Welcome we are back to show most amazing Caribbean sexy number one calypso rhythm in the world episode 125 Caribbean reasons we are back and as many of you know as they have reinstated Elon by grace of Elon has reinstated my Twitter account Bronze Age Mantis is the at you can From now on find me there and I wanted to thank all of you for amazing outputting of support I was not expecting but very pleasant to see and we can only hope that in the coming weeks Elon will Reinstate the rest of frog Twitter. There are amazing posters We want back like Mena Menaquin on four and Kashi waggy and Hakan and many others Who will bring back the true humor the true humor of the? 2015 and before Shitposting golden era of Twitter. I hope I can only hope but I wanted to thank all of you again for amazing

Congratulations of support and I will be back to posting very soon But they hit me on head as this There was slightly lazy hit me on the head to change brain. I've been explaining to you for some time that detrimental robots. If you see, please search Richard Sharp Shaver or C movie Maribito. The use machine under New York Federal Reserve to interfere a radio wave. There was so much blood you see. I don't normally like to say these type personal things but it was a vicious attack on me so show had to be delayed but I think is appropriate event actually given topic this week because to understand Hegel, you need traumatic brain injury. You need, like David Lynch, blood gas wound on the back of the head. I joke. But brain is okay. It's beautiful. It's a

beautiful brain. I do not have a brain, actually. You know, I used to say that John McCain was captured in Vietnam, and what came out the other end was not what you think. In other world, men in green line uniform came and replaced his brain with a large fluid filled central vacuole and inside lived a two billion year old Kubo zone, a type marine creature, agenda unclear, and this was directing his behavior to see a little different level of Manchurian candidate than you think. I believe in this and something similar because but no you know really I will read for you something from Schopenhauer because I told you last time he defecate Hegel and you know just listen to this a beautiful passage this from his essay on

physiognomy he's talking about the look in the eye of the genius and he says above all the eye ranging from the small I'm reading now above all the eye ranging from the small dull lusterless pigs eye through all the gradations up to the radiant and flashing eye of the genius the look of sagacity and prudence even of the most acute, differs from that of genius, in that the former bears the stamp of service to the will, whereas the latter is free therefrom. One can accordingly well believe the anecdote which is narrated by Squarzafiki in his life of Petrarch, and is taken from Joseph Priveus, a contemporary of the poet. Once at the court of the Visconti, when Petrarch was present with many noblemen and gentlemen,

Galeazzo Visconti told his son, who was then still a boy and later became the first Duke of Milan, to pick out the wisest of those present. The boy looked at them all for a while and then seized Petrarch by the hand and led him to his father, to the great admiration of all present. For so clearly does nature set the seal of her dignity on the privileged of mankind that a child recognizes it. I would therefore like to advise my discriminating countrymen that, when they again feel inclined to trumpet abroad for 30 years a commonplace head as a great mind, they will not choose for the purpose such a publican's physiognomy as Hegel's, on whose countenance nature had written in her most legible handwriting the words commonplace fellow, so familiar to her. You know, that's it from his essay on

physiognomy, the book is Parega and Paralipomena, terrible, he was not good at picking book titles, but it's basically a late collection of essays, and you could say this is just a diss, a diss, you know, in the language of the people, an insult. And in this case you are half right, but there is substance to Schopenhauer's outbursts on Hegel and the Hegelians also. And I think these attacks actually reveal much about the nature of modern trends and of the left today, certain trends that I have not emphasized enough maybe. But let me make it aside because, you know, I start show with Kubo Zorn as John McCain brain, and it was transferred thereafter to eyepatch McCain from Texas, Crenshaw. But his skull was too thick and inside too narrow, so it protrudes through one eye, they

have to hide this, there's a tentacle, you know. But you know, it's one thing to make light of this, or to do what we did in 2016, spread stories about demonic cannibal elites, in large part that was done to scare Guatemalan Abuelas and to get their families into not voting for Hillary and it worked that way and it's quite another thing though to believe it yourself and still another thing to base all of your messaging against establishment authorities on such things and sound like a school marm and I call them this establishment authorities because I think it's a better target to call them that nurse ratchets and to attack their doxies and their cherished assumptions That should be our target as a messaging and a sum is that network. That's what we are primarily as a potential

countercultural force This can be where we make a difference on the other hand to do the policy wankery thing and the conspiracy Non-stop conspiracy mongering and I mean conspiracy with a capital C. What you're talking about ancient Babylonian cults I don't mean what happened just now what is being revealed by Elon on Twitter or or other, I mean the Soviet Union was in some way a conspiracy and so forth, but I mean this other thing that Alex Jones and associated, and many of you have started to do it too, the centuries-old conspiracy of the vampiric elites and so on, and even to call the regime a regime, to use this word regime and so on, which is language yes I've used myself, but to go in this direction where you construct ever more lurid theories of their origins

and their awesome power. And people actually get very mad at you if you deny that power because, you know, so they are seen to control every side of world events. So they are behind Biden, but they're also behind Putin and the war is kayfabe, the war in, you know, this kind of thinking, I mean, where you are assuming this secret force in charge of things that plans decades ahead and so on, where their provenance is then explained in occult societies that, you know, these are all lazy messaging now by, we call them alt-light, so, you know, by those who glom themselves onto the online right and its energy and humor, and have mostly drained all that energy by now. This made us, this lazy messaging, oh wow, did you know there were ancient societies with pyramids and child sacrifice?

Nobody talks about this. Did you know there was Atlantis, you know, and this type of, why don't you mention this? Yeah, you mentioned Hyperborea, use that word. Atlantis, central Atlantic, mid-Atlantic ridge, and put a picture, you know, why don't you talk about Moloch as if it's something, you're introducing this wild and crazy idea, right, and any day now, any day now, what, this what I ask you, you're going to mobilize, what, you're going to mobilize Honduran day workers with pitchforks because you've convinced them there are demons sucking the lifeblood of the people? or is this what you're thinking? How is it supposed to work? Or are you just trying to make name for yourself for clout? Because again, it's not clear what you're trying to achieve

with any of these types of messaging I just mentioned. Either the authorities are manifestly bad or they're not. And if they're manifestly bad, then focus on that. If they go on the radio and newspaper and they yell for white genocide and use phrases like toward a theory of white wounding, that's a real thing. You can look it up. And I remind you, they without exaggeration do this kind. And when I was invited to respond to Mike Anton's review of my book and my response to him in that place got many thousands of hits and so on. And at the time, I was trying to address a normie audience and to play to their opinions and work on their assumptions while light trolling them. But I was the only one who used, at the time, this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of self-declared

liberals supporting or looking the other way at murders a race a rhetoric against one race and I've Gave him that article plenty of links a concrete examples of that is not exaggeration of what I called the Inter Amway left And the cause for violence and the racial war even by writers at the New York Times Not to speak of BuzzFeed and others and at the time you had conservators responding to that article of mine perhaps jealous that I could draw attention when they couldn't and some of these people actually I see many of you are retweeting and supporting them now when they repeat the same thing while at the time they actually denied it and they attacked me for saying this and for saying these people that the left are openly

mobilizing for racial warfare and now they all say some you know they all say it's happening to some extent they could go even further but I suppose that's a good thing that they admit this, but being cowards and being people who put cliques and camaraderie and being a team player above the truth, they are unreliable allies. So anyway, the point is the authorities and the left are openly saying they want to kill you racially. They're openly saying they hate America and its history. They want to replace it. And they follow up on their rhetoric with concrete acts. For example, the most apparent recently are the bloody riots that burn cities. And I wrote that in 2019, excuse if I make a small pause, but a certain end, I think it is that some type of

tropical creature has crawled on my screen, and I don't understand this. I think I have to move away from this screen. I was using it for lighting. Please excuse me. But I'm telling you, they follow up on their murderous rhetoric with actual... In 2019, I wrote that article I just mentioned, and the next year, during the election and the Wuhan crisis, you had the BLM, St. Floyd riots. Copycats also were attempted across the world, in a global GNC, international racial Marxism, Hutu uprising. And now you have GOP consultants, of course, trying to push Kwan Yew, who is a George Floyd BLM supporter. They're trying to push this on the right as well to make you, how the right came to embrace BLM and reparations, very interesting. So right, anything to change the focus

from the obvious murderous turn in screeching on the left and their lackeys on the right. And so most prominently, you have people like David French and Fromm and Crystal and the whole NRO McConnell crowd that are actually cheating them on. And I'm sorry it's unacceptable and actually disqualifying to have people like DeSantis, who is removing statues of Florida and American heroes and replacing them with black civil rights leaders. It's unacceptable to have a Republican or conservative leader do this after 2020. Or to have the governor of Texas, is it Abbott, who cried in public like a pussy in front of St. Floyd's casket, which was paraded in cities in front of crowds while people in Florida and Texas were not allowed to see their dying relatives.

And this is disqualifying, I think, of the pre-Trump GOP. But anyway, I get on tangents. The point is, you have racial rhetoric for mobilization to racial warfare on the left, open and collusion on the right, with, again, previous, even Rubio and Romney were excusing political violence against Americans. They did, they excused Antifa violence against Americans who are going to Trump rallies. This is not disputable. So second, they follow up on this, or rather, they have preceded this for at least a decade, not only with propaganda in schools against your own children trying to inflict racial blood guilt on them, and actually it's, of course, for longer than a decade, but they followed it up with explicit anti-white racial warfare, demographic warfare,

immigration policy, which they do despite something like 70 to 80% opposition among the public. This is not a case like in Dubai or Iceland, where most of the public supports something like guest workers. This does not have economic motivations. That's what migration motivated by economic interests look like, the Gulf States. Please tell this to Tyler Cowen. He's some Libertardian who was this week on Twitter talking about how the economy needs workers for low wage positions. but if he supports immigration for economic reasons, why he doesn't support that model, the Gulf state model? And his answer will reveal to you his true motives because there is no reason why an economic influencer or a string puller, I'm not talking about Tyler Cowen,

but the major corporate interests now and so forth, if they were in charge, there is no reason they would want, for example, to bring a guest worker's family or let alone extended family in as well, or to give them various financial benefits, let alone giving them citizenship, let alone promote a cultural, political, social, so-called multiculturalism. And I need to make this aside so it become clear for people who are anti-immigration and who have largely only tried to make Bannonist-type economic nationalism arguments against it. They are ineffective arguments, especially given what is coming in the next decade when there will be massive crises, food crises, maybe even before the next decade in Africa, and they will try to bring in tens of millions,

maybe more into Europe and United States, and what will your argument be at that point? Oh, they're trying to do cheap labor. People will laugh in your face because they will not even be pretending that. And in America and Europe, and actually also in South Korea where it's happening for slightly different reasons because Korean men cannot find Korean wives. It's a social status thing. Korean women are highly educated, so they will not marry a man they perceive as lower in status than they are. So Korean men import wives from Thailand and Vietnam and such places, and there is actually a replacement migration going on in South Korea for what I've called, it's not quite economic, it's not quite social, it's not quite sexual, something like socio-sexual reasons.

But it doesn't look, again, like the Gulf States. It's happening for a different dynamic. And in America and Europe, immigration is not taking place for economic reasons. The left is doing it in part as a method of demographic and political warfare. And partly, it is publicly justified with a humanitarian and egalitarian morality of empathy and compassion. And that large economic interests are profiting from this is true. But they are not in driver's seat. They are bought off in that way, to their eventual detriment, by the way, and not all of them are bought off. But by the way, this important to emphasize, because if you don't realize that the corporate or economic interests in the immigration debate, that they are a junior partner, and you direct all of your rhetoric

and so-called policy against them, and you then are led to do certain things, such as the post-liberal on the post-Trump so-called side are doing, which is to argue for corporate tax rate increase, by which they mean, of course, that the corporate tax rate should increase to what it was before Trump lowered it, when America had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. And that somehow did not stop these corporations from supporting immigration policy. It didn't change anything about immigration policy, because again, entirely stupid thing to do, to focus on this as a punishment of them. I like to remind people that Russia, Putin Russia has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, I think it's 15% and in practice it's far less than that, and he doesn't need to cope,

he doesn't need to, you all like this word, cope, he doesn't need to get into these convoluted things or I'm going to punish them with higher tax rates because he has brought the corporate oligarchs in Russia to heel. They listen to political interest and political necessity and to the executive or else they go to jail like Mr. Khodorkovsky did or certain others were exiled. And that is the way to deal with them, not with this pseudo-Bernie Sanders rhetoric. But some of the corporate interests are actually doing it for the same reasons the Left is, because they share the left's moral assumptions, or in some cases it's ethnic factionalism and hatred of the WASP, let's not get into that, hatred of the Anglo and so on. Or you pick your other country for corresponding hatred and so forth.

But it's anti-white hatred primarily that motivates the most noxious part of this program and the people who are actually in charge of replacement migration. It's not economics, or otherwise, again, it would look like the Gulf states, where again, that is not my preference, but the people, the natives of those states, Dubai and so forth, they support migrant workers because the natives are rich and they don't want to do their own shit work. And although Iceland is a very different type of country, the same thing applies. In other words, I have Icelandic friends who for good reason, they hate the fact that there are guest workers there, but unlike in United States or Europe, the majority of Icelanders support that and they are guest workers, they're not really immigrants,

but they support that because they do happen to be very rich as a people. Most of them take two vacations abroad per year, which in most other countries is unheard of. They have nice cars, they have high standard of living and so forth, and they don't want to do their own shit work. But you know, who does? I mean, some of the people on the post-liberal so-called dissident sphere sound actually like the Chamber of Commerce HR lady with philistine praise of manual labor as if hauling shit or washing dishes and work McDonald, as if it teach you the value of anything. And I think, frankly, to send your son into that, especially in an American context where now they can be abused by a shibun manager and so we are being negligent. But in general, there is no value to work

because there is no value to mere life. And any people who achieve some wealth wants to not do its own shit work for better or for worse. Now, I happen to think the Japanese are right to try to solve this by robotics and automation, but economic migration of this kind looks like the Gulf States or maybe Iceland and not like America or Europe, where it's pushed for the fanatical, moral, and religious and other reasons I've mentioned. So again, ask supposedly Libertardi and Tyler Cowen or these other guys who think that they're merely economic thinkers, ask them about the Gulf States model or about building a work barracks outside a city for guest workers. And he will start praying to you about human rights. And there you have the problem.

And the other problem, since I'm on this please excuse on this segment, we will return Schopenhauer on next. But the other problem is how ineffective this rhetoric is. It's effective if used as auxiliary. In other words, main attack should be exposing the left's third worldism, their praise and preference for the global south and wealth transference to the global south, their anti-white racial hatred, their political motivations. And then a side argument, you can embarrass them by pointing out the fact that large industries of some types are profiting from this. But as a main argument, it's useless. People who employed misunderstand situation today. You know, I think I know what they think they're doing. They are looking back at Weimar and the Nazis,

The Nazis, you see, the party they think they like and similar parties, they had at the time a narrative that they were protecting the people against the twin dangers of Soviet Bolshevism and on the other hand Anglo-Judaic plutocracy. But the problem is they had millions of urban workers to mobilize and you don't. There is no proletariat of that type today and I think a lot of these online post-leftoids who are actually some of them real leftoids and not post anything at all, they don't actually no working class men in America, for example. Like Stud was one, if any of you remember him, I hope he come back too. And these arguments wouldn't have worked with him. He's my friend, I know, and I don't know just him, there are others that are many working

class frogs and they don't advertise that, oh, I'm a real salt of the earth man and here is a picture of me with my infant in front of the factory and this kind of thing. They don't talk about that. But he and others who are among us online, who are longshoremen and unions and so forth, they make more money, by the way, than a white-collar worker, excuse me. And so these people, the post-left, so forth, they actually misunderstand the problems that are crushing the American working class, which isn't, their dislike of mass migration does not have to do as much with economic motives as you think. So anyway, yes, you can't role-play Weimar because you don't actually live in industrial society, there are very few of such people, and you don't have the constituency then

to mobilize with primarily this kind of facile anti-capitalist rhetoric. And second of all, that's misunderstanding of why the Nazis or similar parties themselves succeeded, which I think had zero to do with those arguments and 100% to do with their anti-communism. maybe have Thomas 7-7 back on show to discuss this. This is not historically debatable. Mr. Hitler won, Mussolini and others similar, they won because they were the only ones who gave credible signals and commitment to fight communists, who at the time, they were wilding in the streets, they had their militias, they were beating people up, rioting, and after World War I, they tried to set up several Soviet republics in Europe, including Bavarian Soviet and some other. So while news was coming in of the mass annihilation

of the middle classes in the Soviet Union, I mean by the 1930s this was known in Europe and it was spread by refugees from Soviet Union. So even at the time it was credible, I repeat credible ability to mobilize against the communist threat and not their economic program as such that won the fascist parties the electoral victories because the liberals and the centrists and even the traditional conservatives, they seemed unable to oppose communism. Spain was a nice exception. Regarding the economic part, all you have to do is just not be stupid. For example, Trump, not that he fit directly into this, but he was the first Republican candidate in decades to say that he would not cut social security. So yes, not giving an autistic, and by the way, furthermore, dishonest signal

of economic hostility to American workers and so on, that helps, but it's like I say, most an auxiliary thing. Trump ran on immigration restriction. People at rallies were screaming, build the wall, build the wall. He also happened to run on capitalism and deregulation. And he also ran, by the way, on open Zionism and on gay marriage. And we all knew these things at the time. We held our noses and looked the other way, supported him, because the immigration matter is all that counts. And he's the only one who brought it to national prominence before that it was a forbidden subject but that was the reason he won whereas after 2017 you have GOP again trying to screw thing back to religious Pharisaism and many similar things so anyway I'm not saying

by the way that Trump is similar to Nazism but I am saying that now as then there is a murderous communist threat in our day takes the form of racial hatred communism and that is how to win to push on this matter above all others and it's very interesting by the way the misinterpretation of Schmidt and of their own guru Leo Strauss that the mainline political neocons are caught up in this misinterpretation because the whole rhetoric of these men regarding liberal states showing up there you know getting some balls and being able to oppose their enemies right that was the argument liberalism is weak it can't can defend itself from enemies, it needs to get some balls, but the whole rhetoric had precisely to do with this opposing communism.

In other words, you can hear Schmitt tell Weimar, social democrats, dummies, you get your act together and oppose communism or the fascists will take the people away from you. But the neo-cons today reinterpret the supposed defense of liberal democracy posture, they reinterpreted as a purely external thing and more often it's in favor of their preferred ethnic state in the Middle East and so forth and They never apply this reasoning domestically as it was in initially intended for in other words if the liberals and the Militant defenders of liberalism had been able to credibly oppose the murderous Racial communism of the left in America and Europe today people like me likely would not have such a big audience I have a small audience but much bigger than

would be normal, let's put it that way. But when your son is racially abused in school and attacked, and you look the other way and make excuses, and maybe he just starts to say, hey, let me look at these other people, because what they're saying appealed to me, it made more sense than, you know, which is why you have young people now reading Celine and Mishima and Junger, when again, before 2010, it was very rare that I would meet anybody who had. And this was partly, again, point I made in my response to Anton in that article, intended for normal fag consumption, so you have to read between the line, and it is this matter that wins, not the other things thrown about now, and not even the tranny thing, by the way, although that can help us, I mentioned it in the article too,

but lately it too has become a kind of cover for cowards who are unwilling to take on this urgent matter I'm bringing up, and so they want to say opposition to the tranny agenda is evidence of you know being a conservative stalwart and so forth, but they're not they're doing it to avoid that this problem of racial warfare carried out by the left and racial demographic replacement immigration But again, I ask you why would you focus on supposed Babylonian conspiracies or make up convoluted reasons to call these? that, you know, you call them Nietzschean, esoteric, Nietzschean bad guys with a secret eugenic agenda, depopulation agenda. I'm sorry, but Alex Jones is being very foolish and he's partly responsible for spreading this idiocy.

Why would you do that when their evil is manifest in the things they say and the things they've done with immigration especially, and wrecking America's prosperity and the cities in the name of racial Negro-lity? It is as if in the East Bloc, during Cold War, instead of focusing on the government's patent and manifest corruption, their wickedness, their repression and stupidity, you were to instead concoct complicated theories that are actually part of some other big conspiracy and secretly they're also blood-drinking demons. They worship a Babylonian god and frankly, if you were to go around saying this in 1980, Czech, Czechia or something, Czechoslovakia, you would rightly be suspected of being an agent provocateur sent by the government to discredit any criticism of it.

It's so superfluous. And I'm not saying everyone doing that now is, but effectively that's what they're being. And I repeat to you in closing that even if you one day, this is for the Bannonists and their friends, even if you were to take one day charge of a country in United States or West Europe, let's say in France, where the Bannonist parties, that of Le Pen, you would not by these economic means and this kind of anti-elite, bad guy, this anti-bad guy elite rhetoric, you wouldn't be able to solve the crucial problem of migration. You might even make it worse. And I take as examples those countries and provinces where this was tried in a way you can only dream of. Basque country, for example, it's great that it has an industry, it has other good things

It's clean, I enjoy the food, but it's full of migrants. And this is despite a socialist nationalist left-wing anti-globalist and so on rhetoric and politics. And somehow that did not stop it from being the prime attractor of non-white migrants in Spain, and Bilbao is now the second murder capital of Europe, and yes, it happened with the full blessing and support of this nationalist Basque left that I just mentioned. It's not forced on them by the government in Madrid. But there are many other examples, Ireland, you know, porridge Negro Ireland, it's anti-Anglo, anti-globalist, anti-IMF and so on rhetoric of the IRA. It has ethnic national politics, socialist rhetoric, the full Bannonist program, Catholic

conservative, this Catholic first and even now there are people trying to repackage the Jerry Adams, the aboriginal ape, Jerry Adams ideology, Cork County potato labor nationalism. But Ireland is full of non-white immigrants, and every place you look at has gone down this path, has done zero to stop mass migration. Argentina is the worst example and the clearest. The reforms Argentina went through since Perón, its public political life, its rhetoric, the social everyday language of the people, is something that Bananites could only hope for in their dreams. Bannonism on steroids, they're against globalism, they're against neoliberalism, it's used as a slur, they're against the IMF and everything else, the whole package. And it's great that they protected their industries

and they have the largest labor union in the world, I think, I guess, but this did zero to either improve the life of the people materially when you compare, for example, to Chile, but most significantly did zero to stop mass migration. Argentina has favelas of migrants right across Libertador Avenue, Buenos Aires, the nicest part of town, there's horrible fitted swamp of a migrant slum there. How did this happen? I thought economic nationalism was supposed to stop this, Mr. Bennett. How it happened? Well, it's easy to see, maybe it's easy to see how it can happen when you listen to the rhetoric of the left in that country about how actually the migrants are based and they're hard working and we're going to use these brown migrants to really stick

it to those Buenos Aires kids who just want to work in intellectual matters or television and they eat their avocado toast and they're these elite white bad guys and we're going to really stick it to them with the salt of the earth working class of Bolivia. It always ends up this way. So I'd like maybe to have Lady of Lake on show to discuss this again but to resist migration you need to take on migration itself and its assumptions and the actual political and moral arguments used in its favor, and not to try to pretend that it's about economics. And Japan should maybe be as a model where despite regulations and protections of local industries, it actually has more capitalism, I think, than not only any of the places I

just mentioned, but you go to Tokyo and the density, the wildness of local small business on streets, you cannot find anything like that in supposedly hyper-capitalist United States. It has Soviet box stores, United States. So Japan so far resists migration, but it's by a quite different path than just the economic. They're getting a lot of pressure, by the way, to open their doors from the United States and so on. But places like the Gulf states again, which have guest workers, they are not threatened by demographic replacement, which is really the problem we should be focusing. So anyway, this is a long segment. I went on a tangent. I will be right back to discuss the more interesting matter of Schopenhauer himself. I will be right back.

Break you will excuse my voice besides recovering from grenade attack to head I also recover from they poison me with a slight cold, but of what can I say excuse? I got carried away on political matters, but it's a real problem as many of us have been banned starting in 2017 I hope the rest of original frog Twitter can now come back But we were gradually replaced with ineffective and Sophistic messaging that privileged pseudo-Marxist things or in some ways that are worse they privilege religious messaging and a theological pile driving which was very much a minority faction of the online right in 2015 and 16 and it was not the reason people worldwide tuned in to listen to us and this religious orientation of discussion that's been pushed by entries since 2017 has been a big mistake

Hopefully now if frog twitter is unbanned we can correct this and this is not to attack genuinely religious friends But you must take step back and look at whole time We find ourselves in and see of what is effective and I believe religious messaging is singularly Ineffective and self-defeating and I'd say so to any for example also neo-pagan who try to focus on that or on Neoplatonic mysticism or any of the other things that I myself am attracted to I think the mystical focus except again as an auxiliary or a pepper seasoning on the side is a big mistake, but this for another time. Schopenhauer, you know, he was hardcore. He was a frog. He was a shit poster. So, you know, here is a nice sample of that. I'm reading now, up to about 40 years ago,

smallpox carried off two-fifths of the children, thus all the weaker, and left only the stronger who had withstood this fiery ordeal. Vaccines have taken the former under their protection. And now look at the long-bearded dwarfs who run everywhere between your legs and whose parents were kept alive solely by the grace of those vaccines. Isn't that great? And by the dwarfs, he's talking about the academic Hegelian leftoid professors and state worshipers and establishment lackeys of his time, the Francis Fukuyama's of his time. I will read for you later on that. So if you recall from first segment, he attacked Hegel's publican peasant physiognomy. And you can say, well, that's just an insult. But in some cases, Schopenhauer maybe does just insult Hegel and the Hegelians

with lurid caricatures. But it's always entertaining. He has the eloquence of wrath and invective. It's always a pleasure to read his rants. It make me laugh. Emil Cioran said he always laugh along at Schopenhauer in temperate outbursts. And I think his right response, You know, you're not really laughing at him. It's meant to be over-the-top and funny You laugh with him and I'll read you some on this episode But as I say in some cases, it seemed to be mere insult But actually there's a lot of substance and genuine philosophical objection In much of Schopenhauer attack on Hegel and I think these attacks should be interesting to any audience today Because they reflect the meaning of the left and its goals even in our time and on many episodes

I focused mostly on left egalitarianism and humanitarianism, but Schopenhauer while including some of this in his attacks He emphasizes a different side of things right because the Hegelians the left Hegelians of his time Were the same ultimately the same in spirit the same goals as the left of our time and he attacks viciously their views on history on man's place in the world and on the purpose of the state and and ultimately on, to put bluntly, on the meaning of life, of what man's purpose is in life in this world. To put bluntly, at one point he say, Hegel's apotheosis of the state leads inevitably to communism. Against Kuzhev and his airport book popularizer Fukuyama, Schopenhauer does not see such big distinction between Hegel and communism.

And remember, Schopenhauer invite policemen in his apartment to shoot at protesters in streets from the window during the 1848 revolutions, Now by modern standards these revolutions would be called liberal and even they were masonic. It was the last great overt masonic push you can say but Really you should keep in mind in the course of his attacks on Hegel and his followers and the reasons in other words it has To do direct with concerns of the meaning of the left in our time is this cult of left its seek something he called Universal Philistinism, which was shared you can say even by liberals of that time. So as their ultimate aims, let's put it that way. And so Schopenhauer's attacks on Hegel can be divided maybe into two or three types. The most accessible is Schopenhauer's attack

on Hegel's style of writing. And indeed all of Hegel's so-called German idealism contemporaries on all the post-Kantian so-called philosopher Schopenhauer heaped great invective attacks. Schopenhauer is against unclear writing, jargon, windbaggery. So I'll give you now some entertaining examples of such rants. Here, a Schopenhauer on Hegelian windbags and word cells. I am reading now, and in general the philosophical literature of all times affords a whole host of such instances. He means instances of overly abstract word cell writing. That of our own time abounds in them. Consider, for example, the writings of the school of Schelling, and see the constructions that are built up from such abstractions as finite and infinite, being, non-being, other-being, activity, hindrance,

product, determining, being determined, determinateness, limit, limiting, being limited, unity, plurality, multiplicity, identity, diversity, indifference, thinking, being, essence, and so on. Not only does all that we have said hold good of constructions out of such material, but But because an infinite amount is sought through such wide abstractions, only extremely little can be sought in them. They are empty husks. But in this way the material of the whole of philosophizing becomes astonishingly poor and paltry, and from this results the unspeakable and tormenting tediousness characteristic of all such writings. If I were to call to mind the way in which Hegel and his companions have misused such wide and empty abstractions. I should necessarily be afraid that both the

reader and I would be ill, for the most sickening and loathsome tediousness hangs over the empty bombast of this repulsive philosopher. You know, write a great attack on word sales, on logorrhic pile drivers. But is this just an insult I intend to show you on this segment? No, actually there's a lot of substantive argument even to what you just said, so let me keep reading some of his rants on the corruption of style and of the German language because it's such a pleasure. He praises simplicity and clearness of style. If you understand something and want to render it for others, if you want them to express it as clear and powerful as possible, you know, right, so I am, yes, reading again now. Longest of all lasts the mask of obscurity and

and unintelligibility, yet only in Germany, where it was introduced by Fichte, perfected by Schelling, and finally brought to its highest pitch in Hegel, always with the greatest success. And yet nothing is easier than to write so that no one understands, just as on the other hand nothing is more difficult than to express important ideas so that everyone is bound to understand them. The unintelligible is akin to the unintelligent, and it is always infinitely more probable that beneath it is to be found concealed a mystification rather than great profundity of thought. The actual presence of brains, however, renders unnecessary the above-mentioned tricks. For this allows a man to show himself as he is, and at all times confirms the words of

Horace, Scri bendi recta sapere est at principium et fons. Translation is, a condition of good writing is that a man thinks rationally and sensibly. But these authors are like certain metal workers who experiment with a hundred different compounds to take the place of gold, the one and only metal that can never be replaced. On the contrary, there is nothing against which an author should be more on his guard than the obvious endeavor to exhibit more intellect than he has. For this arouses in the reader the suspicion that the author has very little, since always and in every way a man affects only what he does not actually possess. For this reason, we are praising an author when we say he is naive, since it means that he is at liberty to show himself as he is.

What is naive is generally attractive, whereas a want of naturalness is everywhere repulsive. We see also that every real thinker is anxious to express his idea as purely, clearly, positively and briefly as possible. Accordingly, simplicity has always been a sign not only of the truth but also of genius. Style obtains beauty from the thought it expresses. But with those pseudo-thinkers, the thoughts are supposed to become beautiful through the style. Indeed, style is the mere silhouette of the thought. Obscure or bad writing is equivalent to dull or confused thinking." So what do you think this? He makes an exception, by the way, for when you have to express unlawful or prohibited ideas, then he says you are allowed to express yourself in riddles.

But you should always compare the so-called obscurity of style found in men like Nietzsche and Heraclitus and Plato, which is very unacademic, and the language on the face of things seems very accessible. And sometimes it's hard to understand their meaning, but they do not hide behind jargon as opposed to men like the ones he mentioned – Fichte, Schelling, Heidegger – he doesn't Heidegger, but Heidegger is in that tradition of Hegel of being a ponderous, overwrought, German-dense academic writer who hides behind jargon. And here in the following, he is again attacking the butchery of the German language, which in its grammar actually, German is possibly the only modern inheritor of Indo-European super-grammar, right?

If you look at the most ancient Indo-European languages, they have incredibly complicated you know, ancient Greek has something like 350 forms of a verb. And similar to ancient Greek and Latin in this way, maybe Russian is a competitor, German has this beautiful profundity and complexity of grammar, and I'm referring of course to the literary German spoken by people like Schopenhauer, not the dumbed-down version, I hear that is practiced today in German newspapers, but here again I am reading his attacks on the butchery of language, Practice especially by the Francis Fukuyama's of his time, the regime stenographer is known as the Heideggerian professors, excuse me, the Hegelian professors. The Heideggerian professors are the same thing in our time.

The postmodernists are the left Heideggerians, to the left Hegelians of his time. So, I am reading. Their principal maxim is always to sacrifice the fitness and accuracy of an expression to the brevity of another which has to serve as a substitute, whence there must gradually result an exceedingly feeble and ultimately incomprehensible jargon. And so the only real advantage the Germans have over other European nations, namely that language, is wantonly reduced to naught. And he's talking in part also of the Hegelian professor habit of thinking your writing briefly by cutting syllables and counting them and many such things. I continue reading. It is the only language in which we can write almost as well as we can in Greek and Latin

He means German and it would be ludicrous to attribute this good quality to the other principal languages of Europe Which are mere patois peasant dialects compared with them German therefore has something uncommonly noble and sublime But how could such a pachyderm have any feelings for the delicate essence of a language that precious and sensitive material? Which is handed down to thinking minds for the purpose of taking up and preserving a precise and fine idea Counting letters on the other hand is something that pachydermata like See then how these noble sons of the present time he uses this word yet site is very ugly word that he likes to mock See how these noble sons of the present time rebel in mutilating the language just look at them

Look at their bald heads, their long beards, spectacles instead of eyes, a cigar in their animal mouths as a substitute for ideas, on their backs a baggy sack-like jacket instead of a coat, loafing about instead of working hard, arrogance instead of knowledge, insolence and camaraderie instead of merit, noble present time, splendid race of epigones reared on the mother's milk of Hegelian philosophy. You want to thrust your paws into our ancient languages and everlasting souvenir, in order that the marks may as an ichnolith preserve for all time the trace of your dull and shallow existence. But die Meliora, be off, you pachydermata. This is the German language, the language in which human beings have expressed themselves. Indeed, great poets have sung and great thinkers have

written, pause off, or you shall starve. This is the only thing that terrifies them." Yes, do you like this? How you feel on this? How you feel on this? I hope you enjoy all of this. Maybe this is unusual episode, you know, but I get great joy from reading these rants, and maybe I thought you might also. Let me continue. Here he goes somewhat farther into what exactly it is that Hegel and his followers are trying to hide with this greatly abstracted jargon, right? The emphasis on abstraction. You know, there is a very important substantive disagreement ultimately here that Schopenhauer is pointing to. You know, it has ultimately moral and political implications. So I'll read for you now. Yes, I'm reading for you now, but it's some excerpt, so I jump from one to the other.

It's beautiful writing, though, so I hope you enjoy. I'm reading. I refer to the artful trick of writing obtrusively, that is to say unintelligibly. Here, the real subtlety is so to arrange the gibberish that the reader must think he is in the wrong if he does not understand it, whereas the writer knows perfectly well that it is he who is at fault, since he simply has nothing to communicate that is really intelligible, that is to say, has been clearly thought out. Without this device, Fichte and Schelling could not have established their pseudo-fame. But we know that no one has practiced the same trick so boldly and to such an extent as his Hegel. At the very outset, he should have explained in clear and intelligible words the absurd fundamental idea of his

pretended philosophy, namely that of turning the true and natural course of things upside down, and accordingly of making universal concepts the primary, the original, the truly real thing, the thing in itself in Kant's language, concepts which are abstracted from empirical intuitive perception and therefore arise through our thinking away the modifications, and which are in consequence the more void, the more universal they are. For only as a result of the truly real or thing in itself does the empirically real world first have any existence. He should have clearly explained this monstrous thing, indeed this really crazy notion, adding that such concepts without our assistance think and move by themselves. If he had done this, all would have laughed in his face,

Or would have shrugged their shoulders and regarded the tomfoolery as not worth their notice But then even Venality and baseness would have sounded the trumpet in vain in order to proclaim to the world as the highest wisdom the absurdest thing ever Seen and forever to compromise with its power of judgment the German learned world on the on the contrary under the veil of incomprehensible comprehensive, grandiloquent nonsense, it passed off and the crazy folly was a success. And he quotes Lucretius that fools admire and love to access everything that is said to them in puzzling words. Okay, so again this is not a philosophy show and in fact radio is unsuitable medium for philosophy I think. Radio or voice performance is

fundamentally an entertainment medium. I believe this and now often on this show you allow me some indulgence of engaging some philosophical matter but I won't I cannot get into here full explanation or details of what is Schopenhauer argument as regards Hegel's corruption of Kantian things but I will explain to you as brief as I can again for full reference I ask you to read Schopenhauer himself and if you're interested in this matter you go to appendix to his main work that is the world as will in the representation and you can read the appendix that's called criticism of the Kantian philosophy, which I think is the most clear and powerful exposition of what Kant means. You can find anywhere, you need Schopenhauer's Dutch, he was

from Dutch merchant family ultimately, you need his practical Dutch Anglophile mind to explain clearly Kant without a bull shite, very clear. He's an admirer of Hume, very clear writer. Schopenhauer say you can find more wisdom in a one page of Hume than in the collected scribblings of Hegel, Fichte and Schleiermacher and so forth put together. But so anyway in this appendix Schopenhauer explained two things. First of all, how this ponderous style of German philosophy, typical German academic philosopher verbiage, how developed by circumstance in the first place. And the circumstance was Kant himself in the sense that although Kant was a great mind and had personal powerful writing style, nevertheless he

He thought long time about problems, but then he ended writing them at the last minute, very fast. And so he badly conditioned the German public with its famous patience, but he conditioned them to see, oh, look here, important genuine content in the writings that is generally bad, the writing that's repetitive, Kant's writing that's sometimes vague and convoluted and dense. And so with this conditioning of the public, then after came others who were able to hide lack of content under the same thing and second it had to do with their particular the post-Kantians I mean Fichte, Schelling, ultimately Hegel their particular misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Kant's explosive thought and it's here that I have to be very brief because to fully understand

Kant Schopenhauer say you have to understand Locke and Hume these are Kant's starting point Kant extends their philosophy so this you know problem with philosophy on radio show where to start is impossible is it so what I have to give you now is only better sketch in my own words but Locke first show that an object the thing in the world right has qualities that we impart to it that do not actually belong to it they don't belong to the object itself itself they are imparted by us subjectively things like sound aroma color softness smoothness these belong to the affections of the senses how something sounds, and not to the object, which only has primary qualities in itself, things like number, extension, shape, solidity, and so forth.

And if you leave it at just this, this might be foundation in some way of modern scientific materialism, right? But then Kant takes it beyond Locke using the same arguments. He says that these so-called primary qualities themselves, again, extension in space, shape, and so forth, that they are also subjective. They do not belong to the thing in itself. And he establishes this in a very interesting way. He shows that our sense of space, for example, is a priori. To put it another way, it is an inborn quality of our brain's knowing of the world. It precedes knowing actual content. You have at birth a sense of space. Space, extension, rotation, solidity, and so on. These are forms of the brain's way of knowing.

An idea Schopenhauer in turn carries much further, explaining also how causality is just a form of the brain's way of knowing, that time itself is a phenomenon of the brain, and therefore that neither time nor space nor causality can be said to belong to the things in themselves as they are, the world as it is, apart from its representation in our nervous systems. In this world there is no individuality. And these kinds of views, by the way, and in particular time and space as the principle of individuation, were picked up by Einstein. Other people, like Heisenberg, picked up other parts of Schopenhauer, they were all admirers of Schopenhauer. But Einstein in particular picked this time and space as principle of individuation, started

at least according to his own letters, his own words, he started from this insight of Schopenhauer in his own physical theories. And this, by the way, view distinct from Cartesian subject-object dualism, especially is very different from duality of materialism and idealism, which this whole Schopenhauer can't actually reject that way of looking at things, but according to Schopenhauer, Kant essentially breaks history of philosophy and thinking in two, although he himself, Kant, is ultimately only expressing rationally and in an academic way insights that are shared both by Plato and Hinduism and Buddhism. But there is a before and after Kant in the sense that with critical philosophy it become – this is not a critical race theory, it's critical philosophy – it becomes no longer

possible to talk of the world aside from its conditioning by the brain's inborn forms of knowing. And therefore, the signature contribution becomes this distinction between the ideal and the real, or between thing in itself and the representation of that thing in our own brains or in an organism's nervous system. And Schopenhauer famously identifies the thing in itself with the will, the one indivisible will, the same thing that is inside you that makes you do things, okay? I'm not going to get into that now. he say that the bunglers of German idealism who followed Kant, again these are Fichte, Schelling and Hegel and his followers, they actually try to screw things back to before Kant times, to try to collapse the real and the ideal back

into one, to assert their identity and instead to focus on a misunderstanding as a head of a distinction that's false between thinking and being or between spirit and nature. This is a famous formula from Hegelianism. But this is something they borrowed and bungled from Spinoza. Schopenhauer has very high respect for Spinoza. He disagrees with him, but he refers to himself as the New Testament to Spinoza's Old Testament. He has that much respect for Spinoza. Spinoza was a spiritual Hindu. What do you think about that? He says Spinoza's real homo was on the Ganges. He says the same thing about Giordano Bruno. These men are spiritual Hindus who were persecuted by bigoted theists in Europe. You know, one of them burned at the stake, the other one

excommunicated anyway. But so the thrust of his attacks on Hegel and the Hegelians is exactly because their attempt to misuse Kant, to re-establish pre-Kantian commonplace prejudices, to try to sneak back into philosophy what Schopenhauer says Kant definitely abolished from philosophy, which is Jewish mythology, a a term he uses, a phrase he uses to disparage theology in general or a philosophy of religion and so on. So Hegel's signature mistake here, as I will read for you now, let me read for you so you see in Schopenhauer's own word what Hegel and Hegelian mistake was, because by positing a disembodied thinking or so-called spirit, they attempted to place concepts, abstract concepts, as the primary phenomena and movers of the world,

which is the crude and popular understanding of idealism, the confusion of abstract concepts which are actually empty wordplay, abstractions for something that is substantial and real in the world. Let me just read for you. Okay, I am read now, and these are, I have to jump around a bit, I'm reading some excerpts, but you will get gist, okay? So I read now. There is no rational psychology or doctrine of the soul, since as Kant has proved, the The soul is a transcended hypostasis, undemonstrated and unwarranted as such. Accordingly, the antithesis of spirit and nature is left to Philistines and Hegelians. Man's essence in itself can be understood only in conjunction with the essence in itself of all things and thus of nature.

Therefore in the Phaedrus, Plato makes Socrates put the question in a negative sense. explains the microcosm and macrocosm elucidate each other whereby they prove to be essentially the same. This consideration that is associated with man's inner nature penetrates and permeates the whole of metaphysically you know I'm going to skip a bit. There exists the old fundamentally false contrast between spirit and matter among the philosophically untutored who include all who have not studied the Kantian philosophy and consequently most foreigners and likewise many present-day medical men and so forth but in particular the Hegelians in consequence of their egregious ignorance and philosophical crudeness have recently introduced that contrast under the name

spirit and nature which has been resuscitated from pre-Kantian times under this title they serve it up quite naively as if there had never been a Kant and we are still going on about in full-bottomed wigs between clipped hedges and philosophizing like Leibniz in the garden Herrenhausen, on spirit and nature, with princesses and maids of honor, understanding by nature the clipped hedges and by spirit the contents of the periwigs. On the assumption of this false contrast, we have spiritualists and materialists. I interject for a moment, Schopenhauer very much opposed to this duality between spirit and matter, materialism and idealism, he thinks both are wrong, I continue to read. The latter assert that, through its form and combination, matter produces everything and

consequently the thinking and willing in man, whereas the former then raise a great outcry. Again Schopenhauer is against both. But in point of fact, there is neither spirit nor matter, but a great deal of nonsense and fancies in the world. The tendency to gravity in the stone is precisely as inexplicable as its thinking in the human brain. So on this score, we could also infer a spirit in the stone. Therefore, to these disputants, I would say, you think you know a dead matter that is one that is completely passive and devoid of properties, because you imagine you really understand everything that you are able to reduce to a mechanical effect. But physical and chemical effects are admittedly incomprehensible to you, so long as you are unable to reduce them

to the mechanical, precisely in the same way. These mechanical effects themselves, and thus the manifestations that result from gravity, impenetrability, cohesion, hardness, and so on, are just as mysterious as those others. In fact, as he's thinking in the human head, if matter can fall to Earth without your knowing why, so can it also think without your knowing why. Anyway, it's very interesting he keeps going. But you see, I hope I now Schopenhauer, why his attack on the vagueness of language and the insanity of Hegelian philosophy is connected to this deeper attack of misunderstanding of, let's just say loosely, what make world drive, the essence of the world, what determined the world and man's place in it, what is knowledge of the world.

And in turn, this is related to Hegel's actually over-emphasis on history. This ties intimately, this is what most people know Hegel for, his views on history, which tie intimately to his political and moral opinions. I will talk this on next segment. Initiate break protocol, please. back to show, and in what follows, remember you don't have to agree with Schopenhauer theory of knowing or of metaphysics, which I would say may be critical philosophy, real Kantianism and Schopenhauerianism. Epistemology partly takes the place of traditional metaphysics, maybe. So if you want to see a real post-Kantian metaphysics, I recommend for you the wonderful Schopenhauer essay, On the Will in Nature. It's not too long, very entertaining, full

of physical examples, and it was very important always for me, also for my book, and a very different metaphysics for what you might find in Middle Ages or in antiquity. It's a very pre-Darwinian metaphysics, you can say. But anyway, you don't have to bind to all of this to accept what I'm about to discuss now, which is Schopenhauer's attack on Hegelian view of history. It's probably what everyone casually knows Hegel for, and which is very close connected to the political and moral side of Hegel's philosophy, which, again, Schopenhauer attacks as a precursor of communism. But here are Schopenhauer's views from The World as Will and Representation, Volume 2, in the chapter on history. Okay, I'm reading now.

Finally, as regards the attempt specially introduced by the Hegelian pseudo-philosophy that is everywhere so pernicious and stupefying to the mind, the attempt, namely, to comprehend the history of the world as a planned whole, or as they call it, to construct it organically. A crude and shallow realism is actually at the root of this. Such realism regards the phenomenon as the beginning in itself of the world, and imagines that it is a question of this phenomenon and of its forms and events. It is still secretly supported in this by certain mythological fundamental views which it tacitly assumes. Otherwise it might be asked for what spectator such a comedy was really being enacted. For since only the individual, not the human race, has actual, immediate unity of consciousness,

the unity of this race's course of life is a mere fiction. Moreover, as in nature only the species are real and the genera are mere abstractions, so in the human race only the individuals and their course of life are real, the nations and their lives being mere abstractions. Finally, constructive histories, guided by a shallow optimism, always ultimately end in a comfortable, substantial fat state with a well-regulated constitution, good justice and police, useful arts and industries, and at most intellectual perfection, since this is in fact the only possible perfection, for that which is moral remains essentially unaltered. But according to the testimony of our innermost consciousness, it is the moral element on which everything depends.

And this lies only in the individual as the tendency of his will. In reality, only the life-course of each individual has unity, connection, and true significance. It is to be regarded as an instruction, and the significance of this is a moral one. Only the events of our inner life, insofar as they concern the will, have true reality and are actual occurrences, since the will alone is the thing in itself. In every microcosm lies the macrocosm, and the latter contains nothing more than is contained in the former. Plurality is phenomenon, and external events are mere configurations of the phenomenal world. They therefore have neither reality nor significance directly, but only indirectly through their relation to the will of the individuals.

Accordingly, the attempt to explain and expound them is like the attempt to see groups of of persons and animals in the forms of the clouds, what history relates is in fact only the long, heavy, and confused dream of mankind. The Hegelians who regard the philosophy of history as even the main purpose of all philosophy should be referred to Plato, who untiringly repeats that the object of philosophy is the unchangeable and ever permanent, and not that which is now thus and then otherwise. All who set up such constructions of the course of the world, or as they call it of history, have not grasped the principle truth of all philosophy, that that which is is at all times the same, that all becoming and arising are only apparent, that the ideas alone are permanent, that time is ideal.

This is what Plato means, this is what Kant means. Accordingly, we should try to understand what exists, what actually is today and always, in other words, to know the ideas in Plato's sense. On the other hand, fools imagine that something supposed to come into existence. They therefore concede to history a principal place in their philosophy, and construct this on an assumed plan of the world, according to which everything is managed for the best. This is then supposed to appear finaliter, and will be a great and glorious thing. Accordingly, they take the world to be perfectly real, and set up its purpose in miserable earthly happiness. Even when it is greatly cherished by man and favoured by fate, such happiness is yet a

a hollow, deceptive, frail, and wretched thing out of which neither constitutions, legal systems, steam engines, nor telegraphs can ever make anything that is essentially better. Accordingly, the aforesaid philosophers and glorifiers of history are simple realists and also optimists and eudaimonists and consequently shallow fellows and Philistines incarnate. In addition, they are really bad Christians for the true spirit and kernel of Christianity, As of Brahmanism and Buddhism, also, is the knowledge of the vanity of all earthly happiness, complete contempt for it, and the turning away to an existence of a quite different indeed an opposite kind. This, I say, is the spirit and purpose of Christianity, the true humor of the matter. But it is not, as they imagine, monotheism.

Therefore atheistic Buddhism is much more closely akin to Christianity than our optimistic Judaism and its variety Islam. For a real philosophy of history should not consider, as do all of these, that which is always becoming and never is, to use Plato's language, to regard this as the real nature of things. On the contrary, it should keep in view that which always is. And so forth, he gives some interesting thoughts on what he believes the real philosophy or science of history should be, and he has some very limited use for it. But then this contains an emphasis on a different part of the Left's project, what I just read for you, because I've often focused on the egalitarianism and the false ethics of compassion they push.

But this egalitarianism is itself connected to their understanding of history, of man's place in the world, and of man's telos or end in history, of what it is that human is ultimately progressing to according to the left. And of course they go back and forth between saying it's a scientific, so-called scientific certainty that history will progress to this end, and then on the other hand it's a wish that this is their heaven on earth. And by the way, you don't have to accept Schopenhauer's thoughts on the moral significance and so forth. In fact, I don't, and I think Nietzsche draws the more correct conclusions from the same material. But nevertheless, even if Schopenhauer is wrong about, let's say, the moral significance

of life and so forth, he is right about the Hegelian falsehood of a planned historical whole. On that he is right, and he's also right about the unspoken assumptions in putting history with capital H as the essence of life. But regarding the relationship between egalitarianism and history with a capital H as determinant of all life, this I think to see is easy. For example, if you say that concept unfolds in history with an inner necessity of thought that is disembodied from any particular man. What you're essentially saying is that, for example, something like Kant's critique of pure reason, or Shakespeare's run, excuse me, Shakespeare's King Lear, or Homer's Iliad even, that such things were inevitably going to come about by some impersonal necessity

of history, or let's say providence, that they're not actually the chance and rare product of exotic flowers of genius, men who may develop under extremely risky conditions and who well could have ended up not coming about. So let me actually read this in Schopenhauer's own vivid words because it's another great piece of wrathful invective, you know, it's just so explicit and wrathful. He's talking here in context of whether he should study history of philosophy or intellectual history which unfortunately seemed to be only thing people are studying now instead of reading philosophers themselves. So he's saying you should study it, you should know the chronology, you should have a basic course of study in this, so you know, I'll read. I should, therefore, like to limit those professorial

lectures on history of philosophy to a general orientation in the field of philosophical achievements to date. And to eliminate from its presentation all arguments and pragmatism that would go further than demonstrate the unmistakable points of contact of successively appearing systems with those previously existing. And so this is in complete contrast with the presumption of Hegelian writers on the history of philosophy, who show each system as necessarily taking place and accordingly construct a priori the history of philosophy and demonstrate that every philosopher must have thought exactly what he did think and nothing else. In this connection the professor very conveniently and haughtily ignores them all even if he

does not smile at them. Let me interject you find this very often intellectual histories or histories of philosophy where they talk about ideas you know the idea of constitutionalism or the idea of nominalism and they talk it in their own words as if they're disembodied from the thinkers who actually thought these things. Anyway, I continue. The sinner, he's referring now to the Hegelian, you know, the sinner as though all of this had not been the work of individual and isolated minds who had to be pushed about for a while in the evil company of this world so that such work could be rescued and saved from the coarse and stupid gangs, minds who are as individual as they are rare, and hence to each of whom Ariosto's Natura il fece i poi rupe la stampa, nature stamped it and then

smashed the mold, applies in the fullest sense, and as though another would have written the critique of pure reason, had Kant died of smallpox for instance, one of those manufactured articles of nature with her trademark on his forehead, someone with a normal ratio of three pounds of coarse brain of pretty rough texture, well preserved in a skull an inch thick, with a facial angle of 70 degrees, feeble pulse, dull inquisitive eyes, strongly developed mouth organs, a stammer, a heavy slouching gait in keeping with the toad-like agility of his ideas. Yes, indeed, you just wait. They will make critiques of pure reason and even systems for you whenever the moment that is calculated by the professor arrives, and it is their turn, that is to say, when oaks spare apricots.

Of course, the gentlemen have good reasons for ascribing as much as possible to upbringing and education, even for flatly denying innate talents, as some actually do, and for entrenching themselves in every way against the truth that everything depends on the way in which a man proceeded from the hands of nature. What father begot him, and what mother conceived him? And indeed, even at what hour? Therefore, no man will write Iliads, whose mother was a goose and whose father was a dollard, even if he had studied at six universities, but still it is no different. Nature is aristocratic, more so than any feudal or caste system. Accordingly, her pyramid rises up from a very broad base to a very sharp apex. Even if the mob and the rabble who will tolerate nothing over

them succeeded in overthrowing all aristocracies, they would still have to allow for this one to exist. And for this they shall get no reward, for it is quite properly, by the grace of God, it is owed to no social He's saying so right, okay You see so the focus on history with a capital H as a plant hole is actually one of the greatest statements of environmentalism not as in Conservation protection of environment but the idea that individuals are entirely determined by their environment right entirely parallel to modern leftist talking points on how it is education and Socio-economic background rather than genetics or blood and so on that determines outcome, if you want to translate it into the debates of now, is what Nietzsche calls a neurotics theory, right, the milieu theory,

the theory that you are entirely the plaything of your surroundings, background, upbringing, milieu, the play toy either of, you know, bloodsucking Babylonian demons, as Alex Jones types would have it, or of secret wasp cabals, as the paranoid left has it, or of the impersonal economic and historical forces, as the more intellectualized would put it. and while theoretically allowing for a distinction in human ability to exist, right? Because you can say that such history, a planned history exists, but that its vessels need to be a man of greater ability and so on. So that you'd be saying, well, Kant's book would have still come about as a historical necessity, but it would have had to be done also by someone of high ability. Well, this begs the question, first of all,

from where the quality of such vessels? Where does this quality come about? quality of human material. Could it have come about in the Congo or in Burma? And why did it not ever come about there? Second, when you get at the level of somebody like Kant or Maxwell or Goethe, you're no longer talking about IQ. You're talking about something much more, a genius that is necessarily so unique. He quotes that Ariosto line is wonderful. Something so special that I don't know that you could have just had another of these. they're something unique in history and time, almost. And it's a question of whether history and events move forward, if that's even the right way to say it, but if such things, if things happen because great men, whether in philosophy or the arts or politics,

whether they move things by their nature and will, or whether, on the other hand, you believe in a historical plant hall where impersonal forces, historical forces, material or conceptual, where history or providence uses such men, in other words, as their vessels, in which case you aren't really allowing for human hierarchy, but for an impersonal historical mandarinate, these men then become bureaucrats, vessels of the hidden king of history. So no, I don't think it's fundamentally, it's connected to ultimately egalitarian sensibility, I mean, this view of history as all determining, history as having a plan and system. And I believe the opposite, that there is no historical progress, But instead you're seeing, I think Schopenhauer lied about

how history is the confused dream of mankind is real. And instead you're seeing the chance play of events moved in one way or another by men of greatness of their own powers. Napoleon is not a man of his time. He's a shocking apparition from a previous time. He's a man out of time. And so things happen in the world not because of any unfolding or concepts in time, but because of some other process, excuse me, or because of some other process of personal material forces, if you want to take the materialist route of it, but they happen at all because of genius and will actually of a few men, by the way, almost exclusively of European blood. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I only tell the truth, lobbyists, and that's, by

the way, stating it too broadly because it's only a subset of the white race that has carried events or changed anything in the world. And if there is a historical trend, it is one of decline in the sense that such men have made the world so safe and comfortable by their exploration and advances that it allowed the indiscriminate replication of zeros of the humanity, people who resent distinction and who have brought upon us the various doctrines of the left that seek to blot out all human excellence and to collapse mankind back to a comfortable, bestial, Philistine existence, of which more in a moment in Schopenhauer's own words. But regarding this, how is it even debatable what I just said? Okay, forget for a moment the fact that they

would and want to go all Hutu on the subset of the white race and maybe a couple of other subset races like the Japanese, that they want to go all Hutu on this and to prevent the discouragement and pain they feel at seeing the existence of somebody better than themselves. They don't want to feel that pain so they will build a Bergen-Belsen for such. You know, a man, as I said in the book, by Martin Sheen Lesboids, you know, let's wipe out any possibility of genetic distinction. And let's forget, on the other hand, what they've wanted for 200 plus years to take property from those who have it and so forth. But even before it gets to that violent level, you see how science changes in character. From before, there were wild dreams of stellar exploration, conquest of the skies, colonization

of solar system, colonisation of under the sea, instead now you have the cult of safetyism which appeals to who, especially to women, and the use of technology to re-establish the primitive social controls of the village on a global scale, right? Use technology to re-establish the old woman peeking with judgement from behind the curtains of her house in the village. The entire thrust of modern technology is just this now. How can it be debatable that this is the result of great multiplication of aborted forms of human life and of their giving way to women? You know, children are their masters and women will rule over them. The great prophecy of a sprite from the desert. But I get carried away. Let me read for you again from Schopenhauer.

You can see in his own powerful words how this entire Hegelian edifice leads to what he calls the apotheosis of Philistinism, the collapse of mankind into the self-satisfied bug man. I read now his two excerpts, and he say, Schopenhauer say, the shallowest philistinism, like Hegel, for instance, he arrives at the revolting doctrine that man's destiny is identified with the state, with a capital S, somewhat like that of bees in a beehive, whereby the highest goal of our existence is entirely withdrawn from view. Everywhere and at all times, there has been much discontent with governments, laws, and public institutions, but for the most part, only because we are always ready to make these responsible for the misery that is inseparably bound up with the human existence itself.

For mythically speaking, it is the curse that was laid on Adam and threw him on his whole race. But never has that false delusion been made more mendaciously and impudently than by the demagogues of the yet sight, the now time, a phrase used by the Hegelians, left Hegelians especially. Thus, as enemies of Christianity, such men are optimists. To them the world is an end in itself, and so in itself that is according to its natural constitution, is admirably arranged and a veritable abode of bliss. On the other hand, they attribute entirely to governments the crying and colossal evils of the world. They think that if only governments did their duty, there would be a heaven on earth, in other words, that all could gorge, guzzle, propagate, and die without effort and anxiety.

For this is the paraphrase of their end in itself. This is the goal of the endless progress of mankind, which they are never tired of proclaiming in pompous phrases. Yes, what do you think's this? What do you think's this? And the second meaning of leftism, closely related to its egalitarianism, or rather the empty end to which its materialist or spiritualist egalitarianism points, take your pick. The utter degradation of mankind into a state being, a village being entirely determined by its environment and comforts and wanting nothing beyond, which of course the great bleakness of this vision is obscured by the left, right? They never want to talk about the end state in any detail. And when they do, it sounds like hell. At least Fukuyama had the honesty to say

it's a kind of hell in his book, which is why some people falsely thought he had some hidden Nietzschean agenda in End of History and The Last Man, but that he was, some people thought he was in fact arguing against the Hegelian revelation of men as the animal determined by petty comforts and petty slavish desire for the recognition of other slaves. And by the way, in what I just read for you, Schopenhauer sees his theory as confirming, his moral view of things as confirming what Christianity, Buddhism and Brahmanism, Hinduism say in a mythical form, but perhaps my Christian audience will be flattered by that. But I, as a Nietzschean, don't see things quite that way. I think the left Hegelians he is describing are very much, I think Nietzsche has that number,

that they are kind of themselves moralistic Christians that have abandoned Christian religion and have radicalized Christian morality. This is the image of their heaven on earth. But Schopenhauer expresses this truth very stark, maybe. maybe, maybe too harsh for most, the stark truth of what the left's so-called heaven on earth is. And I will read now his very stark truth. Behind need and want is to be found at one's boredom, which attacks even the more intelligent animals. This is a consequence of the fact that life has no genuine intrinsic worth, but is kept in motion merely by want and illusion. But as soon as this comes to a standstill, the utter barrenness and emptiness of existence become apparent, yes? You see this, do you like that? You like this, that life has no value in itself

and all the doctrines that elevate history with a capital H above the nature of man and that place human equality of whatever kind as the desirable goal. And to their credit, maybe some would have, so egalitarianism means, for example, an orbital station, some would have thought, right? An orbital station of God-like beings, like in the movie Prometheus, Alien and such, the engineer figure from that movie. Would that be something desirable to you, that kind of future of mankind, its transformation into an equality of godlike and magnificent beings like that? Maybe, but somehow that's never really something argued for or desired by the left. It was initially supposedly the hope of the enlightenment, the upraising of all mankind to a universal aristocracy, but it was very quickly abandoned.

Isn't that interesting? Instead it's always the collapse of the human back into his broken, tamed, beast-of-burden self. Only now a self that is glutted, his gluttony finally satisfied on a global level. This why Nietzsche say, you know, the wisdom of Silenus, the wisdom of the Satir Silenus, I will not repeat it here, it's too stark for you maybe, but he say this is the root of Greek greatness. to be able to face what I just read for you from Schopenhauer. And it's something that the optimist leftoid never can face. And so instead they embrace universal basic gluttony. The glorious end state of mankind, the goal of all egalitarian promises, the hellish boredom of a nursing home on a global scale. Even Haiti is preferable to that, you can say, at least in Haiti I could, in Haiti we

can have some kind of brothel you know but I wish for nuclear weapons nuclear weapons under the tectonic fault lines of certain continents I hope you enjoy my it's I hope you enjoy my cute lecture to you on Schopenhauer and if you're interested in this you read him yourself a very fun writer very good until next time bat out