as if it was a modern nation state, is very silly. Really, Hittite just referred to the people of Hatti, meaning the people of that territory, and it was a large native class of heterogeneous origin as distinct from their elite, which was a tiny proto-Indo-European

overclass. And the feeling of something like a unified nation only comes later, let's say with Iron Age or somewhat slightly before, maybe also in response to defense or security matters, that for another time, which is why if you saw the shoddy new Lord of the Rings series on Amazon that has the production values of an after-school special, it just had the nonsense presentation of what historical local populations could be, because it shows them that somehow preserve racial differences within themselves, a small tribe of hobbits of all things with different races that are distinct, while also these tribes are not according race any social or cultural or political significance, which is impossible to happen, they would have completely mixed by that time.

But I get on tangent, there is second view of the birth of a people, which is like I say it's apparently in opposition to this first one I just described, and that is that A people is founded by a legislator or a prophet or a god, you can call it what you will, who comes with a constitution, with a capital C, a constitution in the broadest sense of that word, and constitutes this people's founding law or nomos, you can say. And so you can think of Moses coming down with constitution from mountain, or Lycurgus who appears on United States capital even now, always regarded as the ultimate in a lawgiver. Many such, there are a few such other genius lawmakers, and such men places a law or to speak less biblically maybe, because not all peoples are necessarily constituted by written

law codes, but such a man places a high hope over the heads of each people, each historical people, and it is this striving to a certain vision of men or of justice or of life that ends up characterizing and constituting them. So I actually don't think these two conceptions of how people exist conflict each other. But you can imagine how an argument between, let's say, a dumbed-down version of each case can be made. They can be made to conflict, a distorted version of each. I will mention on second or a later segment, later on show, how this apparent conflict between these two models of how people emerges came about. But for now let me present for you the case for this second. I mean the foundation of a people by a creator or a prophet or a legislator because it's

very powerful idea from history, political philosophy. You might even think that it's the ultimate problem and aim of political philosophy, the bequeathing of a new constitution to form a new people in the full sense. Something not really, you can't really see this happen in our time, but it happened many time in a more limited way in the Greek world where someone, usually a stranger, was invited to forge a constitution for a new Greek colony and so on, and he was thereafter worshipped as a god with a statue in the town center. So when political philosophers talk about such thing in ancient world, this was real possibility for them, foundation of a new state, what should the laws look like and so forth. Whereas for us, the ultimate in political theory is this just kind of dour moralizing

stuff like John Rawls, which is composed really by an aimless man, I mean just someone who who tries to copy and cargo-cult what political philosophers in the past did but has no idea of why they did it and is not animated by the same possibilities they were. He just thinks, you know, it's preaching, he's preaching to some indeterminate audience to behave in a way that you like or consider moral. I actually think that Dugin is a bit like this too, but anyway, so I will read for you now several passages from different philosophers so you can see what this striking idea of foundation of a people by a legislator means. So here is a very clear exposition from Rousseau. I am reading now. Yes, I read. In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence

beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature while knowing it through and through. Its happiness would have to be independent of us and yet ready to occupy itself with hours. And lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory and working into one century to be able to enjoy it in the next. It would take gods to give men laws. What Caligula argued from the facts, Plato in the dialogue called Politicus argued in the defining the civil or kingly man on the basis of right. But if great princes are rare, how much more so are great legislators? The former only have to follow the pattern which the latter have to lay down.

The legislator is the engineer who invents the machine, the prince merely the mechanic who sets it up and makes it go. At the birth of societies, says Montesquieu, the rulers of republics establish institutions, and afterwards the institutions mould the rulers. He who dares to undertake the making of a people's institutions ought to feel himself capable so to speak of changing human nature, of transforming each individual who is by himself a complete and solitary whole into part of a greater whole from which he in a manner receives his life and being, of altering man's constitution for the purpose of strengthening it and of substituting a partial and moral existence for the physical and independent existence nature has conferred on us all.

He must, in a word, take away from man his own resources and give him instead new ones alien to him and incapable of being made use of without the help of other men. The more completely these natural resources are annihilated, the greater and the more lasting are those which he acquires, and the more stable and perfect the new institutions. So that if each citizen is nothing and can do nothing without the rest, and the resources acquired by the whole are equal or superior to the aggregate of the resources of all the individuals, it may be said that the legislation is at the highest possible point of perfection. The legislator occupies in every respect an extraordinary position in the state. If he should do so by reason of his genius, he does so no less by reason of his office,

which is neither magistracy nor sovereignty. This office, which sets up the Republic, nowhere enters into its constitution. It is an individual and superior function, which is nothing in common with human empire. For if he who holds command over men ought not to have command over the laws, he who has command over the laws ought not any more to have it over men, or else his laws would be the ministers of his passions and would often merely serve to perpetuate his injustices. His private aims would inevitably mar the sanctity of his work. Let me just take a moment to say Nicolas Nassim Taleb, with his theory of skin in the game, which actually has become a verbal formula that kills thought on so-called dissident

circles both right and left, well, you see, at least in case, like Rousseau talking now, There are situations in which you do not want skin in the game, you want someone who not skin in game, but I go back to read Rousseau now. When Lycurgus gave laws to his country, he talked about Sparta, he began by resigning the throne. It was the custom of most Greek towns to entrust the establishment of their laws to foreigners. The republics of modern Italy in many cases followed this example. Geneva did the same and profited by it. Rome, by the way, Rousseau, I think, was invited to make a constitution of Poland. I keep reading, Rome, when it was most prosperous, suffered the revival of all the crimes of

tyranny and was brought to the verge of destruction because it put the legislative authority and the sovereign power into the same hands. Nevertheless, the Cenvirs themselves never claimed the right to pass any law merely on their own authority. we propose to you,' they said to the people, can pass into law without your consent. Romans, be yourselves the authors of the laws which are to make you happy. He therefore, who draws up the laws or should have no right of legislation, and the people cannot, even if it wishes, deprive itself of this incommunicable right." Okay, now Rousseau is just doing his democratic thing. I don't want to read these not because they're necessarily wrong, but he gets a bit of topic. I just want to focus on what his idea of the legislator or the founder of a

people is. So, I will read for you the end of this chapter. This is from the social contract. So I just read for you the chapter on the legislator. I read for you the end of this very striking end to this chapter. There is a further difficulty that deserves attention. Wise men, if they try to speak their language to the common herd instead of its own, cannot possibly make themselves understood. There are a thousand kinds of ideas which it is impossible to translate into popular language. Conceptions that are too general and objects that are too remote are equally out of its range. Each individual, having no taste for any other kind of government and that which suits his particular interest, finds it difficult to realize the advantages he might hope to draw

from the continual privations good laws impose. For a young people to be able to relish sound principles of political theory and follow the fundamental rules of statecraft, the effect would have to become the cause. The social spirit which should be created by these institutions would have to preside over their very foundation, and men would have to be before law what they should become by means of the law. The legislator, therefore, being unable to appeal either to force or reason, must have recourse to an authority of a different order, capable of constraining without violence and persuading without convincing. This is what has in all ages compelled the fathers of nations to have recourse to divine

intervention and to credit the gods with their own wisdom, in order that the people, submitting to the laws of the state as to those of nature, and recognizing the same power in the formation of the city as in that of men, might obey freely and bear with docility the yoke of public happiness. This sublime reason, far above the range of the common herd, is that whose decisions the legislator puts into the mouths of the immortals in order to constrain by divine authority those who human prudence could not move. But it is not anybody who can make the gods speak or get himself believed when he proclaims himself their interpreter. The great soul of the legislator is the only miracle that can prove his mission. Let me make an aside here.

So I believe he was ambassador to Venice, if I don't forget. And he used to do, let's say, certain type magic shows himself. He was a magician himself. But he's saying a conjurer is quite different from a prophet. So the great soul of the legislator is the only miracle that can prove his mission. Any man may grave tablets of stone or buy an oracle or feign secret intercourse with some divinity or train a bird to whisper in his ear or find other vulgar ways of imposing on the people. He whose knowledge goes no further may perhaps gather around him a band of fools, a cult he needs. But he will never found an empire, and his extravagances will quickly perish with him. Idle tricks form a passing tie. Only wisdom can make it lasting.

The Judaic law, which still subsists, and that of the child of Ishmael, which for ten centuries has ruled half the world, still proclaim the great men who lay them down. He means Moses and Mohammed. And while the pride of philosophy or the blind spirit of faction sees in them no more than lucky impostures, the true political theorist admires in the institutions they set up the great and powerful genius which presides over things made to endure. We should not with Warburton conclude from this that politics and religion have among us a common object, but that in the first periods of nations the one is used as an instrument for the other." Yes, what you think this is quite a different model of how a people emerges from the previous

one I hinted at, I mean the evolutionary or historical one where they emerge gradually in response to circumstances, it so makes the case they appear by almost complete and whole. A people is created complete and whole out of the mind of one divine legislator or prophet, someone like Moses or Mohammed or like Kyrgyz, or maybe in remote antiquity and prehistory there are many others of whom we don't know. And it's not, again, unique to Rousseau. I will read for you next from Machiavelli. Many political philosophers, many of the most famous ones, have similar conception on the lawgiver or the creator of peoples. So I read for you from Discourses of Livy by Machiavelli, but a warning, because you will notice Machiavelli often mix up some things.

I think on purpose he mix up in talking a lawgiver's also the matter of a king making his rule secure. And you'd think that maybe there is a difference between lawgiver founding a new people or a new religion like Moses or Mohammed versus you know someone like Lenin or Hitler establishing their rule securely in something that already exists and perhaps trying to reform it. In other words then someone excuse me establishing own kingship there is difference between that between foundation of a government and the foundation of a people, or so you'd think. So as you just saw, there is a very big difference. He distinguishes very sharp between the two functions. Even says a legislator must not be involved in the state itself.

But for Machiavelli, what you think of as a purely political function is not. He seemed to go back and forth between talking of this, what to us would be purely political, and talking on the other hand about the founding a new culture or a new people. He mixes them up. Why he does that? So anyway, I read to you now from Machiavelli. This is from Discourses Book One. Among those justly celebrated for having established such a constitution, he's talking about the republican constitution, Lycurgus beyond doubt merits the highest praise. He organized the government of Sparta in such a manner that in giving the king, the nobles, and the people each their portion of authority and duties, he created a government which

which maintained itself for over 800 years in the most perfect tranquility, and reflected infinite glory upon this legislator. Like Rousseau, Machiavelli seemed to say, the legislator is aiming for eternal glory. I continue read, On the other hand, the constitution given by Solon to the Athenians, by which he established only a popular government, was of such short duration that before his death he saw the tyranny of pisistratus arise, and although forty years afterwards the heirs of the tyrant were expelled so that Athens recovered liberties and restored the popular government according to the laws of Solon, yet it did not last over a hundred years. Although a number of laws that had been overlooked by Solon were adopted to maintain the government

against the insolence of the nobles and the license of the people, the fault he had committed in not tempering the power of the people and that of the prince and his nobles made the the duration of the government of Athens very short as compared to that of Sparta. I just interject, he's saying the republic government is better than democratic, and I think American founders in so far as they read Machiavelli, they were reading this, the discourses, and his praise of republican over democratic government. But I continue to read from Machiavelli. But let us come to Rome. Although she had no legislator like Lycurgus who constituted her government at her very origin, in a manner to secure her liberty for a length of time. Yet the disunion which existed between the Senate

and the people produced such extraordinary events that chance did for her what the laws had failed to do. Thus, if Rome did not attain the first degree of happiness, she at least had the second. Her first institutions were doubtless defective, but they were not in conflict with the principles that might bring her to perfection. For Romulus and all the other kings gave her many and good laws, well suited even to a free people. But as the object of these princes was to found a monarchy and not a republic, Rome upon becoming free found herself lacking all those institutions that are most essential to liberty, which her kings had not established. And although these kings lost their empires for the reasons and in the manner which we

have explained, yet those who expelled them and appointed immediately two consuls in place of the king, excuse me, I don't want to continue to read this because it gets into some details having to do with the particularities of Roman republican government, but you see what he's saying and it should be contrasted to what he say elsewhere about the legislator that sound quite different if you look at let's say chapter 26 from the same book and it's very short and I will read for you, it's very striking and evil passage, Whoever becomes prince of a city or state, especially if the foundation of his power is feeble, and does not wish to establish there either a monarchy or a republic, will find the best means for holding that principality to organize the government entirely anew,

he being himself a new prince there. That is, he should appoint new governors with new titles, new powers, and new men, and he should make the poor rich, as David did when he became king, who heaped riches upon the needy and dismissed the wealthy empty-handed. Besides this, he should destroy the old cities and build new ones, and transfer the inhabitants from one place to another. In short, he should leave nothing unchanged in that province, so that there should be neither rank, nor grain, nor honor, nor wealth that should not be recognized as coming from him. Does this sound familiar? I continue. He should take Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander, for his model, who by proceeding in that manner became from a petty king, master of all Greece.

And his historian tells us that he transferred the inhabitants from one province to another as shepherds moved their flocks from place to place. Does this sound familiar? Look, I continue. Doubtless, these means are cruel and destructive of all civilized life, and neither Christian nor even human, and should be avoided by everyone. In fact, the life of a private citizen should be preferable to that of a king at the expense of the ruin of so many human beings. Nevertheless, whoever is unwilling to adopt the first and humane course must, if he wishes to maintain his power, follow the latter evil course. But men generally decide upon a middle course which is most hazardous, for they know neither how to be entirely good or entirely bad.

As we shall illustrate by examples in the next chapter, and he keep going on that, does this sound familiar, what a tyrant of wannabe might do, what an abortive founder of a people might want to do. Who knows? Does this describe our decrepit, let's say, pseudo-elite today, trying to move large populations, replace one with another demographically, change institutions, and yet they, I think, do not go as far as someone like Stalin, whose project, by the way, if you look at how history ended up, did not last very long itself. But they aren't willing or able to go as far as King David or Philip of Macedon. So I think because they in fact adopt a middle course between humanitarianism and tyranny, it will not work so well for them.

And in this you should also consider chapter six of the prince where Machiavelli famously says that prophets who do not have an army end up losing and he gives Savonarola in Florence as an example. This was a fanatic priest, a kind of prophet wannabe, but as he had no army to compel people after he's persuaded them, it's very funny, Machiavelli say, very striking thing. It's easy to persuade people, but it's hard to keep them in that mind for a long time. People are very changeable, so you need an army to compel them, and as Savonarolo did not have this, he ended up getting burned, burned, burned. I like this about cradle Catholics. They don't like crazy people like Savonarola like that, but I get carried off track.

In that famous passage where Machiavelli says that a prophet needs to be armed, needs to have an army, he of course leaves out, he gives the examples of people like Moses and so forth, but he leaves out the famous, famous example of Jesus Christ who ended up changing the world with a teaching, did not have an army. And he also leaves out his own example, Machiavelli the prophet. He does not have an army either. He only has the tools of spiritual power and spiritual warfare. What do you think of that? But in any case, I continue telling you, you see in what I read for you from a history of Rome, you see in some way Machiavelli account already address the previous model of national emergence. In other words, he know very well that some nations emerge by accident or chance historical

circumstance and they do not always have firm explicit founder at beginning. Rome sort of did with Romulus and then the king Numa Pompilius who gave some of its religious laws and so forth but these change over time according to circumstance and Machiavelli seems to think this was a special strength of Rome, its adaptability to new circumstances. But there are many problems with this, let's say, historical model of ethnogenesis, because it can result often in a relatively weak sense of national identity. In cases like Rome, not so, but in other cases, it does not have the religious fervor that comes from a founder's legislative foundational act of creation. But on the other hand, you can think it may also be a sign of a superiority in a people

that they resist such an act of foundation, by the way, at least of reform later in their history. This is, I think, significance of Nietzsche's judgment on Plato and Pythagoras. He says these two men, you know them as philosophers, but he say their highest wish was obviously to be founders of new religions. And in the case of Plato, Plato was especially suited to be founder of new religion by temperament, by the endowment of his vivid genius. But, Nietzsche say, he found a people that was far too heterogeneous in its instincts, in variety of specimens it had produced, far too much variety to be amenable to any totalizing religion, right? Remember what Rousseau say about how much legislator has to homogenize men and replace the natural in men for something that is social and homogenous.

But people like the Greeks, at least by the time Plato come along, no longer amenable by that. There are too many other Plato's around Plato for you to do that. But I mean, can you imagine something like a rose in Middle East, as in Islam or Judaism, which required a homogenous or indistinct rabble for such fanaticism to take hold. Can you imagine that among the Greeks, such formulas taking hold, even if they should be erected with poetry of genius, as yes, the Bible is seductive poetry of genius, but well, Plato is not, I suppose. So let us hear finally from Nietzsche now on the foundation of peoples, one of my favorite passages from Thus Spake Zarathustra, the Thousand and One Goals. Again, not very long, but very important. I read it for you.

Many lands saw Zarathustra and many peoples, so he discovered the good and bad of many peoples. No greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than good and bad. No people could live without first valuing. If a people will maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour's values. Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn and contempt by another. So I found it. Much found I here called bad, which was there, decked with purple honours. Never did the one neighbour understand the other. Ever did his soul marvel at his neighbour's delusion and wickedness. A table of excellencies hangs over every people. It is the table of their triumphs. It is the voice of their will to power.

It is laudable what they think hard, what is indispensable and hard they call good. And what relieves them in the direst distress, the unique and hardest of all, they extol as holy. Whatever makes them rule and conquer and shine, to the dismay and envy of their neighbors, they regard as the high and the foremost thing, the test and the meaning of all else. Verily, my brother, if you knew but a people's need, its land, its sky, and its neighbor, you would define the law of its surmountings, and why it climbs up that ladder to its hope. Always shall you be the foremost and prominent above others. No one shall your jealous soul love except a friend. So made the soul of a Greek thrill. Thereby went his way to greatness.

To speak truth and be skillful with bow and arrow, so seemed it a like pleasing and hard to the people from whom comes my name, he means the Persians, the name which is a like pleasing and hard to me, to honour mother and father, and from the root of the soul to do their will. This stable of surmounting hung another people over them, he means the Jews, and became powerful and permanent thereby, to have fidelity and for the sake of loyalty to risk honour and blood, even in evil and dangerous courses. Teaching itself so, another people, he means the Germans, mastered itself, and thus mastering itself became pregnant and heavy with great hopes." And he continues that way. There are some wonderful things. I'm not going to read this whole passage.

He ends with saying, there have been a thousand and one goals set over a thousand and one peoples as their high hopes. But there has not yet been one goal for all humanity, which means perhaps humanity, does it truly exist, perhaps only has the vaguest kind of existence. But I want to read for you also from the chapter called The New Idol, where he talks about the state so that you do not confuse a state for a people what he means by a people and its foundation and its being he you know he contrasts very strong to what state is so I read for you I read for you a state what is that well open your ears to me for now I will say to you my word concerning the death of peoples a state is called the coldest of all cold monsters coldly it lies also

And this lie creeps from its mouth. I the state and the people it is a lie Creators he means legislators and founders like Machiavelli and Rousseau were talking about Creators were they who created peoples and hung the faith and the love over them thus they served life Let me interject here Machiavelli at another point Also gives him that literary men are in a sense creators of peoples I will talk this in a moment But someone like Homer or other Greek poets or Shakespeare for the English could be said founders of those people in some way, but Excuse me. I must continue read you this So we say creators were they who created people and hung a faith and the love over them and so they served life

Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many and call it the state they hang a sword and a hundred And a hundred cravings over them where there is still a people there The state is not understood but hated as the evil eye and a sin against laws and customs This sign I give unto you every people speaks its language of good and evil this it's neighbor That's not understand its language has it devised for itself in laws and customs But the state lies in all languages of good and evil whatever it says it lies and whatever it has it has stolen False is everything in it. With stolen teeth, it bites the biting one. False are even its bowels. Confusion of language of good and evil. This sign I give to you as the sign of the state.

Verily, the will to death indicates this sign. Verily, it beckons unto the preachers of death. Many, too many, are born. For the superfluous ones was the state devised. Anyway, it's a wonderful passage. It keeps going like that. It makes you understand a big difference between historical peoples and the modern state that wears, you like this word, the skin suit of peoples, and pretends that its creations are some, this dead husk of a thing that it calls culture. In any case, I leave for you that passage to read in full. I will talk some more about these matters on the next segment. I must take a coffee break. Yes, welcome back to show, and to be blunt, what Nietzsche means is that it is a sense of a people's own superiority over its neighbors that makes it maintain and preserve itself

and endure over time. That what means it has placed its own tables of good and bad far above its neighborhood finds incomprehensible and contemptible. And the modern state replaces this different striving toward the high among different types of peoples with a homogenous and low lust for power and money and replaces arts with as newspaper and so on and so forth until finally within our time you can already see within the state after it has reduced all peoples to this homogenous striving for power you see the exhaustion that comes about this perhaps what Fukuyama mean by end of history without knowing what it is but does this show on what means foundation of a people and in a sense may be quite different from what you may have read recently because this phrase

is Ta-Nehisi Coates, or is that how you pronounce, is it Tennessee Coates, Tennessee Coates is how I do it. And that clown here woman from the 1619 project, this is a woman for my international audience who appear on televisions obsessed with the history of slavery in America. And these people cannot stop using this high-flown language, foundation of a people, they use this phrase. And they focus on what it means as a black people, because this sensitive subject, right, how did the black people come about in America, where it's a rather sorry tale, but they focus on the Virginia Tidewater slave-owning aristocracy, who came up with various racial practices and racial rules, and out of this sorry beginning, they keep

repeating a high-flown phrase, the foundation of a new people, which would make, you know, the black people in America are founded, their creative legislator and profit is the autism, the racial classification autism of the Virginia Tidewater Gentry. It's quite funny, you know, the bureaucrat has done some good work reading the original letters of these men and such. These were the Virginia planters in early American history where they go off on many pages talking about eating vast quantities of milk and meat. I think they were very much like internet frogs. Be careful of what you wish for. But anyway, in a way different from this, I hope, I gave you a very brief introduction to this problem and to supposedly the two ways of thinking about it,

whether people emerges by historical circumstance and evolution by accident into a kind of unity over time, acclimated to its physical and social environment, which you know, this genius also of Frank Herbert of Dune, which I don't know if it come out in the new movies. I think maybe the movie should have been made much longer, But Frank Herbert, he thought for a science fiction writer quite deep about bioculture, how different types of life and thought and aspirations and religions even arise out of different types of physical environments, which is why the nature of the home worlds of the Harkonnen or the Atreides or the Imperial soldiers, the different characteristics of their planets are emphasized so much in the Dune series. But yes, this evolutionary or historical model

of national emergence versus foundation by a creator. And for this letter, I read for you brief from my favorites, Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche. But of course, you find this same subject at length in Plato and Aristotle, this problem treated, especially in Plato, is ultimate problem. So you see entire book, Republic, and the law is just on this. And in the Republic, where they are imagining foundation of a new state, and remember Plato say that to really do this in full, you have to expel all the adults and raise the children from very small yourself. Remember what Machiavelli say regarding when a new prince, he calls it, come and how much he needs to change everything. And at other times he talks about how when a new order comes about,

they need to try to blot out the memory of the previous one. He gives examples of how the Christians destroyed pagan statues and so forth. And in any case, yes, the violence of foundation of new people idea is this not so much emphasized by casual talkers, and maybe Rousseau is too polite and romantic about this subject, but Plato, when he say, okay, so you have to take education of the children from when they are very small, but he concerns himself in that subject even with the kinds of music they listen to, because Plato understands that human passions being ordered by the music you listen to, this is ultimate political education. The music, the pre-rational cultivation of certain states of the spirit, not just music, but things associated with that too.

But this is the ultimate, by the way, in what is meant by unwritten law, the formation of habits and inculcation of certain passions and orientations before reasons can even begin to take hold. Not gay policy, or ethics, or this cow-like thing people consider now, but Plato, he go for the jugular. He approach matters of image, of art, which is why he would ban poets and Homer, or severely edit them from his state, as he wants no competitor. Remember Nietzsche say, Plato versus Homer, this is the contest. The negator of life versus its involuntary idolater, the golden man Homer. I say you go with Homer, but I get carried away. I think in such consideration as Plato on musics, or what you may remember from reading above especially when I talk before about Machiavelli,

when I read from Machiavelli, that the so-called problem I've been addressing here isn't really a problem. In other words, both the prophet or creator, legislator model and the historical emergence model of a people can be true at the same time. And not just because one people, for example, can be classified more according to one model Well, how it came about, for example, say, the Venetians and the English coming about mostly by chance, and the Spartans coming about from the head fully formed by the creation of Lycurgus, or the Jews by the creation of Moses. But all peoples actually have aspects of both, necessarily, and this question of what constitutes a people has actually been exaggerated as a problem by others who have political acts to grind in our time.

So on one hand you have the intellectual normal fag conservatives. These are people who like to overemphasize the, let's say, the creationist model of what the people is, how it emerges, how it sustains itself. You know why they do this, and they do it to justify the model of the propositional nation and to justify mass immigration. If you really dumb down the model I've read for you from Rousseau and many such things about the legislator, and you say, well, someone like Moses, oh wait, okay, so you cannot say Moses because, okay, dot, dot, dot, but so okay, a creator, some creator of people's legislated the moral code for such and such a people, and that alone is what constitutes a people, principles of justice. They like this word, this phrase.

And if that's the case, if it's a principle of justice that you can say in speech, if that is what defines a nation, then you can see how they seem to support idea of propositional nation, a nation as something based on an idea only, which being just an idea of the mind is easily transferable, in other words you can implant it in other countries and conversely you can convert newcomers, I hate this word newcomers, to your nation easily in this way also. And it's just a very naive, and I know to me these kinds of rash, dumbed down, jumping to conclusion definitions feel very emotional to me, but Paul Gottfried, he has a book on Leo Strauss, where he addressed this question. And when I read that book a long time ago, I did not like it too much because I saw that Paul Guthrie

does not quote Strauss himself almost at all. But then you realize it's not really about Strauss, but about the Strausoids, his students. And not that, look, I must apologize to my audience again, because there are at least 6,000 of you now from all over the world. And the minutiae of debates within sectors of American academia might not be so interesting to all of you, but maybe you have patience when I tell you this because it directly, oh, what I talk on this show. And this so-called Straussian debate you may have heard about because it's a continuation of demented arguments that took place in the 2000s about whether, for example, there was a Straussian conspiracy in the Bush White House and so on with people like Shadia Drury saying that Carl Schmitt

was Hitler's lawyer and he was Straus friend and the Nazi conspiracy and then other people on the right say it's a Zionist conspiracy and the Strausians, and you must know that both the Strausians and their enemies enjoy such accusations, and both are made very upset when you point out that most people around the world don't care and that it has no bearing on anything because the Strausians are fundamentally an analogue of an old lady's reading group. Nobody likes to hear that, but Paul Gottfried's attack on them is correct because it also applies and this why I mentioned it here it doesn't apply just to them but to many other conservative intellectuals in Washington DC who have inherited these notions or maybe they've come up with them on their own or from different

direction because the Catholic Thomist conservatives come up with almost equivalent conclusions so you see the misuse of as Gottfried say and I mean the normal fag conservative intellectual they privilege and over emphasize the moment of foundation of a people because that is the moment when so-called abstract principles of justice or ideas and moral codes, that is the moment when these are very relevant and that is also the time when they are new and they are newly introduced or imposed on the people. And of course, like Rousseau or much more than him, they leave out the nasty parts that people like Machiavelli and Nietzsche know that you need to use great violence actually to impose, you need to use religious awe and violence to be able to impose new orders on the people and so forth.

So they hope, these conservative intellectuals so-called, they hope through this, which is itself a distortion, even when you consider just the moment of foundation, but they hope by generalizing this constitutive moment of the legislator that you can easily expand and contract the people as need be, whether in the reality in policies of immigration or foreign orientation, or an argument where they often play a same kind of bait and switch. So, now, in defense of the conservative intellectual, I will say this, many of them are older men, the genuine ones who have, let's say, purer intentions, they're older men, they came of age during height of Cold War. So if you're a boomer or close in either direction, and your reference point is, let's say,

the 1950s through the 1970s, you might be forgiven for believing in such a distortion of life because at that time, the world really was locked into historically almost unique bipolar struggle between two highly ideological regimes. In Vietnam and other parts of the world, there were rehab schools, literally rehab camps as you have now for drugs, but there were rehab camps to deprogram intellectuals of Marxism or school, night school, how to deprogram yourself of Marxism. And I'm not using euphemism like labor camp, which the commies of course had in the opposite direction, but it's funny, these were voluntary rehab camp, voluntary night school, how not to be addicted to the Marxism anymore. You know, of course, again, every communist nation and group had very heavy of the opposite.

So this, you can see how someone who grow up with this leads to a distortion, but you'd think that for people who are, have been alive since then, since the events since the 1980s or since 1990s, at least, might have convinced these people of how evanescent that moment was, and really, on the other hand, convinced them of the persistence instead of the primacy of ethnicity. I mean, this model of what a people is, of what a constitution can achieve, it's long been known to total manure pile. I don't mean what Machiavelli, Rousseau, and so forth say, but the model as it's presented to you by the conservative intellectual where a constitution on a piece of paper can entirely change the nature of a people, you know? Total manure pile, it's long been known. If you want to deprogram yourself

of this conservative intellectual's cherished illusion, just read Gobineau's passage on Haiti versus Dominican Republic, and then maybe visit that island yourself. And that island is one of fortune's great natural experiments to prove to all mankind, fool, this is what a constitution can achieve for you, And this is what race and ethnicity and origin determine. In other words, everything. He say, the constitution of Haiti was introduced according to the latest principles of freedom and rationalism from France, and the words lay safely on the paper and have nothing to do with the day-to-day life of the highly ethnocentric Haitian man who lives, as the witch doctor does, in the forests of West Africa. He gives many examples, it's very vivid. And these conservative intellectuals

make many similar distortions. When they read the philosopher, as I mentioned, and many others who talk similar things, like Montesquieu, for example, you'll often hear normal fag conservatives talk of the unwritten law and so on, right? But what is it to them, if you ask? I was left with my mouth open to hear one of these guys say that the unwritten law from the constitutional legislation founders that I discussed before, that the unwritten law refers to certain principles idea is that you cannot criticize in a regime because every regime will be forced to restrict speech and to some extent even thought when it comes to its founding principles, its founding moral principles, which you should not be allowed to question openly so that every regime has to restrict free speech in some way.

Now, as a matter of historical correctness, merely on its own with that statement, they would be right, yes, fully free speech seems never to have existed in any regime or society, call it what you will. have to confuse that fact with the unwritten law, with the idea of the unwritten law that so many of these philosophers write about when they talk about the foundation of a people. And to call more important than the written law this thing having to do with free speech, it's such a lie and a dumb distortion, right? Because the unwritten law, as you may have realized, refers rather to manners, to habits, to the pre-irrational orientations of the passions according to how they were inculcated through an education based on music, art and these things that get wrongly called culture

and similar other ways. So you see how one model of a people comes about or exists, you see how it is distorted by one faction for base political motives and I will explain more of why this is in a moment. I must take this expresso and condensed milks break. Yes, I am talking about the origins of peoples and how they sustain themselves over time And in particular about distortion of one model of how such a people comes about, which is they are founded by a creator, a prophet like Moses or something like this. And why is the understanding of the normie or normal-fag conservative who misinterprets that to mean propositional nation, why that is wrong? There is a moment of foundation by creator or legislator, and at that moment there is

at least in the Creator's mind, consciously or not, a consideration of principles of justice or abstract morality and such thing, although even there I think this is a kind of distortion because it is often given to the people in a religious or artistic form, not in a set of rational principles that can be transmitted easily. And then in turn this often exists in the Creator's mind as a complete vision of life and a certain type of man, and not so much as, again, some abstract principles you could write down like a recipe and transfer to Elena Kagan's brisket-making kitchen. And furthermore, and this is the point, if the foundation of a people is successful, and this is why the two models I mentioned, the evolutionary and the creationist one, so-called, why they are really the same model.

There is no fundamental disagreement between the two of them, because if the foundation of a people is successful, then over time those principles at the moment of foundation will have eventually been fully internalized and embodied by the people to where they reach a point where they can express them intuitively, again in manner, in habit, in tastes consistent with those principles and loyalty to each other, because it is also that loyalty and not just the abstract idea that makes the peoples persevere a long time, And hiding beneath all this, and as an implication of all this, is the biological reality. That the law above all, the law of foundation, the most needful law of morality, is that which has to do with marriage, and family, and breathing, to be blunt.

And so in all these cases, it is whether consciously or not, a new type of man that is bred over time biologically, right? Because if you privilege one type of man over another, and that is what every creative legislative prophetic act does in the end, to be blunt. That type of man is privileged also for continuation of his bloodlines. So the question of biology is not in the end separable from all this, but is actually its highest and most important expression. And so you can see how in reality both the creationist, let's say, and the evolutionary models for what the people is, both are true. And the assertion of propositional nation and so on, that's a distortion, or when it's It's not a distortion. It's something that actually describes a weak and a fake nation, actually.

Only a weak nation is one based on purely irrational principles that are always in dispute. That's a weak nation. And that's the other point that for a real nation or a real race, race organos in the original sense, this question of foundation, of abstract principles of justice, of the moral foundations, this really only ever come to forefront again in moment of crisis. And it's in fact almost inseparable from instability and civil war. So what conservative intellectuals are unknowingly describing is either a fanatical, highly ideological and almost totalitarian condition like existed during the Cold War, or they describe actually a traditional society on the verge of civil war. When these questions that were supposed to have been embodied casually already in the

daily life of a people, they come back to forefront with a vengeance and many such things. Well, so much for this. But in closing this segment, I'd like to warn of opposite and equally wrong dumbification of what a people is and how it sustains itself. And this, what I just described, the propositional nation thing is not actually so dangerous. Aside from few conservative intellectual and some GOP apparatchik dorks, hardly anyone takes a propositional model of nation seriously. There are people who invoke it to allow migrants that not actually their motivation. But when somebody does take the propositional model seriously they don't have actually in mind these distortions of Rousseau and Montesquieu and Machiavelli or Plato and so on, and this model of the foundation of a people.

They don't even think of that question, they're not often even aware of it. It's just a tiny minority, and if you're a conservative normie in that tiny minority, where you think the model of a foundation of people as founding Rousseau or Machiavelli supports this propositional nation idea. I hope I can make you reconsider if you believe in that. It's a distortion. But no, this minority position is not that dangerous. It's not that relevant to the right because the right knows that it's wrong. There is a much worse exaggeration on the other side, which is more insidious. It's worse because it kneecaps us on the right. It makes us actually kneecap ourselves. I mean, we are on guard again against the propositional nation's stupidity, but not against this other misunderstanding,

and that is that the people is something purely emergent, purely evolutionary, something that exists entirely outside anything that could be expressed in a form that could be universalized, something that exists purely as a result of historical evolution, and in that definition you could of course include biology, and this too is a distortion caused by political need, As in, well, let me see how I can define the people in such a way so as to prevent any question of transferring this peoplehood, right? How can I use this to stop current immigration and foreign policy? And while I agree with these, you know, stopping these things, anything made under emotional pressure of this kind becomes stupid. This political pressure leads to this other kind. I think it's a big mistake.

And I'm saying this, look, as a biological supremacist, but the problem with this view is that it doesn't compel or seduce, besides being wrong. It makes you take for granted things you shouldn't. I don't want to get too much into this now, I explained brief, but it's not in the end, as the conservative intellectuals allege about principles of justice in the abstract sense, it's about what kind of life actually is better than another. And a people with a democratic or egalitarian prejudice don't like to put it this way, but to be blunt, ultimately it's about what kind of man is better than another. And without this animating spirit of striving, in which, as in Nietzsche's formulation, a people is trying to perfect itself over time to some noble goal to set it – excuse

me, attack me with symbiont again – but a people trying to perfect itself to some noble high goal in which it tries to set itself against its neighbor and over its neighbor. But without this, every people would just be some equal group, different only in the most insignificant ways like cuisine, embroidery style, how you make a certain kind of chair out of straw and many such harmless things. Without that striving for superiority and supremacy, actually even biological differences start to appear irrelevant to most people. So you like it or not, each religion, each people that is a people and a race in truth, each of them is making a claim about what is superior and inferior, what is a superior life, and is thereby setting itself above all other people's implicitly.

And without that animating desire for superiority, without that belief in yourself and your ways as actually better, truer, superior, a people cannot maintain itself in the long run. Eventually that other thing you think is enough to sustain it, the fellow feeling, the loyalty, all such things, they only go so far. Even within families, do I need to say this, think if you have certain cousins, for example, how much you get along with them, how much you will go out to help them over even a stranger who is a friend. But then consider the foolishness of going now to Europeans who have been raised democratically with egalitarian prejudice and taught to see claims of superiority and inferiority as absurd or arbitrary.

And you go to them with a genetic chart or your theories from observations of monkeys and you talk to them about genetic distance and out-group and in-group and such things that many sociobiologically-minded rightists, they like to do this now, and who you think that is going to convince because they will just shrug it off and say, so what? I mean, don't you yourself say that we are no better or worse than any other? So why shouldn't we let them come into our countries? Why shouldn't we put them on equal status with us and breed with them? What vital reason are you giving a people to exist? Because as you know, their groupiness is actually not a compelling reason in the end for almost any people. It's not, in the long run, it becomes not enough.

And the peoples who continue, they have an overwhelming belief in the superiority of their ways. Not just because they're own, but because they are superior. And a smart evolutionary, let's say, call it historical or evolutionary model nationalist, like Dominik Wenner, in book published by my friend Blossius' translation, I will link it again. But Wenner, he is evolutionary historical thinker, nationalist, who he can make this case because he understands the fundamental, again, it's not about abstract principles or ideas, but the characteristic type of striving for the higher, that type of five European men, he understands this, but I'm afraid many of others on the right do not. And so they are less powerless in arguments because they've internalized democratic prejudice

where first of all they don't want to say one people is superior to another, and second they don't realize they should be making their arguments maybe in the end not to the people as a whole who are, they have never been the carriers of peoplehood, but to the 20-30% of men who can actually carry that historical identity of peoplehood and affect political change and who could in any case be the only ones to truly embody, let's say, the national corporation of that people's type. You know, it's just this mistake, a rhetorical strategy mistake that many writers make when they talk instead as if they already have the people in question on their side and this This is a poor people that's being oppressed or tricked by outsiders, that is just yearning

to live its own life, but it's under foreign occupation. And that won't really get you anywhere because it is the European and American people themselves who are doing this, or rather doing nothing out of lack of belief in their own superiority, lack of belief in their own election and special mission in the world. I remember I meet once a French girl, and she was a very smart, nice person. She was, I think, a loyal student, and I did not bring up any politics with her. I tried not to bring up with strangers. I just brought up some of my literary interests. This was before Trump when these kinds of things were on people's minds and driving them crazy. But just like so many of these girls, she was hyper aware enough, and she was from Europe,

so she knew that at that time this was not on the horizon of most Americans, I repeat. But when I said the usual names, Mishima, Junger, Celine, okay, that's the Gress reading list. Okay, so she said, you're new right, okay, you're new right. And I think I had brought up maybe some interest in ancient Greek paganism as well or something like this. But I didn't admit it when she accused me of being new right, but we talk a little and eventually since she brought up politic, I say, okay, you bring up this. I try to convince her on national question in Europe and on the problem of migrants. And this person, who again, remember, she's not Antifa, crazy, leftist, even bitch. She come off as centrist, nice person. She did not jump at my throat when she said I was new right.

She actually was the kind of person who liked talk to a rightist. But she say something like, it struck me, she say, I would rather die than do that. I would choose to die before having to deny them a home or kick them out of Europe. ridiculous like this extreme self-denying egalitarianism, but ask Blosius, he live blogged his trip and he's European himself and he took trips through Europe I think last summer when he on purpose stayed in hostels to talk to young people from there and so what he heard and the conversation it's always you keep having over and over the same conversation I had with this girl or I would meet some French guy in a bar and we start to talk about soccer. I don't know much of football soccer team, but he talked about soccer team and the French

national team and I just casually said, well, none of those players are very French at all. And he was so upset by this and upset beyond measure, you know, but please understand no one was listening. He did not call me, start calling me names out of fear. This is the problem. They are not doing it just out of fear. They have internalized this noxious, it's not, as Nietzsche say, it's a kind of distortion and degradation of Christian morality, and they have internalized this egalitarianism. This is the problem, this humanitarianism. And I've met also the opposite, by the way, by pure chance. bringing up politics, I've met some hard rightists from France who told me they got into street fights and so on, but they are much fewer.

And this is a problem that is something that European peoples believe and they are doing to themselves. And your pose, if you come solely with the rhetorical strategy of you are liberating them from an oppressor imposing this, or from the manipulations of financial actors that have brainwashed them to allow cheap labor into their nations, they are not going to convinced because they do not feel oppressed, they don't want to think, nobody wants to think that their cherished moral delusions are the cause, you know, are caused by Machiavellian financial manipulators, that they will sigh up by so forth, and it very well may be that many like this girl, that you can never reach them or persuade them, but that's partly the

point I'm making, that many of the nationalist or populist rights argument are geared wrongly for popular democratic persuasion but are generally not achieving that either because they're wrong arguments or what I also especially believe you're not aiming the right arguments at the right people and ultimately you're not doing what someone like a smart and courageous nationalist like Dominic Venner did do which is to provide, you have to provide an attractive, seductive and really a grand, inspiring view of life that could motivate people to want to preserve their nationhood as a special position against and over others. This universalized Marxism, oh I'm the real Marxist and I'm going to free the people from…

All you're offering in the end with that is groupiness and a theory about why their own Reddit somewhat more universalized groupiness is a psychological operation by the big banks or by Ursula von der Leyen or by the Rothschilds or because Alex Jones cannot say, he says the thousand year old reptilians from Babylon and so on, but in the end what's being argued about is two kinds of indistinct groupiness, that's what's being spelled about, and I think this distortion self-ne caps the right and is worse than the propositional nation delusion that almost no one genuinely believes in anyway and is not a danger for us, and this distortion is maybe caused less by rejection of any universal or cosmopolitan claims than by the stupid

belief many of you want to continue in, the belief and prejudice for democracy, for egalitarianism, Not realizing that the people as such, the people can never be the carriers of national identity in the full sense. Not to speak of political decision. And that to compel and seduce an active minority that can be effective, you need to present them actually with the full vision of the life you offer. That is not just good because it's your own, but also because it's better and superior to others, desirable as such. And let me just close with a note on political signaling in case some shit libs listening to me, if there are any, in case you think what I've said so far is a call for people just to play nice and not attack enemies in speech and just to be positive.

Let me say a word on that, okay, okay, because I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying Enoch Power, I'm saying Jonathan Bowden, I'm saying Dominic Venner, I'm saying And that is the right signaling for public consumption, not this victimization mentality where you present yourself as a poor, we are poor native peoples who are being colonized by evil bad guy outsiders. Who you think exactly is going to be convinced by that? Are you going to convince a Marxoid or left leaning girl like the one I just mentioned? Because I can tell you that type of distended Marxoid is not going to be converted to leftist nationalism by your claim that her moral views have actually been manipulated by financial institutions or by global techno-neoliberal capitalism or any such thing.

In fact, in the off chance you would be able to achieve rule based on such principles and you will not in the modern kind of Europe or United States. But there are many examples, for example Scotland, the Ireland of IRA ape Gerry Adams of Cork County nationalism, the Basque country of Spain, the Catalonia of Spain, and most of all the Argentina of the Peronist faction. And the Peronists are basically times a hundred, banning on steroids. And you look at the result of populist leftist nationalism in Argentina, complete by the way with the same rhetoric many of you pseudo-Marxoids on the right love about international finance and the evils of the IMF and this type of thing. Well, all of these nations that I mentioned, including Argentina, are overrun by non-white immigrants.

To put it mildly, they're not immigrants, they're migrants and invaders. And why are they brought in? Because leftoids like to have clients and eventually they like to make alliance with based third-world coloreds against their own effete evil white bad guy elites, you see. This always happens in all of these cases. But the fundamental problem is if you win, let's say, on something that is not explicitly racial and cultural identity, eventually you will become like the worst aspect of global homo that you dislike, which is again as a mass migration. You have to emphasize the racial aspect above all and not be shy about asserting the inferiority and contemptible nature and ways of life of other peoples, their unsuitability for life in your nation.

again the Enoch Powell model and the Jonathan Bowden type of rhetoric is I think the most powerful where you encourage your own kind and you show young people especially the greatness of their own history and why they are superior to others and why they have the right to take charge of the reins of these nations and do what let's say Ferdinand of Aragon I just posted about Machiavelli, where Machiavelli say the most rare and extraordinary act where he cleansed his kingdoms of the Moors, but it's not just the Moors, it's many others. And you don't have, again, necessarily in policy to go that far if you have a normie presenting face, but an Enoch Powell and a Jonathan Bowden-type rhetoric in public should eventually be expected of all politicians on the right in America and Europe.

If not, there is no hope because you cannot advance what you want, national identity and many such things based on purely this egalitarian, we are all different peoples and we are all equally oppressed by shadowy global techno-capital and this type of thing, it's pussy stuff. Many of the people making this are actually Marxoid, they are not on the right. Others of you have been mind-fucked by egalitarianism, where you can no longer assert your own superiority to others. But without that, without that drive for supremacy, people cannot continue. You must listen Nietzsche and submit the thousand and one goals from Zarathustra. Very good. I say too much. Until next time. Bap out.