Welcome Caribbean items episode 124 which a continuation of episode previous where I talk origin and characters of peoples and last time I gave you the light field the hopeful vision of what people is how emerges for the cultivation of certain Excellencies by which it wants to assert itself in the world against its neighbors to put it in Nietzsche's wonderful formulation You find in Zarathustra in the chapter called on the thousand and one goals which I read for half half of it last time, but if you read anything else from this book, by the way You should start with the prologue prologue from Zarathustra and in fact This should be the first text the prologue from Zarathustra where he introduces idea of the last man

This should be the first thing you give to anyone to see if you can turn them if you can radicalize them to the truth radicalize in the good sense Have them go to root of what ails them, of what haunts our apocalypse world. But anyway, in last episode I gave you a rosy, maybe slight, optimistic view from Machiavelli, Rousseau, Nietzsche, and to some extent Plato, a view of how a legislator or a lawgiver or a prophet founds a people with examples, well Lycurgus most of all, the founder of Sparta, but Moses and Mohammed and so on are others, and maybe there are some other examples, maybe Maybe not all people have this in a full way. In some cases, like the law of Manu in India, the lawgiver is lost in antiquity so that they become a god to that people, shrouded in mist of time.

Maybe other nations lack even this, and they emerge shaped by national poets and politicians and circumstance, like the English famously do in Burke's idea of how a people emerges. And maybe other peoples are not peoples or races in the full sense at all. only appear or are said to be. But let's take the best and the real examples. You see in all of these cases cultivation of men, of the form of men toward certain different ends where in one nation the pious man is prized above others. In another it's the warlike man. In another the just and moderate or the contemplative. In another it's the cunning. In another the beautiful and so on. I like Nietzsche's funny formulation for the Persians that it was to ride a horse well, shoot arrows straight and speak the truth.

Sounds very simple, but they founded the first really multinational empire, stretching from Indus to the Mediterranean. I don't think there had been similar empire like that of that extent in so many different nations before then. Such a giant flower emerging from such simple excellences that Nietzsche lists. But you see what I am saying, different stroke for different folk. Yes, you like this phrase. Mankind involves different nations and different places developing different, and they used to be called virtues, but that word is outdated. You know this. It sounds stuffy and Victorian. Nobody knows what it means, so let's say excellences or patch, you know, different good abilities. But then Then there is the other side of this argument, there is this saying from Schopenhauer that

it's made me cackle with laughter for a long time, but he say, you know, Schopenhauer has vehemence and eloquence of wrath. This is what Nietzsche say of him, the eloquence of wrath, just like Luther did. And I once had, I think there was some professor, I saw her, I'd never seen her get this way, she was introducing various philosophers at different time, and she literal chimp-like like Baboon. She made Baboon display in class when we got to Schopenhauer. She was most of all put off by his assertive form of expression in The World as Will and Representation, his main book. And she chimp out, she gets ready in the face, she say, this is the book of a 24-year-old man. So can you write this at 24, by the way? It took him I think four years

maybe to write it, so he was I forget 28 or maybe he started at 26 and finished at 30. In 1818 I think the book was published, and this book has impetuous eroticism of youth, such vitality in his expression. It's so incongruous with the moral pessimism of all of it, which I think in some way it gives the lie to that pessimism even though some Some Schopenhauerian disciples in the late 19th century took it to an unfortunate conclusion where they committed suicide. But for me, his moral conclusions are never what I found entrancing about this book. It's the vitalism of his form of expression and the vividness of his ideas and insights into the world. But this professor, she chimped and she said, I hope you are all shocked by what he said about the Jews.

And I say to her, yes, but I like what he say about women. So you see, it's interesting. I think she mentioned one of these but not the other. She did not mention his opinion of women. I think it's a bit of a Lord Voldemort effect in that case, you know, when really she was silent about what really bothered her. Women are experts at this. They hide it even from themselves. They transform an emotional and self-interested motivation into a supposedly objective one based on, oh, I don't like this argument. I don't know what this means. sounds uncertain to me. His assertiveness offended me. So, you know, it's rare she'd even mention him. I suppose one should be thankful for that. And so far as Schopenhauer has ever read at all today in schools and so on, and he almost never is touched by the

way, it's precisely because he writes so clearly and in such an English way that they are allergic to him. Schopenhauer was trans-Anglo. He was an Anglophile. He wore the latest English suits. He became trans-Anglo, trans-racial Anglo. But if you don't write like a convoluted windbag like Hegel and Heidegger, then grad students and professors cannot make nonsense articles about you. It's much harder to bullshit somebody who doesn't express themselves in in that thick, nonsense Germanic way which Schopenhauer mocks. So this is why men like Schopenhauer and to some extent Nietzsche and certain others like Lichtenberg who write in a clear way, they're not very popular in academia. Which Schopenhauer disdained the university in his own time.

You see what he says about them, his essays on reading and on learning. These are classic essays from his collection of essays called Parega and Paralipomena. He should be able to find online in some way, but he just had complete contempt for academia and he and Nietzsche are of course the two great anti-academic philosophers of the last few hundred years, but not coincidentally they are the most influential among artists and literary men, and maybe really they are the last two philosophers the world has seen up to our time, for sure I think, yes, and maybe for the foreseeable few hundred years. but the eloquence of wrath, and Choron, Nabil Choron, talks about how he would get outbursts of laughter any time Schopenhauer go on one of his rants. I think this is the right response.

Maybe next, why don't I do this next episode, Schopenhauer's rants against Hegel and the left Hegelians. He's so outrageous with his wrath, he will make you laugh, which, you know, completely Actually, in his attack on left Hegelianism, it covers the case of Marxism before Marx and many other kinds of socialism, but you can't help but laugh at his overwhelming eloquence of that. So anyway, I got carried away. So here's this line, it's long made me chuckle, and I forget from where exactly it is, but he said, given that the vast majority of mankind is stupid and wicked and malicious, you know, Every nation then, you know, 90% of mankind is garbage by definition, so every nation is then just a different characteristic collection of vices.

It's just a different flavor of garbage, you know, as it made me think, it made me put two and two together. It made me think of this Schopenhauer judgment together with previous reflections on the origins of people regarding the legislator and such, right, because by that previous view a nation is really a compact an agreement or corporation to cultivate men in a certain good direction to cultivate characteristic excellencies and it would be these that define each people but what if there is from Schopenhauer what if there is a filter to every creation of a legislator or profit you could call it a big snood filter a filter through which their attempt to form a regime or regimen or diet geared toward producing

characteristic excellences, degenerates instead into what Schopenhauer describes characteristic lameness, characteristic cripple, you know, you are mentally retarded, you're a mental retard, and this. And I mean, think of what a nation is, actually, reality, it's not right to call it a compact or a contract, okay, I was being, I exaggerate to make a point, but the rosy view, let me give you an image of the rosy view, it might be some families meet in the woods and the The men decide who are going to be very good hunters and will form a new nation and will gear everything toward producing the best hunters and archers and so on. But in reality, you know, it actually may just be a gang, a war band setting itself above some other sedentary people and taking their women.

And even if not that stark, and actually, that's not a very stark or harsh scenario because think of it, the next generation of rulers will be half native, come to think of it. But almost always in history every great nation has in fact origins in conquest, and one group predatory on another setting up a caste, or a caste system of racial supremacy, so that class is almost always racial in fact. And it is to distinguish themselves from the serfs and the slaves first of all, but then also in response to other pressures, both external and internal, that the people, namely actually the aristocracy, because it is ultimately only the aristocracy that carries the national character in the same way that the racial-facial type is, for example, most of all expressed in the men and not the women.

Look at any nation, you say, this looks like a Frenchman, this looks like a Jew, this looks like an Italian, this looks like an Igbo or something, but the facial characteristics that are telltale, you always see them in men, especially as they become a little bit older. really appear so much in the women. But anyway, the aristocracy designs under these pressures certain, you can call them training and breathing programs, by means of which, almost by accident, actually maybe usually by accident, they begin to elevate themselves above the human animal, H-U-E-M-A-N. And then later, they are sometimes blessed with a legislator or prophet who finds them, For example in crisis or some other condition like Lycurgus and Romulus found their peoples

and he codifies, he perfects them in that direction that they were suited for by circumstance and by nature. And often this is also achieved spiritually by poets. So you know the gods of the Greeks, I believe they existed, I believe Satyr existed exactly as is described, I believe in Centaur. If you ever deny this around me, I will give a strong punch in the face, but they were in a sense the gods of the Greeks also created by Homer and Pindar and a few other such poets. In other words, they existed before but they never existed in such glory and light before Homer and Pindar. They gave the gods and peoplehood of the Greeks so much greater vividness, so much definition than had been before. I believe in this.

And these legislators, when they arrive, and you see in the case of Numa Pompilius at Rome, who set up their religious laws and the laws of Manu in India or of the Manchu rulers of China, that above all they are concerned, first of all, with marriages and with eugenic marriages, even if they don't call it that. But they establish forms of sexual apartheid, okay, to put it blunt, because they know what you do not. For example, in China under the Manchu, the Manchu absolutely forbade intermarriage with the Han class of serfs they had conquered, the people you know now as the present-day Chinese. And the Han were not allowed to enter the Manchu homeland and many such things. And the present borders of China, by the way, are those of the Manchu Empire.

It is total outrage that the Han should own Tibet, make no sense. But anyway, so okay, they entertain the pessimistic cynical vision of Schopenhauer for a moment, the big snood filter, right? It's like with women, there is one way men imagine women, in romances, in men's romantic delusions and expectations of women, expectations that have actually failed to shape women really after at least 1,000 years of what Schopenhauer calls the Christian Teutonic stupid veneration of women. Okay, so it's not completely analogous, but you get what I'm trying to say. to every legislator or prophet's lofty hopes for this tribe that he hopes to mold like clay into a great and divine people that ascends beyond the human or to human. But on the other side, just think what comes out

where sobriety and temperance and self-restraint, they turn into miserly penny-pinching, right? Or say he intended to form a people of commercial acumen and it turns instead into a merchant slimy, hello, my friend, no, I do not have light bulbs, You want to buy light bulbs? I don't have light bulbs, but I have donkey saddle with flashing light to sell you this, my friend. I have Egyptian scroll from my great-grandfather, you know, or many other such cases. Politeness becomes obsequiousness. Light heartedness becomes laziness and torpor and mounds of trash in the July heat. Nobody collects them. Just spend any time in any country and it will start to scar your nerves in a particular new kind of way, you know.

Each people with their own particular lameness, professionalism, moral uprightness, frankness in America, actually becomes intolerable, fake office manners, moral self-righteousness and grandstanding, loathsome gullibility in front of oneself and others, and I single these out because yes, these bother me the most when I am in the United States, but each nation has its own equivalent, and it's not that each excellence has a corresponding bad mirror but that after a while it becomes hard actually to find any kind of characteristic national excellence anywhere that if you find any excellence it's actually a chance individual kind that exists in this one guy or in this one family in spite of the national rearing and whatever is touched actually

by the groupie national culture is just again you know vice isn't the right word it's just a special local lameness a lameness that at times it seems that That is all that nations and peoples and groups do, is they impart their own brand of retardation. This is the big snood filter of mankind. In Cape Verde, these dreadful islands, sand swept by wind from Africa, and they serve these dreadful polenta type things, and they're so proud of it, they're so proud, you know, they have this word, they tell you, we're proud, we have this word that doesn't exist in other places. In fact, yes, it does exist in many other places, and your food tastes like compressed sand brick, to where even Bourdain, the loser, Anthony Bourdain, who the Clintons, they killed

him with a doorknob hanging suicide, right, but Anthony Bourdain, he was forced to tell these cholos in Colombia they were so proud of their communal potluck soup, you know, he had to tell them that no, actually, every people has pretty much the same dish, I think, Sancocho, that's what it's called. Yeah, nobody else in the world has this, right? No, everyone has the same peasant slop, you toothless cholo. Your goatees look like pubic hair, total face pubic, Central America, scarification, human Ewoks, the robots bred by the Mayans with a dead look in the eye, the residues of the great projects of antiquity. This is all we have, the indiscriminate reproduction of the leftover robot surf classes of the great empires of the past.

Yes, please excuse. I need Casa Plasencia tobacco break. I will be right back, but okay You say I am blinded by my own Mesanthropic rage may be a slight true. I had a recent terrible experience in supermarket I go supermarket you experience real human misery there, you know, especially the olds old people You're supposed to feel sorry for them. They are you're supposed to have respect or respect our elders They are wise. Do you think most boomers are wise or are they nation destroyers? They are the generation that destroys Really thousands of years of efforts are destroyed in this one Selfish mean-spirited generation and this old faggot and I'm there waiting in line. He's not Okay, he sees me waiting in front of him. I have

I have just two item, three item, I have one cheese, two chocolate, and I'm in front of him and I'm trying to find another line and so forth and he sees me there and sees me waiting. There is a person in front of both of us and only when it get to be my turn, he say, no, you cannot be here, this is the line for cripples and olds and the preferential line for this. He says this, he could have told me before, he could have kindly told me, please go into another line, but two or three items, and he especially waited in other words for it to be my turn so that he could get the slight pleasure, and I don't know if you can reduce it to power, I don't like that people say he wanted to feel power, I think just meanness,

He wanted to inflict a little bit of inconvenience on somebody else and to stick it to them, you know, to have wasted five or ten minutes of my time and so forth. But this is the kind of thing, look, you say it's a petty example, but this kind of pettiness, you meet daily, it's the extreme malice of people. And you've just seen during pandemic, maybe many of you have been lectured by mask tyrants and mask oppressors and this, and one of the things that make my blood boil most of all was I walk on the street without a mask, even when there were mask mandates in certain countries and so forth, even outdoors there were, and I would get these people in taxi drive, taxis, they had the mask, I was outside the taxi, I was not inside, but they had the mask and

They would make this gesture toward the mask as if I should wear one, even though I had nothing to do with their taxi. I wanted to boil them alive when they did this. But many people have seen, you know, not to speak of the police brutality over people who refuse to comply with masks or vaccines or this kind of thing, it's just universal machine, how you say, this kind of maliciousness, petty malice, simple malice, inflict harm on another with no profit to yourself, like this disgusting stupid old man in a supermarket. It might be that it's all this way because something happened to mankind, the catastrophe of modernity as a reactionary might think, but the degeneration over time of mankind as traditions and moral codes are abandoned, right? That's the story.

But I wonder if it was always like this, and it's only the very rare individual or small groups in the past who ever embodied a legislator's mission, while the vast majority, it was always again the big snood filter for any constitution where actually out the other end, digested by the congenital and universal human lameness, it's the same uniform universal human failure. At least after the initial enthusiastic one or two generations, let's say, of a people's foundation. But within a few hundred years at most, every legislator's creation degenerates to the same self-regarding groupiness and role-play. And the original high vision is entirely forgotten in favor. The only thing that remains, you know what it's forgotten for, and maybe even in the

first generation of peoplehood, this is what I'm saying, corrupt, fat, disgusting old men and old hags, using verbal formulas and condensations and vulgar gestures that, yes, habits have replaced thought, but not a good habit. It's the behavioral equivalent of clichés and gang signs, and, you know, group narcissism is all it becomes. So you know, the story told in previous show about how nations sustain themselves, maybe it's just hopeful delusion of how things actually turn out once they're in the hands of the people. the people and their lazy oligarchic wardens. Ooh, what a vision of the high. Ooh, transcendence and hope for afterlife. Ooh, what scholars, what peoples of scholars and warriors. You know, I have some dark thoughts on this. I think probably most men of any nation

are likely to transition, to become beyond genders. I'm sorry, but do I have to tell you this? I think in history, maybe most avoided war or they were shamed into war by just a handful of real men. and Jim Jones, James Jones, is this correct, his name? But maybe he was right that he was the only straight man in that Guyana cult compound, and he proved it by sodomizing other men. I joke, but it is creators of genius who are the formers of people, and thereafter it is only a dedicated elite of men who can sustain its life, just as with any other kind of association. There's nothing magical about peoplehood that keeps it going if you don't have this, without doing, for example, what Elon doing now to Twitter and cleaning out the dross and the refounding the original compact,

and of course I exaggerated what Elon's doing, but as a kind of analogy, you see what I'm saying, it just very quickly becomes big snood and malice and group self-regard. I believe this, that the social capital inculcated into the people as people, especially if they should not be of sufficient genetic stock, which no nation today can maybe be of good stock, right? especially after the indiscriminate multiplication of damaged life for the last 200 years. But the people, you must let go of the delusion that the people as people can sustain anything. They need constant guidance, discipline, and shepherds, and they need to be awed, if not with religious manias, because that is maybe primitive and despotic and oriental, but at

least with feats of great acts and heroism, and yes, kept in suspense and even entertained with awe-inspiring acts that they can admire, otherwise the people is just in fact a parody of any great act of moral and cultural legislation or creation. You can never put your hope in them. The bigs-dude filter. From Arminius to the earnest, thick-headed, parochial German burgher. See what Schopenhauer says about the Germans. Should I read this? I will maybe next time. Schopenhauer on the Germans. Sounds good to cover on episode about Hegel. Arminius to nurse Ratchet of Hadamar, from Homer and Solon to the Greek actor-prostitute entertaining Roman 56-percenter Afrikanoid new money circus freaks. You can read Petronius' Satyricon to this to see what the Greeks were reduced to by Roman times.

As Nietzsche says, they actually became actors, a nation of actors, and by the way, that, I mean this book, the Satyricon, it's a portrayal of a degraded elite, whereas the The people of the time and the dregs of the time was probably still more loathsome without even the allure of this real decay. From Moses and David to the young stock market Jew, I will not say more, see what Nietzsche says about just this type, or to the intellectual proletarian, or to Jerry Naylor, or many such examples now. From the homi, the proud cannibals of the kingdom of the homi in Benin, right? From the voodoo priest of Benin who eats the raw heart out of the chest. From this to now the buck broken down low brother, Quan Ye, or to Joy Ann Reid with clown hair begging the white man for bottomless great drag.

I joke, you know, I'm joking, that's all, but enough of this. I was on show recent with show guest academic agent and he wrote this book, Populist Delusion. I have not read this yet, but yes, this, I am against a populist delusion. The big snoot filter is something a book could be written about, the filter of the mass of humanity which unfortunately always, at all times, even in golden ages, in all places, it represents a form of broken life. And I don't know who broke them, but they're born retarded. You can't change that. As Theognists say, never has teaching made a bad man good. You can't improve a man by teaching him. It's easier to breathe them than to put wits into them. He says this 2,500 years ago, this was known, H.B.D., you hear that enlightenment never

has teaching made a bad man good. But what of women? You know that's another way in which a legislator or a creator's high hopes for his nation that dashed against the hard rock of woman. Aristotle comes right out and says this, it's from politic, I think it's book two. But it's where he talks about how Lycurgus plans for the Spartan nation and right, Lycurgus In all of these models, he's the one most highly praised. Again, his statue is in the United States Capitol, I think, and all the writers I mentioned on a previous episode, Machiavelli, Rousseau, they all have the highest praise for Lycurgus. But his plans for the Spartan nation ended up being destroyed because he was never able to persuade its women to live under its laws.

So only the men submitted really to the regiment, the law, and so on. So it's women continue to live under opulence and license and well, let me just read for you and forgive, I think I may have read this for you before, but it's such a nice passage and it's not that long. Let me read it for you. This is from Aristotle on the Spartan Constitution. Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan Constitution and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For a husband and wife, being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women. And therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta.

The legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men. But he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state, wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen falls under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of the most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. Oh no, what this means. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in their days of greatness. Many things were managed by their women.

But what difference does it make whether women rule or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion when, unlike the women in other cities, the Spartan women were utterly useless and caused more confusions in the enemy. The license of the Spartan women existed from the earliest times and only what might be expected for during the war. Look, I will not continue reading his very nice passage. You should read it yourself. You like this. And so now you may say, well, Aristotle leaves open the possibility that in other places the women are placed under the law as well.

But I wonder at this. I wonder if they are actually the element that accelerates the decay of all such projects It's in the sense that, okay, you see a regime in this sense as a project for distribution of rewards, a constitution distribute rewards, with the ultimate reward being the womb of a woman and your legal and biological paternity enforced, protected. And let's say it's a monogamous place. But then after a while, the public spirit of the place is replaced by the private or family spirit. And what this means very concretely is that men, instead of putting themselves wholeheartedly in formal or informal compacts or brotherhoods with each other to rule the place and to make it work, that they start instead to prize the woman and the home and the family life above this.

Let's say whether it's a Senate or a Greek hetairia, which were the aristocratic fraternity that actually ran some cities and they start to put the second and to prize his time at home with women because he is spiritual faggot, he's a gino man. And so then what you have is essentially ruled by women, right? Because the outward form of the political compacts and institutions will still be there, but the men will not be part of them as men, but as extensions of their wives in many cases. And you see this, well Aristotle described in Sparta, but you see this in America right now, and Americans are not warlike people, they never were. It's interesting, he say the Spartans were especially enamored of women.

Of course the propaganda now is the Spartans were gay and this, but that was not the impression at the time. Aristotle say the Spartans were very much enamored of the love of women, and perhaps in America now, I don't know if you can say enamored of women in same, you know, the Spartans one assumed, had erotic vitality and charge, at least in America now. I don't know if this can be said, but certainly they are ruled by their women, right? You see America now, a lot has happened with white college-edumicated households in 2020 where the wife or the girlfriend, they insisted to see the vote card to make sure the hubby, the housebound husband or boyfriend, did not vote for Trump. So you know that's an inversion of what trads and social conservatives claim to want, that

it's because America becomes a place where the woman's vote determines the whole household vote. What does Isaiah say? As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them. That's Isaiah 3.12. Is this the path by which people quickly decay? The filter is actually the slightly acidic environment of the vagina, which Marquis de sad or a character from his book he calls the vilest of all holes in the universe the vagina in alliance with native human torpor and stupidity and malice am i going too far am i going i only want destruction of all humanity i will be right back welcome to show again i am aware by the way there is a complacency that can come from cynicism and pessimism as much as it it can come from optimism. A vision of men, where you see him so depraved

in his nature that you throw your hands up, you say, well, what can be done? Nothing can be improved anyway. Often today, you are more likely to see complacency because of vulgar optimism, right? The last man from Nietzsche's Zarathustra prologue, who he so well described the self-satisfied, blinking non-man, the creature of the European common market, and most of the college-edumicated American classes, as well, of course, as those who ape them from all around the world in the peripheries of this, I don't call it an empire, let's say a dominion of darkness. Because in this class that the Enlightenment has raised up all over the world, and I will never agree, you see, with the people I otherwise like.

For example, Steve Saylor and Cochrane, George Cochrane, Peter Frost, the whole commentariat on IQ differences and HBD and so on, they bring up important facts and important problems. And they are of course right factually about the statistics they point to. But they are wrong in thinking that IQ is eugenic, IQ is disgenic. And the class that has been bred to be the clerk IQ office class. You know as opposed to someone like Vasco da Gama who was learned and intelligent but also adventurous and an explorer of new worlds, or someone like Columbus. And in general, there are these three classes in Europe and the European-derived world. The Dums, these are the mass of people who are the Dums as much as anywhere else. In fact, in most other places around the world, there's nothing else.

And then there are the remnants of the ancient Aryan military aristocracy, which was mostly wiped out in 1789 and 1917, between those two dates and around then, in which you find Find examples in men like Da Gama and Francis Drake and Columbus or Machiavelli and such, explorers of New World, and of who some vestiges survived, for example, in people like Werner Heisenberg and Werner von Braun and such. And finally and unrelated is the robot clerk class, the clerk robot class that was bred not for genius or vitality or adventure, but for Chinese Mandarin bureaucratic so-called civilization. Namely this IQ. I you know how to use shorthand IQ class of people that sailor and

Some of his friends they mistake for the foundation of progress when they're in fact the end of progress and really the social biological class that carries they are the basis of all these modern problems and they are the result of a misbreathing a Misbreathing a dysgenic experiment resulting from the European Middle Ages When control over marriages was given to priests beholden to a doctrine that forgot Physiology and eugenics and that had a faulty conception of human nature But this class this godless aimless robot class that blinks in self-satisfied way They are characterized by a vulgar optimism right that sees man as good and decent in need of no improvement And that wants to confirm the human animal in its bare existence in all this is a really disgusting

incontinences and stupors and so on they want to confirm mankind in that so they blink without understanding at any kind of higher striving they see it as mental illness and really again what the prophets say of them that finally press they are driven by vengeance against anything higher or more distinguished and they are actually in a natural alliance with the dumbs to which they will themselves inevitably recede leaving behind universal Haiti world but But this kind of complacency, if you can call it this, from optimism or from an apparent optimism which is something you're more acquainted with, but there is also the complacency of pessimism where maybe you've seen people in your own acquaintances rarely but you see

some depressives who are like this who are just so cynical, so critical of others and also of themselves that really they end up doing nothing at all, why does it matter and so on. especially common historically among Slavs, but above all among Russians. And it's an attitude that Dostoevsky, not only he, but he very good at psychologically dissecting this, portray for you various novel. And this too is complacency, it's a kind of right that allows for new improvement of mankind, which I should say Schopenhauer, despite his extreme cynicism, his pessimism, he's not like this. He actually has a eugenic program that he discusses, where because of his belief that intelligence comes from the mother and character comes from the father, he even makes a joke.

He says, this is my Plato's Republic, where the intelligent women will be paired off with courageous men of good character. Something along these lines. But my point is, yes, it's important not to maybe take cynicism too far. Cynicism is true, and it can be used by the legislator of mankind, but should not be. If you read Plutarch, Alcibiades, there is an offhand reference to Timon the misanthrope. Maybe every Greek city had a man like this, and they appreciated this the same way that the Indians appreciate the sadhu or the fakir. Is that what it's called, the magician of the Sufis, the fakir, or is it kefir? Kefir is a kind of drinkable yogurt, right, I don't know, but this man Timon the misanthrope, He woke up to Alcibiades in a throng and he said,

you, lion, are going to be the death of all this ramble. And it was true. And people applauded at that. They applauded at their own destruction at the hands of Alcibiades. You should want to be destroyed also, I think. But a man like that, Timon de Misanthrope, while amusing and actually correcting what he says, he should only be used as the knife that sharpens the work. Taken too far again, there could be a tendency with that attitude to throw hands up and say mankind is so corrupted, we are all equal in our depraved and fallen condition, which is strangely the mirror image of again the IQ office drone, excuse me, the attack, the IQ office drone of the European common market, to use Leon de Grell's words, who he reaches the same egalitarian stasis through a shallow optimism.

But there are examples of peoples, I think, who at least for a while, they have raised themselves out of this morass of lameness, and they were either given exceptional generation or two of elite men by fortune, or they had a code of law and morality like the ancient Greeks did, which put, for example, the contest or the ritualized duel in contest, the agon above everything else, or it put the drive to individual excellence and supremacy above everything else, or you look at Icelandic free state based on the right of the stronger and the right of duel, and this is the good by nature that a man should be able to challenge another to a duel and to claim all his property and women and so on. I believe in this.

But anyway, while this carries many dangers, the turbulent political history of the Greeks shows this, where you had constant tumult, factions seeking supremacy over each other, always at each other's throats. You know, Theognis, the famous anti-democratic aristocrat poet who says after his exile by the democrat faction that he wishes he could drink the black blood of his enemies. But without this turbulence which is born of the clash of wills of supreme gentlemen, excuse me, I mean supreme individuals, without this ultimately all you are left is a band of gypsies, indoor or outdoor gypsies who they want to survive at all costs like cockroaches. And since mankind has multiplied by so many factors, what can then be done?

Because the vast multiplication of human life over the last two centuries, but especially accelerating now in the flesh pits of the slum world, there can be no regard anymore for quality of biology to think of. We are swamped by just this biomass of unclear origin. I mean, where are all these reborn wills coming from? Because they're not coming from human bodies that have died. Where are they coming from? What were they before? is too frightening and disgusting to imagine, but in this situation, what can be the result? If you think of the improvers of mankind, of what actually in history such elites who were worthy of the name, and they undertook, again using cynicism as a knife and a tool, and they undertook to improve the sorry human animal, and what have they been like?

But they had to work with much fewer specimens than we do, and they had the ability then to use the knife and the hammer and other tools to fashion their creations. So listen to what Nietzsche say on the improvers of mankind as this from his book Twilight of the Idols. I'm not going to read, there are five aphorisms, I'm only going to read maybe a half of one or a half or one and a half, this is number three I'm reading now. Now let us consider the other case which is called morality, the case of the rearing of a particular race and species. The most magnificent example of this is offered by Indian morality and is sanctioned religiously as the law of Manu. In this book, the task is set of reading no less than four races at once, a priestly race,

a warrior race, a merchant and agricultural race, and finally a race of servants, the Shudras. It is quite obvious that we are no longer in a circus watching tamers of wild animals in this book. To have conceived even the plan of such a breeding scheme presupposes the existence of a man who is a hundred times milder and more reasonable than the mere lion tamer. One breathes more freely after stepping out of the Christian atmosphere of hospitals and prisons into this more salubrious, loftier and more spacious world. What a wretched thing the New Testament is besides Manu, what an evil odor hangs around it. But even this organization found it necessary to be terrible, not this time in a struggle with the animal man, but with his opposite, with the non-cased man, with the hutch-potch

man, the chandala. And once again, it had no other means of making him weak and harmless than by making him sick. It was the struggle with the greatest number. Nothing perhaps is more offensive to our feelings than these measures of security on the part of Indian morality. The third edict, for instance, Avadhana Sastra No. 1, which treats of impure vegetables, ordains that the only nourishment that the chandala should be allowed must consist of garlic and onions, as the holy scriptures forbid their being given corn or grain-bearing fruit, water, and fire. The same edict declares that the water which they need must be drawn neither out of rivers, wells, nor ponds, but only out of the ditches leading into swamps and out of holes left by the footprints of animals.

They are likewise forbidden to wash either linen themselves since the water which is graciously granted to them must only be used for quenching their thirst. Finally, Shudra women are forbidden to assist Chandala women at their confinements, while Chandala women are also forbidden to assist each other at such times. The results of sanitary regulations of this kind could not fail to make themselves felt. Deadly epidemics and the most ghastly venereal diseases soon appeared, and in consequence of these again the law of the knife, that is to say circumcision was prescribed for male children, and the removal of the small labia from the females. Manu himself says that chandala are the fruit of adultery, incest, and crime. This is the necessary consequence

of the idea of breeding. Their clothes shall consist only of the rags stored from the corpses. Their vessels shall be the fragments of broken pottery. Their ornaments shall be made of old iron, and their religion shall be the worship of evil spirits. Without rest they shall wander from place to place. They are forbidden to write from left to right or to use their right hand in writing. The use of the right hand and writing from left to right are reserved to people of virtue, to people of race. These regulations are instructive enough. We can see in them the absolutely pure and primeval humanity of the Aryans. We learn that the notion pure blood is the reverse of harmless. On the other hand, it becomes clear among which the people, the chandala hatred of this

humanity has been immortalized, among which people it has become religion and genius. From this point of view, the gospels are documents of the highest value, and the book of Enoch is still more so. Christianity as spung from Jewish roots is comprehensible only as grown upon this soil, Represents the counter movement against that morality of breeding of race and of privilege. It is essentially an anti Aryan religion Christianity is the transvaluation of all Aryan values the triumph of chandala values the proclaimed gospel of the poor and the low Jenna the general insurrection of all the downtrodden the wretched the bungled and the botched against the race The immortal revenge of the chandala as the religion of love and he's saying it he's talking about early Christianity

Of course, there were some changes later on. I stopped reading now, but what do you think of this? How is this possible now? You can ignore the last part, but where he talk about the law of Manu and what it meant in India and the breeding of these different races, the foundation of a people, to put it blunt, how is this possible now? There is the technology for it, but the will is completely lacking among anyone who could take the reins of human cultivation again. Oh, you don't like how it sounds? It sounds mean, right? But this is what is required to make man into something higher than an animal. Excuse me, I do not mean by that to insult animal, because what I really mean is a broken animal. That's what man's default condition is for some reason.

There are of course so-called elites around the world, but none are worthy of that name, because whatever conspiracy theories you think of them, eugenic Nazi reptilians and all this, they're totally uninterested in such things. These concerns are so far beyond their interests. They think of their cousin's job They think of their grotesque social desires for status and ultimately they're not really at all distinguished from the people They're just either plebs or their IQ clerks or also spiritual plebs and name one elite around the world who expires Aspires to something higher than the mob does I don't see anywhere men who want something different from this are so few who can put the foundation for something different are even fewer and they are scattered.

But let me go on tangent for a moment. I've mentioned Schopenhauer on this show. No one denies Schopenhauer is right-wing. He's even a reactionary or a hard-right man. And this is despite the fact that if you actually take his political thoughts when he explicitly states them in the essay on politics and jurisprudence, Schopenhauer is actually just a kind of Hobbesian liberalism. Yeah, he thinks the state should exist only to enforce negative right, defense from physical harm or property harm by another and so forth. But he believes, for example, only a monarch can defend these rights. So you know, many of you are acquainted with Hans Hermann Hoppe and he arrives a little bit to similar conclusion. I suppose the easygoing reason people then think Schopenhauer is a hard rightist or a

reactionary. They're his views on things like women or Jews or whether the law should ban things like beards. It's very funny as a passage that beards should be banned or noise, you know. So either the stock policy positions by which people judge a doctrine or what's your opinion on female liberation. They attack me while I speak to you, excuse me. What's your opinion on female liberation or on the condition of the Jews and so on and if you are wrong on that you're called a reactionary. So it's either that or in this case he has some unusual quirky ideas, you know, like yes to ban noise in cities, which actually I would strongly agree with that, but people would call that

authoritarian. And then even in his defense of monarchy, although he defends it for Hobbesian liberal reasons that the monarch is the only one able to defend liberal negative right, but if you tunnel into it into what he actually says about monarchy, he has some extra arguments. You see arguments that most would consider quite shocking and hard right. For example, that he has a biological understanding of monarchy as natural to men, whereas on the other hand, republics and democracies are unnatural products of calculating reason and therefore will be unstable and productive of injustice. But I repeat that his fundamental understanding of right and justice in politics is not much different from Hobbes. So, you could call it a kind of authoritarian classical liberalism,

but nevertheless, he's called hard-right thinker by many people. For example, in his early essay on German nihilism, Leo Strauss referred, Schopenhauer significantly referred to him as the first right-wing atheist, who was influenced with Eclipse then by the right-wing atheist disciple Nietzsche, yes, but still he refers to him as the first atheist right-winger or reactionary. And Paul Gottfried, he does pretty much the same, call him a hard-rightist. Gottfried has a very nice essay on Schopenhauer and the 1848 revolutions, which happened all over Europe. But during these commotions, Schopenhauer invited the police to his apartment to shoot at the revolutionaries on the street. And I suppose in this sense, he's very much right-wing, as you will see when I next week discuss

attacks on left Hegelianism, which attacks are indistinguishable from our own attacks on commies or on global homo, because it is then you see anti-leftist position that Schopenhauer so clearly stated and so strong, this would make someone like Paul Gottfried classify him as one of first modern hard-rightists. You know, people in opposition to the universal and homogenous end state that totalizes mankind. And finally, of course, one reason Schopenhauer called far-right is there is Hitler, and Hitler significantly carried in his bag in World War I a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, I think is quite significant, right? Hitler was not carrying treichke, he was not carrying fichte, he wasn't carrying any nationalist

or völkisch or any such nationalist thinker, he was carrying Schopenhauer. And as I tell you in the moment, Schopenhauer was a very anti-nationalist man, he had great contempt for nationalism. So to be fair to Hitler's case, maybe he wasn't necessarily doing this for strictly political reasons or for Schopenhauer's opinion on just this subject I mentioned. Hitler was, as he's well known, an aspiring painter and a pretty good one, and maybe he was attracted to Schopenhauer because of very high regard he had for artists and for art. I mean, that Schopenhauer did the whole third book of The World as Will representation is about the metaphysics of art in which the artist is elevated I think for first time in history to level of seer and philosopher and

prophet and visual artists especially painters and he has some really profound and beautiful words on Dutch and Flemish still life painters which is a style I think that appealed to Hitler so there may have been this motivation then you can argue Hitler knew about Schopenhauer's anti-nationalist views but look the other way at them. But I think maybe this is not so true in the end, first of all because if you look at some of Hitler's other interests, intellectual interests, I think I should invite Thomas if he wants to talk this again, but Hitler intellectual orientation very much come out of enlightenment scientific side of things. Not so much out of the mystical or folkish or even nationalist side of things. People don't know this and they misunderstand.

And the fact that Schopenhauer raises the artist to such heights is itself then actually politically significant, because even though Schopenhauer has a kind of weirdly convoluted moral reasoning for why art and the artist occupy such a lofty spiritual and intellectual position, the reality is again, whatever these reasonings may be, he's the first, or at least the first since Plato, to raise the aesthetic dimension of life to this level of prominence, Which again carries its own political weight that is inconsistent with any kind of leftism. Because leftism fundamentally only recognizes material need in man and reduces all experience to that. But I'll have to leave the full explanation of this for another time.

But so here, why I go on tangent, you have a hard right atheist, the first such thing, far right atheist. And he's also, when I say anti-nationalist, please understand what this means. Just because he looked down on 19th century nationalism doesn't mean he was a desiror of what we now call global homo, or globalism, or global governance, or even of imperialism by the way. Those are not the only two options. For Schopenhauer's case, he come from Hanseatic League City, and not that I want to reduce his political sentiments to his family origin, something he would likely deeply object to, But he was born in Danzig, now Gdansk, in a family townhouse still in this now so-called Polish city. And his father, who was a rich merchant, a Hanseatic merchant, in defiance he moved the

entire family trading business when Prussia took over Danzig, because he strongly disapproved of centralized-type state like Prussia, and wanted to live as a free man in a free city, city-state. So if you look, if you think model of federated or confederated city-states that still keep this independence, but they partake in a common universal culture and are not, you know, it's one thing to have local self-rule and even sovereignty, and then quite another to engage in a retard nationalist obscurantism. And it's more of this that Schopenhauer as a partisan of universal classical civilization, it's this that he objected to, right? If you are into Hellenism, you are not going to be friendly to small-time petty nationalism

and ethnocentrism of this type, oh we are Czech, you have to respect our ancient Czech heritage. You can reject those kinds of self-regarding conceits and parochialisms without on the other hand embracing either global homo or forgoing local self-rule. But in a European context especially, nationalism in pure sense is a lie because the European nations are sister and family nations with so much cross-cultural history, especially in West Europe. And right, this is why fundamentally white civilization makes sense in a way yellow civilization does not. Because Japan and China are not, for example, of same relationship of, let's say, dancing with the low countries or even France. Japan and China and Korea are so distinct and that have always been and going to be

at each other's throats, not to speak of other countries around China, you know. But anyway, it's interesting that this flavor also actually a Schopenhauer attack on Jews, by the way. He considers them parochial, ethnocentric nationalists, and contemptible for the same reason Antiochus IV, the Seleucid, or Voltaire did not like them. And this is liberal show, I do not endorse hatred, okay? But yes, so I get on this tangent to show you there is this interesting strain of right-wing atheism, and on the other hand, a right-wing anti-nationalism that in the case of Schopenhauer, Hitler's favorite philosopher of all people, Hitler, and it was founded in part on an appreciation of Roman and classical civilization. On the other hand, in a contempt of national identities

and their squalid parochialisms and characteristic, not characteristic excellences, but characteristic incontinent lamenesses and so on. You know, I mean bigotry, which is used as a slur now, usually by bigoted and parochial shit libs, but bigotry actually is a very bad quality and he uses this word frequently, you know, to refer to this kind of ethnocentric, obscurantist pile driver. And he sees the answer at least culturally and even linguistically in classical civilization. For example, he wants Latin to return as the language of science in Europe. And he bring very strong argument for this, explaining how doing research in the separate national languages that he rightly calls peasant patois dialects, but this impedes scientific and cultural collaboration

and the creation of a common civilization that existed in Europe before the breakup of Latin as a common intellectual language. Yeah, I think this is true. Latin should come back. And if the northern countries refuse the return of Latin out of pride or whatever, maybe it doesn't go well with their brain wiring, but they should then settle on Icelandic, the Icelandic language very nice, close to Old Norse and Old Saxon, it could be a good compromise. But I wanted to present briefly this alternative to the one I discussed so rosy shade on last episode where I seemed to endorse maybe a rosy, optimist view on separate nationalisms because actually this kind of anti-nationalist right-wing view, despite Nietzsche's statements

that I read for you last time, it is also Nietzsche's view, by the way. He wanted a united Europe under one case of far-seeing will, able to plan projects centuries in advance. And I believe the esoteric project of national socialism also aimed for the same thing and the institution of the SS and such which was recruited internationally from the different European nations. And the purpose would have been to re-breed the original Aryan race that had been broken up by history and accident, maybe to re-breed them in a small territory or experimental mode. But look, I went on a tangent and I think I went on this, I talk to you on improvers of mankind again, but I ask you, are such projects possible now in approaching favela

world? Forget if the cruelty turned you off, you can edit it out of your mind, but project of breeding human excellence is possible in this reign of quantity, caliugo of our time. Because I tell you, you must be cut out for the fight ahead of us, and I wish for Arsa'i take over some state again, and most of us, in such opinion, know there are very few and mostly very young, and I see no one on horizon with remotely views like this. So to take hold of a state for this in full is not something that can happen in next five to ten years. I mean, even if you get a super Trump, which I hope we do, but it's not this. It's not what I'm talking about. And the chances, by the way, for a super Trump or even a Trump, I mean, really what we hoped

and they feared Trump would be, not what he unfortunately actually is. But the chances for that are quite slim for now, and for now the political situation is out of our hands. It's in the hands of this decrepit boomer malicious generation who are mostly clueless people also. And I say all this, why? Because I want to prepare you for a prospect of short-term disaster. In other words, favela world, universal slum world, is something that we may not come to power in time to stop, you see. Slumworld is something that may develop over the next 10 to 20 years, and we don't really have the prospect of how you stop this if the leaders now, for example, of the West decide to open floodgate to hundreds of millions from the third world, not just Africa but

India and other places, Latin America, so forth. How will you stop them? You have to understand our numbers problem. There are very few of us. I would say there are maybe 50 to 100,000 spread around the world. That's it. It's not enough for a political party to win even in one nation. We have outsized influence because our propaganda, our rhetorical skill and so forth, and the striking way we say some things, but we can only achieve that anonymously and secret and so forth online, but it's a kind of a mirage that fools our side as well into thinking, because really these numbers are the reality, very small numbers. And I say this not to discourage people, but actually the opposite. Because I don't want friends who are listening to this last part of show, I don't want friends

in coming years to despair over events that may be out of our hands, but to be ready instead to continue fight no matter what. And I've tried in a small way to innovate something new, not the Benedict option, but the Al Capone option. Not monasteries but mafias, and if I can inspire a few men to take themselves out of delusional service to masses of cretins. I'm not sure they will get opportunity to take the reins of direction of peoples and nations, not any time soon anyway, but at least they would be in position to if a chance arises at some point in future. In any case, at least until such time, they can preserve life in the real sense and the hope for the rebirth of life in the formation of criminal networks. And yes, I don't want to chop words here. Criminal

Network mean just that. Mafias. I said it in book. I'm not ashamed to keep repeating it It is the inner monastery of the spirit that can endure and preserve the seeds of the future even within a temporary Fatalization of the world if that is to come, you know Blade Runner world is not so bad It has its own charms and opportunities. I mean imagine Blade Runner with Miguel Serrano, you know with Haunebu hovercraft running on Greenville energies or otherwise on Jenkim and Crocodile. Crocodile favela nation but you know with maxified world but with cartels but our cartels the Al Capone option the Sinaloa cartel option okay very good I will be back next week to defecate on Hegel Head until next time BAP out