Let us face facts, the people have triumphed, or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them, and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the moral of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The redemption of the human race, redemption in quotation marks, the redemption of the human race from the Lord's that is, the redemption from the Lord's is well underway. Everything is becoming rapidly Judaismized or Christianized or mobized. The word makes

no difference. Yes. Do you like this? It's from Nietzsche, genealogy of morals. No people ever had a more universal mission, he say, and this genealogy morals may be one of his most assigned book universities, but of course it's never read directly, not passages like that anyway. They read only the secondary literature about it and then misunderstand completely what even the word genealogy means, what the concept as Nietzsche uses it, because genealogy refers not to historical origin of a concept or intellectual history, in very little part is that, but But that has limited value because all ideas arguably come out of earlier ideas, and it may not be the case that, for example, if you establish that modern liberalism ultimately

has roots in Hobbes or Machiavelli or medieval nominalism or something else like that, it doesn't follow that liberalism as it exists now will go away if you refute those things, although there are intellectuals who believe this, you've seen many of them online. And there is this man, Leo Strauss, who some of them follow, and to his credit he doesn't believe this. He says, for example, that modernity in some way has its roots in Machiavelli, but he also says a Machiavellian world would look very different from our own, a world that Machiavelli would have liked or intended. But many others who follow this way of thinking, and I don't mean just some of this man's follower, but this kind of thinking that I just said now in general, the so-called genealogical

type of thinking, the going back to the historical origins of something. Like when you see on Twitter there are many of these alt-light, face-fag intellectuals who try to make a name for themselves tracing modern wokeness back to Hegel or something like that. Or as very popular, they copy and plagiarize Mollbug. They do not give him credit, but they repeat idea, which I'm sure you've heard many idea that modern liberalism or wokeness has its roots in Calvinism, and to support this they point to Calvinism's self-righteousness, for example, the competition to appear more righteous than your neighbour, and they make an argument of how much that is like the behaviour of the woke now, the self-righteous, and also they point maybe to certain historical unfolding

of theological principles into modern secularized ones, which I will not get into now, but the What is very strange, by the way, is that in South Africa, which was also a Calvinist country, Calvinism took a very different direction, apparently. So how does that work? But in any case, when they talk otherwise, these intellectuals, they recently see, I see article compare American foreign policy now, which, as you know, claims a kind of universal sovereignty in pushing sexual minority rights and other equality rights things, and I've more accurately called GNC, but this article trace it back to a kind of Protestantism. And I suppose I don't see much value in that because what means to trace here? It's not

like the people who push these things now believe themselves to be Calvinists or Protestants or Hegelians for that matter. You know, they do not share, you know, whatever you want to say, the nominalists. Some people would trace it back to medieval nominalism or even to ancient things, it's very bizarre whatever genealogy you come up with because the people now who push these things do not share those same ideas, they are motivated by anti-racism which is very risky for an intellectual now who uses face to attack this concept of anti-racism head on directly, you know, so but the people who push this now do not share even the same character, they don't share actually the same ethnic background as those groups talked

about but, you know, usually, but if you want to be crude about it, but what in the end is shared in this model between, let's say, someone pushing trans ideology now in Hegel or whatever else is blamed ultimately for the cause of modern degeneracy. But then you see that almost all such genealogy of modern things, it's always something I I do not like now can be traced back to this other sinister thing in the past. And it always rests on analogies, on certain vague similarities in structure. Ultimately it's a kind of hand-waving, and often, again, the reason they do it is so as not to discuss more proximate causes that are again quite dangerous to bring up. And I understand wanting to protect yourself, but not to the extent where you find yourself arguing.

I have said on this show many times, I think, that you have quite few people on the so-called new dissident right arguing, for example, against John Locke and the individualism of Locke or the liberalism of his time and soon after, and thinking that by doing so they're solving anything and if that, let's say, a smart 17-year-old in high school, he's not exactly being assailed in the world either of intellect or of material causes, he's not being assailed with Locke or with anything that resembles Locke. And you don't have to be a partisan of Locke or of capitalism or whatever, which I'm not as you know, but you don't even have to like him to see that this focus on him, for example, is not only cowardly but it's an ineffectual diversion. You can try to disprove Locke all you want.

You will get nothing. In large part, even Latinx studies or African studies, deep fryer, Boricua department in in a university will totally agree with you that Locke bad, English empire bad, individualism bad, colonialism bad, neoliberalism bad. These are not exactly groundbreaking ideas that threaten anybody in power, you know, but they're not even true, you know, but I get carried away on tangent. Do you like the opening passage from Nietzsche that I read? Because Nietzsche's genealogy, as I say, is very different from all these. Nietzschean genealogy is really about psychological digging. He digs with extreme antennae and claws of, you know, a kind of weird, a kind of once in a century weird burrowing being that can penetrate, it can penetrate with a tentacle

right inside your filthy spirit and can see what's there. And you get him, you get Gratian, Balthasar Gratian, you get La Rushfoucault, who my friend rogue scholar recently published La Ruchefoucauld book. It's a man of power and adventure, La Ruchefoucauld, who I will cover on a soon episode. And who, like Nietzsche and also Balthasar Gratian, both are men of the strong 17th century. I mean, Gratian and La Ruchefoucauld. But like them, like Nietzsche, I say, and like Lichtenberg, these are men who use a aphoristic writing style like a scalpel to dig into unpleasantness of human self-deception and pretty lies, they are neo-synics, you know, maybe not so pretty lies too. So when Nietzsche or his cousins like this, when they do genealogy, what they are uncovering

is not a remote historical origin which may or may not have faded away through time through vicissitudes, what they are uncovering still has force in our time, they're not describing a remote intellectual origin that may or may not still hold, but the psychological motivation that still has full force. So when Nietzsche, for example, is talking about slave morality, he's not so much tracing the origin of modern leftism and socialism and feminism historically, but rather in an imminent sense, psychologically. And there is, by the way, what he's talking about socialism, feminism, liberalism to a certain extent, at least in our regard to our time. So do you want me to read for you, it's all over his books that this is his concern, it's

in Twilight of Idol, it's in Beyond Good and Evil, and here I will read for you two passages from Genealogy of Morals, so you see, I'm reading now. The same is true for almost all of Europe, essentially the conquered races have finally attained the upper hand for themselves once again in color, shortness of skull, perhaps even in intellectual and social instincts. Who can confirm for us that modern democracy, the even more modern anarchism, and indeed that preference for the commune with a capital C, the long house, for the most primitive form of society, which all European socialists now share, does not indicate for the most part, a monstrous throwback, and that the conquering master race, the race of Aryans,

is not being physiologically defeated too. The Latin word bonus, which means good, I believe I can explicate as the warrior, provided that I am correct in tracing bonus back to an older word, duonus. Anyway, he does some very interesting, I will stop reading there, but he does some very interesting etymology again of words good and bad in European history showing that of what ancient Germanics and ancient Romans meant by the word good and good men, very different from of what modern men mean by these words. Yes, do you like this? He always attack feminism, socialism, he sees them as re-eruptions of a retrograde physiology. You understand all revolutions, especially French Revolution, is a racial revolution. This becomes clear now, of course, you're not allowed to say.

Let me read another passage from the same essay. It is true that in the Renaissance, there was an incredibly brilliant reawakening of the classical ideal, of the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma, induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called church. But Judea immediately thrived again, thanks to the thoroughly vulgar German and English movement of recentement, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a result, the re-establishment of the church, we talk about counter-Reformation here, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquility of classical Rome.

And in what is an even more decisive and deeper sense than that, listen this, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal with the French Revolution. The last political nobility, which there was in Europe, in 17th and 18th century France, broke apart under the instincts of popular recentement. Never again on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing and noisier enthusiasm. It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place. The old ideal stepped physically and with unheard of splendor before the eyes and conscience of humanity, and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out in opposition to the old lying slogan of recentement about privileged rights of the majority, in opposition

to that will for a low condition, for a basement, for equality, for the decline and twilight of mankind in opposition to all that, excuse me, that rang out the fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privilege of the very few, yes that is a nice sentence but I'm afraid that they tried to stop my throat while giving you this beautiful sentence. So just you read Genealogy of Morals, essay one, look for the chapter, the section where he talked about Napoleon, anyway I continue reading to the end. As a last signpost and to a different road, Napoleon appeared, the most singular and lateborn man there ever was, and in him the problem of the noble ideal, the classical ideal itself was made flesh. We should consider well what the problem that is, Napoleon, this synthesis of monster and

superman." End quote. Anyway, you see, but many other places in any case, it's not so much that he's tracing the origin of these modern, leftist, democratic, egalitarian movements which he sees correctly as heralds of the twilight of mankind. But he's not so much concerned with a historical trace of that to the ancient Jews or Christians, but to explain and to demonstrate how a philosophy or a moral teaching can actually be an ideological technology in the biological struggle of one type of man, one form of life against another, which is a much harder type of analysis to do, or to do well in any case than Marxist class analysis, for example, because it's much less reductive, it requires you to have a full comprehension of spiritual state of he who holds to a particular philosophy and

moral teaching and so on. So it's a kind of analysis only a few men ever could do or to do well, the most difficult type of backward inference from a belief that is held to what this belief says about the nature of that life that holds it. So if you go back to the short passage I read to you at the beginning of the show and that it is the dead husks actually of these religions that have done the most damage in terms of resulting in communism, egalitarianism, confusion of instincts, race mixing, physiological confusion. It is the husks of the dead religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam to some extent that caused this. Just like, you know, he mentions the word blood poisoning and when a bacterial infection

many times it is the endotoxin, the outer shell of those bacteria, that poisoning that causes death. It's not the actual bacteria, the live bacteria itself, but the immune system kills them and it is the dead husks of those bacteria that cause the toxin poisoning. So you know, regarding slave morality in this case, forbidding or attacking any of these religions, say Christianity today, would not necessarily solve anything, would be usually irrelevant, sometimes even counterproductive today, because it is the dead husk, for example, of Judaism, called Marxism, and the various dead husks of Christianity in its naturalized forms, called democracy, egalitarianism, various types of socialism, libtardation, and many such things. It is these that are now the vehicles

for a new slave revolution in morality. They have discarded the religious aspect now. They often no longer need that garb, and actually that garb, that ornament, the religious form, they were never really about that. You look at Middle East, please. Actually, I need to take a break for a quick smoke, but I talk more about this when I come back. Thank you. Yes, I'll be right back. I have many religious friends and fans of this radio show and also of my book, I am not making this episode to attack your views, your beliefs, and if you are a careful listener you will understand you should not feel insulted by this episode. However Nietzsche is correct, unfortunately, about a large swathe of people today who wear

the suit of your religions to push precisely what he talks about when he means slave rage in cell revolt in valuations, not to speak of the fact that his analysis is invaluable for understanding the modern left especially. So this is why I make this episode, and I talk for a moment now, I continue to talk what to Nietzsche is the meaning of something like Judaism or Christianity historically in life of human species. So you look at, again, I think it's extremely important to understand that he focused on that ancient event in order to understand the modern revolt in morality also. Because it is for him an equal physiological and psychological explanation for both. But so you look at Middle East, for example, please, just the region Middle East as a laboratory

of mankind, and I don't mean only 2,000 years ago, but even since then. You imagine yourself an alien. Some of you may be blessed to be in spirit and blood aliens. Imagine yourself, observe Middle East. You're not caught up in mankind's struggles, their partial factions, their rivalries. You encounter these religions, let's say, for the first time. You don't believe them yourself, you see them as odd. You don't really know what they are, and you see prophets and saints who many times are very different from other kinds of men. They appear rarely, the genuine ones at least, and who they experience within themselves unusual states of the Spirit. But you also see them have difficulty in transmitting what they feel and see.

And even if they were all totally genuine, and truly if they were in communion with divine beings and received the truth, they are still human after all, and they may fail in adequately transmitting that truth in a way that the common man can understand, and even when they are extremely skilled at this, time, plus the overwhelming stupidity of the mass of men through their telephone games will inevitably corrupt their findings, the findings of the genuine prophets, okay? So you look and for eons you see various magical men and such and god kings and national religions and animism, always around, since time immemorialized the natty, the natural, the natty religion of man. And many things for eons are repeating, let's say, in far antiquity.

And then suddenly, you see this new thing, and here's the thing, as I just said, whatever the truth revealed to Abraham and Moses, and finally, maybe it was from someone different revealed to Jesus, and then from someone different still revealed to Mohammed, and I know they They all fight each other about whatever truth is revealed to these men. The truth is one thing, but then the spread of these religions over the mass of mankind for thousands of years, their success is something else. You see where I'm going with this. If you yourself believe in one of these religions, you can't accept this because for you, the religious truth and the moral teaching and many such things are all together. But try to see it for a view of aliens for a moment.

Not that I'm especially talking to the religious here, but try to see this, to me, to an alien or to Nietzsche who is my alien teacher, the spread of something like Judaism, and yes it did proselytize and it did spread before Christianity in the Roman world, they were heavily proselytizing, but its eruption and spread is an unusual event in the biological development of this species. It has a biological significance in the history of this species, quite aside from whatever inner truth was revealed to its prophets, that's what I'm saying. So as not to offend a Christian and Jewish friends who are religious because that would be pointless. Let me bring up Middle East again as a laboratory of peoples and to mention

Islam and take that as an example. Actually, I do have some Muslim friends and readers too and I apologize for what I will say next, but I think even my Muslim friends might agree that their religion has significantly been corrupted over the centuries. But name one Muslim city now that is not a slum. And it's not just that they are slums, but there's There's a particular smell of life there. I mean a particular structure, a form that life takes in the Muslim city. So when you look at Middle East, you see that each people in this laboratory of mankind since over the last 2,000 years and since the arrival of Islam, especially for let's say in the last 1,000 years, each people adopted that religion, whether it's Judaism or Christianity

or Islam or varieties of these, that were best suited to their nature and needs. Each tribe, each people there chose the particular religions they have now for a certain reason. It was suited to its particular biology ultimately. So the Assyrians, the residue of an imperial conquering people who invented these two excellent martial excellence according to Machiavelli, they picked up Christianity. And you can understand why, I think, because in that context, the noble people, why they would end up picking Christianity? Because the monk and the monastery, that's what I believe. So in other words, a conquering people cannot survive, you understand what I'm saying? They cannot live as a dhimmi and subservient to others.

A conquering, a master race like the Assyrians has two options in life, to dominate or to exist independently, or on the other hand, to cease existing. I'm paying a compliment to Christianity here, but it will not be heard that way by anybody. But when you're a born conqueror, and you can't be a conqueror, what do you do? Do you continue to live on, subservient to other men, foreign men, who may publicly insult you, for example, and you live in a kind of plantation or shtetl or reservation, and you live there huddled together for centuries, you fuck some children into a wife, like somebody into a Jakarta slum who lives in this human rat hive, this human cockroach hive, and they just take it, they live there, they fuck, yeah, I'm gonna fuck a child into, three children

into these women and continue this way of life and then expire, right? No. You do the only thing that you could do if you're an Assyrian, for example. You either fight to the death, which is what happened to most of them, or you become a brigand, or you go to monastery and be a monk and that conquering free nature gets redirected into the becoming of a monk, which is basically what all the noble men of peoples like the Assyrians did. And over time, of course, this meant that the people by our day is almost extinct. They still exist, by the way, the Assyrians, but almost extinct. So Christianity became their identity, and you can't separate that from them now without ending them completely. But like any parasite, it itself, Christianity is cucking and ending them, you know.

You can't separate the parasites from the host at this point, you see. But they chose this because they're a noble people, there were no good choices. Whereas on the other hand, every Muslim city is a slum. And Islam then, again apologies to Muslim friends who are believers and you can make here if you wish a distinction between very early Islam as Mohammed and his band of warriors and the direction that the religion has degenerated since, because I'm not really talking about the content of the religious aspects here and whether they are true. But Islam appears as an ideological technology to raise up the worst in humanity over the the better part, the smaller, it's necessarily a smaller part, the better part.

And you see this in everyday Muslim life, where any man who are better in mind, intellect, physique, spirit, even courage, they are constantly made to be humble before the ulema, the mass of the believers, the worst, and their clerics. It's an ideological technology in the struggle of biological supremacy, of one form of life over another, one type of man over another. It is the triumph of the slave in man again and again. Now I say this is what Judaism is also. When you look at how Tacitus, the great Roman historian, describes their origin in the histories, what he say about them. It's literally the wretched of mankind from every nation, lepers in such congregating for survival. That's how he talk about the origin of the Jews.

And Moses first to secure his own power and then to forward this chandala nation, this nation of chandalizing to the world. He designs the ideological technology of Judaism as a means of their struggle against outsiders and inverts the morality of the great nations of antiquity, which again, it's a process repeated by Christianity in its early stages, sociologically at least, let me be polite. So compare Tacitus' account of the Jews at Histories Book Five, it's roughly the three sections or so at the beginning, with Saint Paul, Corinthians, which Nietzsche quotes in the Antichrist, let me just read for you from Nietzsche, because it's not too long. Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world?

And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Paul, 1 Corinthians 6. Unfortunately, not merely the speech of a lunatic. This frightful imposter then proceeds, Know ye not that we shall judge the angels? How much more things that pertain to this life then? He continues to quote from Paul Corinthians, ìHas God not made the foolish the wisdom of this world?î Excuse me, let me rephrase that, I added a small word that actually changes the meaning. Let me reread that for you. It is Nietzsche quoting Paul from Corinthians, ìHas God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God. that pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Not many wise men after the flesh,

not men mighty, not many noble are called, but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised has God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence." End quote from Paul, Nietzsche continued to say, in order to understand this passage, the first-rate example of the psychology underlying every chandelier morality, one should read the first part of my genealogy of morals. There, for the first time, the antagonism between a noble morality and a morality born of recentiment and impotent vengefulness is exhibited.

Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge, end quote. And again, you should read what I just said. After hearing this, read the Tacitus passage told you, history's book five at the beginning, on the history of the Jews, which again he interprets as a nation that was a repository for the Chandalas and Pariahs of the world, and who invented a morality already that was deliberately the inversion, and a god that was deliberately the inversion of all the great nations of antiquities that you know, that they felt bullied by them, right? It's a moment in history of life, the history of life, the evolution of a sentient species, And you can imagine on other planets, if there are beings like us, approximate to us, there will be a Judaism, a Christianity, an Islam and their varieties.

The latter to being the awakening, the awakening, you know, oh, it's not just the Chandala nation, but actually, oh, look, the mass of the species everywhere is Chandala. So let's universalize it by these two different means. And on other planets, the religious God these will arrive in will be different. But as here it will be incidental, because the content, the inner so called moral, but but really the biological, psychological content, this is what matters, it's a tool through which I say ideological technology, it's a kind of autistic language, but these are utilitarian so-called religions, they are so different from the previous native religions of mankind I mentioned, you know, these new ones use sophisticated moral, political and rhetorical

tools to subdue the higher to the lower, the awakening, they are the awakening of the mass of a species, necessarily its inferior mass, which hijacks the development of that species through its greater numbers and through these, like I say, ideological technologies in their war against their biological enemies. And of course it's never so self-conscious, then it could never work, nor is it ever so complete because there are competing remnants of the older orders that can sometimes fight back, not to speak of there are splinter groups and heretical movements and syncretism and and infighting and many such things, but you see where I go with this, in Islam, you will see this very obvious, the total subjection of any higher aspiration, any higher type

of man to the mass of slaves and their self-righteous moralism. That is the tool, right? But I repeat, it's the moralism as such that is questionable. It doesn't follow. The moral obsessions of these religions don't follow from the supposed religious experiences associated with them. And I didn't make these religions utilitarian, okay? They are ostentatiously and explicitly so. It's their selling point. I can imagine among them Christianity alone allows for a higher type of man under its umbrellas, not at its beginnings but eventually, and chiefly because of the example of its guru Jesus and his greatness and singular rebellion as one man standing against a mob. But it seems, and so I hear from Christian friends, that Paul edited this or tried to edit it out of the religion. I don't know.

I mean, Christ singular rebellion, I don't know. Its changes over time are real and no doubt complex, but historically you can say it has allowed a time for higher type of men because of the example of Christ and of the martyrs who followed him. So it put spiritual men, the monk, I mean the real monk when they exist, there are of course many fake monks. Schopenhauer is great educator by the way. You can get real full education just by reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and following all the writer suggestions they give you. And I say in this regard, he has Manzoni novel, The Betrothed, which you should read this beautiful novel, and it has the image of a perfect monk in it. That's why I bring it up now. But of course, most monks are just useless eaters.

But of the real monk, of which there are very few in the saint, Christianity put them above, you know, it's odd for utilitarian political Christians. Jesus did not have a family, and neither did most of the great saints. How do you get around that? Were they gay by the way? I mean this is what these very vulgar, I don't want to use the word bourgeois, but utilitarian homesteader type socialist Christians say. Maybe they would prefer Judaism, which after all is what they actually follow. A ecumenical synagogue, a Jewish Rome as Nietzsche calls it, Judea over Rome is your belief. But look, I wanted to restate a new way, part of Nietzsche's position on this, and I'll to write out in longer way to spell out what I just said because it's too important to leave just for radio show.

The idea you know yes I'm saying your religions are chandala evolutionary strategies of biological competition against types of men who are their enemies. They are biological events in the life of a species and their moral political and ultimately psychological biological content would recur on another planet with a similarly constituted species or in other cycles of human existence. they would recur regardless of the religious guard they come in now. And Nietzsche, in fact, shows you this by explaining how the modern left, and to a large extent, the liberals, which are ultimately indistinguishable from the socialists and anarchists, but they are just a repetition of this timeless human psychology of moral rage masking, because that's the thing, right?

What explains, you think of the moral rage of an ancient Jew walking around in the Roman Empire, what explains that moral rage? It's very naive to say it is their religious experiences and belief that informs it. Whether despite of this low origin, by the way, certain strains of these religion, Christianity properly syncretized by Europeans, or Tolkien's reinterpretation of it, or I don't know whether they can, despite their origin, eventually act as a protector of higher life, maybe that can be true also. Both things can be true. one thing cannot be defined by its origin necessarily. Both can be true, as can the heterogeneity of the religions themselves to the intentions and especially the spirit of their founders. Those two things can be very different also.

The most beautiful praise of Jesus, you can read, is Nietzsche's Antichrist, because while he dismisses most of church Christianity history and so on as a species of Jewish slave incel rage, His opinion of Jesus himself is very high, and he has actually a very unusual, very unique explanation of Jesus' inner spirit and how he used words and so on. We have a running joke online that Jesus was a Celtic yogi, but generations of Germans before and after Nietzsche, in fact, suppose that Jesus had studied in the hour, had been in touch with Buddhists, whether or not that is historically true, his actual words seem to be a strange mix of post-cynic Greek philosophy with very Buddhist or Hindu-sounding speculations and perceptions on the states of the spirit. Look, I'm not a theologian.

My point is that both things can be true. What I just said about chandala, moral technologies, ideological technologies of species competition, and this other higher meaning of this religion. But I know this is beyond party-line, pile-driving people, beyond what they want to hear. What are you saying, comrade? This is confusing. Getting party line, comrade, we have a movement, we have a bowel movement that we need to admit together. Well, okay, anyway, what Nietzsche described as slave revolt in morality, a devaluation of ancient Greek or Roman aristocratic morality, a devaluation, a turning on its head of the valleys of Homer ultimately, this real thing, a persistent thing, and although that ancient ideal, the ancient mindset no longer really exists in our time, there is no bottom really

to which the chandala or yeast life, call it as you will, there is no bottom to what they're willing to overturn. Not because of the intellectual necessity of logic of their views, but because that basic psychological, biological orientation to the world, the hostility of one form of life to another, which expresses itself in moral rage and the moral movements that try to pretend that rage is something other than it is. That is permanent. It's a permanent feature of mankind. In fact, it's probably what people have called the great filter of all sentient species. Because that mob, as always, finds ready demagogues among the more intelligent, you see, among not just midwits, but even quite intelligent people, that mob finds demagogues and representatives.

And historically, these have been the priests, the priestly type, the ultimate demagogues. And now they are more honest about what they really are in the naturalized forms presented by the left, who could dispense and indeed had to dispense with the religious cover. And if you're interested in an analysis of the priestly type, the mob demagogue who seeks to spread spiritual sickness and brokenness so that he can present himself then as the doctor, that is the signature tactic of the priest. You read the priestly type in general, which exists in secularized form, spread human misery so then you present yourself as its doctor. You read for this the third essay of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, which I talk about on

Future Show, because actually this essay, very interesting, it also includes a criticism of the Schopenhauerian and Kantian aesthetic theories that I've been talking about on last episode and online. And I agree with Nietzsche's, by the way, but his criticism of Schopenhauer and Kant is not exactly of what the Philistine criticism is, let me put it that way. It's more like an extension of their ideas. But anyway, I continue to tell you, so again, read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, essay three on this problem of the priest that I just brought up, but just look at what happened to Giordano Bruno. He's a great man, a genius and a polymath of the Italian Renaissance, Giordano Bruno, a man who dared to openly speak the truth about mankind's oldest and fundamental sentiment

that you may have felt as a small boy, that I remember as the first thought and perception and sentiment I had, which is that things, that animal of course, but even things, even objects are full, they're pregnant with spirits, that the world is eternal and reborn from within itself, that no such things are created, but that they are eternal and that they inhibit many things. You know, animism, the natty religion of men, if you want to call that religion. And yes, I am animist fanatic, you can say, and I can never, for example, accept the lie told in Genesis where Adam is naming animals. I can't accept that lie, Mang. Mang, I can't accept that lie. That is just such a vile lie and an upturning of the truth.

And coarse, bigoted priests, coarse, bigoted priests in black robes with their rages, with a kippah on the head, took this insightful man of science and genius, Giordano Bruno, A man of high perception, a man that embodied part of the classical ideal, and they burned him at the stake. And that was the end right there of the Italian Renaissance, and it was the beginning of two centuries of sleep for Italy and Spain, really, and really it was the destruction of those countries by this type of a feminine demagogue, the priest. And whether it happens under the cover of a religion they pervert, or if it happens under the secularized but still lying face of modern leftism, this is what they would like to do to all higher men and to all men of science.

Their rote incantations to capital-S science and scientism notwithstanding, they will kill and burn and smash in the name of their idol, the vanity of equality, their wounded rage. At bottom, as I say, this transvaluation or reimagining or upturning of values, which Nietzsche most clearly explains, he uses late antiquity because that, when it clearly happened, the reason he chooses that time because it was clear. In other words, despite the decline of the Hellenistic world, the contrast at that time between the two kind of value system was clear, whereas in our time, it would be too muddled, you know, to show what the left fundamentally is. It becomes clear by seeing one of its earlier iterations, when the alternatives actually

existed in stark contrast, but it is the revaluation of values that I talk on this show. And while you know this well describes the woke left, and what others have called bio-Leninism and so forth. I think my friend Spandrel came up with that coinage. And I've discussed before on this show how the left is that. I'd like to give a warning because to a large extent it's coming to describe also the convergence of both right and left populism, of the so-called anti-establishment populism. It's coming to converge on this same psychological turn. And in fact they want to enter a competition with the far left on who is, you know, who Who is the real poor in spirit? Who the real oppressed? Who the real chandler? And whoever is the most chandler apparently wins.

And that's what I see for quite a few years, actually even well before 2015, there were these strains among populism that converge on this. And some of them, some of them are trying to wear the outward forms of dead religions this time as an alternative to the left's naturalized and by now more familiar version. I will talk more on the next segment. I'll be right back, I have Brennan again here on his duties doing manicure, and he's taking care of my right toe now, I will be right back. Sociological matter in modern states, whether United States or Europe, is true that most religious people are right-wing so-called, or at least against the left. So you look at evangelicals, they vote something 80-90% for Trump in the United States, same as the blacks vote for the other side.

And a lot of the blacks are church-going, church-lady, black-ladies, by the way. They are the so-called pillars of their community, and they are religious, genuinely, who are used to judge their faith, but they vote for the other side, as do Hispanic Catholics, by the way. They vote for the left. But it is true that many religious people are on the so-called right in United States and Europe. By the way, including the kind of Jews with the hat and the beards and so on that many of you like to make fun of because they look strange and they do the chicken swinging over the head. But even K-Mac, Kevin Macdonald, will tell you those are not Jews who promote Leftism generally in any country. They keep to themselves and they again vote something like 85% against the Left and whoever

is on the nominal right, at least, in the United States. And I'm aware of this, and the purpose of episodes like this, or when I attack online, isn't to imply that if you got rid of religion, you understand. But there is also the countervailing tendencies in both of these faiths that still exist today. And so you have Pope Thagat, who promotes migrants in Europe and the United States and kisses the feet of black migrants. In the United States you have Catholic charities, Catholic-occupied government, right? Catholic charities in the United States are the biggest funders of legal services for refugees. Now, you can say, well, George Soros is funneling money through them, okay, who forced them to accept money? Is there a gun at their head?

Who forced the Catholic Church to elect somebody like Pope Faggot? There was another pope, Ratzinger, and he tried to reform these things within the church. Others like Bishop Richard Williamson, who I have had on this show, he left. He left it because he thought they couldn't be reformed. And the experience of Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, shows what happens when you try to reform it. was forced out. And so, if anything, my message may be for religious friends, before you focus on attacking the five people on the secular right, or raging at secular people, or raging at the five Nietzscheans online as if we are the biggest danger to Christianity, why you not get your own house in order? Because, yes, this show is not quite an analogy. Nietzsche

is using the birth of Christianity and what was happening at that time with the Jews as a chandala nation, their birth as a chandala nation, he's using these as illustrations for what the modern left is, he's saying it's the same thing psychologically and physiologically and so forth. I think he's right. And yes, I am giving this disclaimer here, it is true that these religions have changed over time and have melded especially Christianity with European aristocratic traditions and so forth and has changed its character. But there is still that tendency within both, within both and within Islam, I think, especially when they become so-called secularized. As I keep saying, the dead husks of these religions is what causes the most damage.

There's a beautiful line somewhere where Nietzsche talks about how they replaced ancient religion with the one god which then unfortunately becomes much easier to deny and what happens once that belief dies is very dark, it's a very dark thing for mankind. But I should also add, I have many of my old friends who are so-called pagan or neo-pagan or Nietzschean or especially there are many friends who are secular right-wing simply. And they don't like, for example, when I have a man like Bishop Richard Williamson on the show, they have told me they have not even listened to that, they don't like anything to do with religion. My point is, I go very much out of my way to try to keep an alliance of anybody who

will oppose establishment authorities and the left and the woke, and not just the woke, but the entire establishment authority and their lies, the doxies of the so-called regime. and including giving overtures to religious friends and so on. But it appears that the sentiment, in some cases reciprocated, but in other cases there is widespread chimp-out against secular people of all things, when it is in fact, it's not just by the way Catholic Charities, it's Lutheran Social Services does the same thing in the United States and so forth. In fact, it is these religions themselves that are riddled already and taken over and impregnated from within by leftism so that even if you go actually to an evangelical

church that votes mostly Republican and the pastor or whatever it's called vote Republican, you will find that they do food drive for Africa. That's all it is. It's bound to maximization, food drive for African children. In some cases it's services for refugees, they are very weak on these problems, or on the problem of feminism, and yes, even religious institutions are very weak on the problem of feminism, and that is not by my doing or the secular doing, perhaps religious friends should get their own religions in order before they self-righteously attack secular people and especially their ire seems focused weirdly on the secular right, as if that is their biggest enemy. And I'm talking about now the so-called Christian Marxists, the homesteader people, the many other factions.

I don't want to bore listeners with them who are not aware of the squabbling that goes on among the right and so forth. But the point is these tendencies exist still within the religions, these tendencies that Nietzsche talk about. And in this connection, have you ever heard of internet lunacy book, The Pink Swastika? I tell you about this, it's a classic of internet psychotic discourse on forums and so on. You may wonder why I bring up something so obscure, frankly, something obviously wrong, obviously absurd, but I do it because it's revealing, because I think what is stated often, what is stated most crudely, naively, autistically, stupidly, While a distortion of the truth is also very revealing of it.

And actually some of you may remember I brought up this book when a lying journalist contacted me for comment when he wrote a hit piece on me for Politico, for the Politico magazine and I told him yes the pink swastika, it had a great influence on me and I'm behind Trump administration push for universal sodomy promotion. Many of you found this funny. You can see this exchange, I just retweeted it, it should be near top of my Twitter timeline But this is a terrible article by the way and to protect myself I can only name the devil name what they're trying to do and thankfully it didn't happen or it didn't happen yet But the purpose of that article in Politico if you scroll up you can you can see the link to it

It was very plainly to provide a pretext for there to be a jag investigation of me for corrupting the military with some kind of Conspiracy alleged to be based in the White House to corrupt the American military and so see unlike some of you I don't want this kind of attention to be puffed up with false praise that then they actually use to try to Prosecute you or persecute you I have to tell you I have no special desire to suffer publicly for the truth Or as a dissident and to be anybody's stage performer for that, you know I enjoy rather delighting myself with fantasies and telling you about them and the things I study and having a good time with humor poking with the equivalent of Sami's dart. And then in my own life, which I want to keep separate

and not be a face fag, I enjoy my anonymity and my nomadic life, where I go incognito to various cities and enjoy their foods and their women and many things with nobody knowing me. And I have to think that those among you who want to be famous in this world of now and to use your face are mentally ill. I was just talking to Loki Julianus, an old friend Loki Julianus. he's reading book now about Nietzsche's, end of Nietzsche's life, it's very depressing, I don't want to remember Nietzsche that way, when he was in sanatorium, when he was in asylums. And it appears, it appears that the story as you know it is not entirely true. In other words, yes, Nietzsche had some type of mental break, not caused by the way by

syphilis, I don't think anybody who has studied the matter and especially doctors agree with that anymore, that's an old slander of Nietzsche, not by the way that I think even if it had been syphilis it should matter one way or another for the quality and the truth of his thought, but as a matter of historical truth it wasn't syphilis, he had the same type of break that his father did around the same age and all the symptoms of a certain very serious congenital disease that afflicted him his whole life, but at the end of things when he had a mental break in 1889, it appears that he was put in sanatorium and kept there against his will, by the way, because of his criticism of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the militarism and so forth. See, it's a case where they claim

that Nietzsche was pro-war and these other things. In fact, he has open statements saying that the armed Europe is a huge mistake, that that money could be reinvested in similarly physiological causes that are not so bad and dangerous as the militarization of Europe. He predicted the coming of World War I almost to the year, he said 1915, this is well known, but he was extreme against somebody like Wilhelm II, the Kaiser of Germany at the time, called him a criminal idiot, which he was, it destroyed Europe, it is the most calamitous thing of the last few hundred years, World War I, and Nietzsche was seeing it coming already in the 1880s and very much against it. Ironic his book was used, was given the New Testament, I think, and Thus Spake Zarathustra

was given to German soldiers in their knapsacks in World War I, but he was very much against this military nationalist mobilization. It was terrible thing for Europe. Kaiser Wilhelm was an idiot. It was probably illegal for Nietzsche to criticize Kaiser Wilhelm. He was induced by a friend who regretted doing this to come from Italy, he was in Turin at the time, into Germany where he was put into sanatoriums. And again I think he was put into mental asylum because of his political criticism of the German Empire and of Kaiser Wilhelm. His fame was slowly but steadily rising from the late 1880s and exploded at the end of 19th century, very beginning of 20th century. But I think he was this way, and the details of his stay in sanatorium and mental asylum I think support this claim.

He actually, yes, he did have a mental break, but he recovered part of his lucidity, but he was under constant sedation. It is a horrible end to life and a torture that they did on him, the German so-called doctors. And by the way, to those of you who attack me, I may get Loki Julianus. If you push too far, I may pass your name to Loki Julianus. And if you want to look into who he is and what he is, your life from that point on will not be so easy. I get my press relations man, Loki Julianus, on you. But anyway, Politico, yes, in August 2019, soon after Mike Anton review, and this Politico article was the most shared one that day on Twitter and online, and all the big honchos of the Democrat Party, Peter Daou, many other came out to condemn me as a Nazi and so forth,

and Luke Turner, and all the Antifa outfits, to try to raise up online chatter and agitation. For what I tell you to those of you abroad who don't know what this is, JAG refers to the desk worker's lawyer for the military. And the way things work is that media manufacture a fake controversy and online chatter where you know, to provide a pretext for an investigation. You know, I'm an evil foreign operation corrupting the American military and so on. So I have to tell you, I was hoping I could go under the radar signal long time and for example, to have someone like PewDiePie promote me and to spread through internet alternative media my message and not really to be noticed by legacy institutions and media for which I have no special ambition to have anything to do with them.

But as things stand, I'm hearing my name and book is used already as a shorthand for like-minded people to identify each other in places like Silicon Valley, or it's praised there, and then also in other places that for my own protection I cannot mention in public. But yes, it's used in small groups, small groups, by people to identify each other as like-minded. And I'm afraid, while this may flatter my vanity a little bit, and see, my vanity, however, is much more ravenous and refined. And this isn't, I mean, I like that I'm helping friends see new things and so on. But I was not expecting this when I wrote the book. And it's not, the vanity thing is not enough to make up for the fact that I'm afraid this makes me a marked man. You know, you can see this from the Silicon Valley thing,

the fact that, well, I am liked among that set. And while this is very nice, it also makes me the target of many other pretenders who are hoping to be advisors to the prince, who I'm advisor to the prince. I advise the new tech elite, I'm the philosopher of the new tech elite. I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about these other people who hate me and they're jealous that I'm supposedly stealing their audience when I didn't even intend it and until relatively recently I didn't even know about that I was being read there. But then the rage against me online come under false pretext and lie. And then in the other sectors of things, where again I cannot even say where, but the point is being read in this way and used in small groups in this way draws attention to me.

It makes me a marked man by people who either envy my book influence or oppose or fear it. And so this explains why, although I mostly try to ignore others, for many months various outfits are 100% focused only on me and when you have leftist post Bernie people and some weird Swedish think tanks that hire Bantus and but many others that's just the latest iteration who claims that they are opposed to neoliberal capital establishments but they spend zero of their time on anyone on any of the powerful of the world that you might expect and 100% of their energy on me and my friends it's a rather odd phenomenon but But you can understand what motivates them from what I just told you. And I am, in the end, more concerned, however, more concerned in the end by something like

JAG or other government bodies making up false things against me because of the places my book is circulated. And I can only defend myself by naming them and their schemes ahead of time as I am doing right now, you know? And restating that I am but a humble internet poster and humorist. I wish to be left alone with my oysters and my whores and my coke. I do not do cocaine, you can scrap that, but Brennan, make sure you edit that out about cocaine or I'll whores that ass of yours out to Dubai again. I'm sorry, is this vulgar? Listen let's go back to, let's go back to matter of this show. Listen The Pink Swastika, an absurd book, an insane book, but oddly enough it's the view on which actually the mainstream of the populist left and right is converging.

I'll explain how and why in a moment, but regarding what I just said on previous segments of this episode, Nietzsche's attack on early Judeans and Christians and Jews, whether you agree or not with that, whether or not Nietzsche was right about it, and he is right about the modern left in that sense, and he's right also about these types on the so-called populist right, many of them who close their moral rage in the religious guard now, and Nietzsche has their number. He's right about them, he's right about them, whether or not he's right about the ancient Christians and Jews, and that said, what is this book, The Pink Swastika? Its basic point is that Nazi Party was a gay movement of sorts, and that it even started

in a bar that was known to be a gay bar, that it's an LGBT, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish movement. Now, this is absurd, but I've used this line to troll people myself. It's great to use this to troll pro-gay libtards and so on, to troll someone, LGBT people and another thing, and the accusation is based on certain facts that are true, but they're not even half-truths, they're a quarter or a sixteenth truth, in isolation they're misleading. You may have all heard Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA stormtroopers, but it wasn't just Ernst Röhm, by the way, it was a lot of others you can point. So anyway, the writers of Pink Swastika don't just stop at this, they go much farther, you They end up saying that it wasn't just the Nazis but basically the whole German philosophical

tradition out of which they claim the Nazis emerged. It's all gay, right? It's all gay and violent. It's all gay Nazi violence. This is nuts but it's not much more crazy than post-modern French intellectual professor freaks who say that Nazism and Auschwitz is the ultimate culmination of the Enlightenment or Giorgio Agamben, who say Auschwitz is the secret hidden numerous of the West from its inception. In Agamben, he's a hateful leftist slave-rage freak. And to his credit, you can say he was consistent enough to oppose the COVID measures as part of his opposition to what he sees Nazi bioterror medical tyranny with Auschwitz. But his opposition to COVID does not absolve him from this blood libel and curses trying to slur the whole history of European men with.

And actually his position is not that different in the end from that in the pink swastika. Again, they go much farther. They say it's not just the Nazis, it's not just German philosophy. It's the Hellenism of German philosophy. It's their attempt to resurrect antiquity. It's the fact that it looked back to Greece and Rome. And it's ultimately then the whole European philosophical tradition you see that is gay, it's degenerate, and it's violent and fascistic, and it all goes back to Sparta, you see, and Plato, who likes Sparta, because it was gay and fascist, you know, and it's the Romans as well, it's all gay, it's all gay supremacist tops, whose apparent anti-homosexuality at times is, this is what this book claims, is really only directed against gay bottoms,

also known historically as Katamites, or Kinaido, or Pathics, and so on, and they say that the Nazi's condemnation homosexuality was only against these, there's only these that they persecuted, but they have, the writers of this book have this delusional view of all classical European history, by the way, complete total Foucault level idiotic misinterpretation of how Pederasty worked and how these sexual relations, which did exist of course, but total misinterpretation of how they worked in the ancient world, I don't want to get into that on this show, I invite guests to talk on future show about that, but these delusional two writers of these books of pink swastika They say all classical European history and all attempts to revive it whether the Renaissance or German Hellenism

To be inspired by Greco-Roman antiquity you see it's all aristocratic fascist gay supremacism against the people against the salt of the earth against Wholesome families, you know and it was the Bible and it was the Jews and Christians alone who took a stand against this evil and who condemned homosexuality and supported the common man with his upright family and democracy and You know the respect for women and whatever and the common decency and so forth and all this popular salt of the earthing That the morality of the Bible saved Europe and the world from being subject, you know to gay degenerate Nazis And as bizarre as this sounds, you know, you can always say back why you bring up this strange book

Nobody says this and I tell you a lot of people believe something very close to this now. Maybe with there are Variations different levels of maybe not so extreme or autistic but a lot of the populace left and right Is converging on something very close to this and you know? It's useful to use what is most naive and crude to understand what is more mixed? What is more equivocal even what is more subtle or intelligent, you know? I tell you this another time when, for example, people try to dismiss parts of the platonic canon, the Alcibiades dialogue, or his dialogue lovers, and they try to say it's apocryphal, it's not really written by Plato. But I'm telling you that actually, if it is part of the platonic

tradition, but not actually written by Plato, if it was written by somebody less smart than Plato, or less subtle, it has more valuable to us as students than Plato's genuine works, because we can see more naively, more accessible to our own stupid minds, we can see what Plato or Platonism means precisely because these dialogues are cruder, we can get the message better as an educational tool. And in a similar way, I don't care that pink swastika thesis and all its vulgar delusions are not precisely accepted or openly avowed by the populist left and right, as a tool of understanding them is extreme accurate, I think. It's a pure expression, I believe, of what Nietzsche was – you know what I mean by pure? It's so stupid, so naive,

so autistic, such a pure illustration of what Nietzsche was criticizing in genealogy and elsewhere where he talks about the slave rage revolt in morality, the overturning of ancient morality – it's inversion. This stupid book, The Pink Swastika, written I think by a rabbi and a weird pastor is a pure and stupid and naive expression of this spirit of Judeo-Christianity in the literal sense. And I know very well actually both believing Christians and Jews are offended by the idea of something like Judeo-Christianity. It's kind of an American neologism conservative thing after the 1950s, a trope, an invention that corresponds to almost nothing real the way it's commonly used. I know that. But in the literal sense,

I think there is a meaning, let me redefine the word, there is a common spirit to both, Judeo-Christianity. And here it is, stated very plainly in the Pink Swastika, one of the purest expressions of slave rage, inversion of morality you can find, which tries to slander the entirety of European artistic, aristocratic and philosophic traditions. And insofar as the view is adopted by the populists left and right, maybe you can see See how it has to do with their understanding of what is evil. That is crux of it, the nut of it. What mean evil? Who is their opponent? And the slave invasion of ancient aristocratic morality affected by the ancient Jews and the Christians, which the Romans didn't really distinguish between them in the Dachitus. They're just ecumenical, fanatical Jews.

And it was in shorthand you can understand their revolt in morality in a formula of qualities that they included in their definition of the evil man. And the first one was violent, violent, the oppressor, the man who inspires fear. Whereas this was the first quality that was seen as good as the quality of a good man by both ancient Greek aristocratic and Viking values. A man who inspires fear is awesome, is good. But this was the first quality that is inverted in the counter morality of the Jews and Christians. And just to list what all of these qualities would be together, the formula, the formula that Nietzsche talked about, it would be something like violent, fear-inspiring, oppressor, worldly, sensual, rich, lecherous, and there are others

too, but this formula is the basic one, is the basic Jewish value inversion of the ancient world, right? And the lecherous part is essential, the lecherous part is essential, and now you can say I'm trying to defend lechery. No, thank you very much, the Romans and Greeks had a different condemnation on a totally different path of, you know, being a, let's say, lustful catamite or something like that. But the lecherous part is an essential in this formula and you understand how important this part is to speak swastika thesis, which of course they reduce the lecher is in that case exclusively to Gabe, but when you look at the populist left and right they have essentially the same formula understanding of evil. That's the convergence

I'm talking about. It's exact same formula. To them it's all, you know, we are the poor, the salt of the earth, the people, we the people, and we have always been pushed around by these evil oppressor bullies for no reason. It's the typical Jewish attitude to the world since ancient times actually, as well as unfortunately other nations have similar, like the Serbs and Irish often have similar attitude, but not to speak of the Neo-Jubantoids, the new nation of Israel, but yes these evil oppressors, these evil elite bad guys, the rich and powerful of the world with their secret handshake and old boys clubs and their covens and their rituals and their secret rituals that are based around this sexy, dangerous, lecherous stuff, you know, that degenerate and whether this is

populists, even the ones on the left now, screeching in unison ritualistically repeated thousands of times that this or that is gay and whether it's paranoia about pedophilia or child-eating rituals, regardless of the truth of the Epstein matter, you know, Hollywood and such a thing, are actually quite happy. They weren't very comfortable with David Eicke and his reptilian things sometimes, but they're quite happy to broadcast world about Kim Kardashian elite cannibal child cannibal stuff or even Epstein right because it's so lurid and false that even if Epstein is a real thing the lurid other fantasies about elite child eating serves a number of purposes for them one of them being they can say oh see this is how medieval

accusations of blood libel blood libel were also goi peasants have always believed this stuff this is what they would like to say when of course as Ariel Toaf point out medieval Ashk did use human blood for supplements and such and there was a market you can Read his book a blood Passover and so forth But instead of admitting this what is actually quietly swept under the rug during such rhetoric by By these people is that they turn this blood libel rhetoric right back with accusations of making soap and lampshades out of people Right. This is the animating fear and lurid image of evil you see They're going to make lampshades out of it, including speculations on the sexual nature not only of Nazis, which they are obsessed with, like this book being an extreme example,

but really all of mainstream media is obsessed with the sexual whatever of Nazis and so on. But a similar libel is actually directed at the WASP, you know, the American WASP class that fought the Nazis, but that is their social competitor, but it's a very similar libel against the wasp, a very similar stereotype, very similar formula for evil man. And so the populist, whether left or right, the populist attack on demonic elites, not so ironically, not ironically at all, finds its mirror image in the Ashk neuroses about evil wasps with the same, by the way, almost to the word, the same image of evil, lecherous man, this peasant overemphasis on what the sexual habits might be. You know, again, ancient world might see a man who spent all his day being a coomer as

something absurd or pathetic, but they didn't have this, what Nietzsche called the country pastor, this peasant over-emphasis on what the sexual habits might be on the idea that God is, or gods are constantly watching whether you jerk off and trying to, it's very, you You know, and this focus on the sexual habits of Nazis, of wasps, you know, directly mirrors what go on in the populist valuation. You know, men with bizarre sexual rituals that you are excluded from, you know, in wood paneled rooms, cigar smoke, plotting, directing the course of the world, oppressing you for no reason. These violent, fear-inducing, oppressor men, right? This is the ashk stereotype of the wasp or of the Nazi also. is in general also it is the woke and the far left, the woke left image of evil as well.

Only now in general it is applied to whites and they have extreme even actually sadomasochistic fantasies about white men and how they use their phallus to oppress others and many such things you find actually for some decades now all over the academic left literature out of which the woke emerged through Tumblr and so forth. And the formula that I condensed for you just now, Nietzsche's restatement of the ancient slave rage inversion of aristocratic values, the slave revolt in morality, that formula of evil is remarkably consistent I tell you, it's shared by basically all modern political factions who are then in a contest with each other to see who is the real salt of the earth wholesome people, who are the real oppressed, the real poor in spirit destined to the last

shall be the first, a contest to see who this, a contest over who is the real loser, always an attempt to paint the other side as the evil elite oppressor, bad guy, lecherous and degenerate schemer. And a lot of you fool yourselves by the way about the left thinking that they preach for sexual liberation and such thing or against marriage, but in fact when it comes to white men it's the opposite, they haven't preached a thing like that since the 1970s, they very much have a priestly ire against white men sexual impulses, a fear and lust for them combined actually, the typical combination and a desire to control them in this sense and even by the way with the gay marriage now being legal, even the gays have in large

part reconciled themselves to marriage as a good institution, you know marriage is now, it's become a gay thing. So I personally have never met academic leftists who preach sexual liberation to men or against marriage in the way many of you imagine. In fact, things are rapidly progressing to where I predict, I predict that not long the left, the far left, will advocate compulsory marriage for white men, especially, as in a marriage contract and its duties, although not its privileges, but its duties will be forced on you with the financial burdens associated with it. I predict they are moving in this direction. They have a deep mistrust and fear of white male sexuality that would not be subservient to a woman-led marriage, which almost all marriage today necessarily is.

And again, they share this with the social conservatives. I challenge you to go evangelical church and see if they ever condemn female adultery or if they would ever punish a woman who did an abortion. It's all gynocracy all the time with all the factions. It's women and the gynomales, the men whose entire emotional and spiritual life revolve around their woman, and it's the priests who cater to such stunted beings, you see. And I may seem to be going on tangents, but the tangents are all different expressions of the same thing. The far left image of evil is a mirror copy of the populist anti-establishment left, and the right, the populist right, parts of it, the Bannonites and so on, as well. They all believe they are fighting against Nietzsche's formula.

And this is visible in recent time, at least as far back as the late 1990s, it was energized then by 9-11, the pedophile elite stuff, the cannibal elite, reptilian royal families. Again, whatever small part of it is true in sideshows like Epstein, which was probably Mossad's operation to shore up support for Israel among the Democrat Party. But such things, like I mentioned, the whole pedophile elite stuff, reptilia, it takes off because it's the last and lowest common denominator of biological dumpster societies, such as almost exclusively exists now. In other words, every American goblin, every 56 percenter, every American goblin can get on board this public transport whose fare of admission is just being mostly human and and opposing child molestation, you know?

And this pose, and I don't want to start a new fight, I think Alex Jones is a good performer, but many of the ideas and thing he spread are very bad, and it explained, unfortunately, almost all his position. His moral framework for fighting supposedly a conspiracy of elite bad guys, transcending history for thousands of years, and it's remarkably his view, his kind of view, is very common among the populist right, and also the left in variations with obsessions about the British Empire and the Venetians, machinations across history. For example, among the left, they are convinced that the American deep state is Nazi, and that with Operation Paperclip, the Nazi regime took over American security deep state and continues evil eugenic bad guy Aryan monster

Nietzschean blond beast work from within, you see. You see, that explains everything bad in the world. It's actually the Nazis are secretly doing it, which Alex Jones also promotes, I think. I think even David Eicke promotes this. You're the bad guy, always the same one. It's the evil one Nietzsche described. Only the outward incidental description or look changes. For Alex Jones, it's evil elite European noble families that drink blood going back thousands of years. Secret Nazi basis of eugenic neoliberal elite. For Bannon, it is neoliberal, maybe I don't want to slander Bannon, I actually don't listen to him lately. But for the Bannonites, it is to say the neoliberal capital, bad guy, hyper capitalist elite that again has all these qualities.

Or on Alex Jones calling Nietzsche a technocrat. They had a guy on air on Alex Jones call Nietzsche a technocrat, a proponent of technocracy. Now think about the retarded telephone game of equivalences that had to result in saying something like that and believing it. I mean, just on this matter, just on this matter, it's a leap from rejecting the experts we have in our time as unworthy of the name, on this matter of technocracy, I mean. And we have a lot of false experts now and low-IQ people who got credentials when they shouldn't have. And for example, in the intelligence community, you have people who often don't speak the language of countries that they're assigned to, or because they regularly, the academics get embarrassed on points of basic

historical fact or linguistics or chronology by frog avatar anons, you know, or because they make bridges that crash or vaccines that don't work, or now public health measures that are patently absurd and result in the opposite of stated intent, and then they try to use their credentials or claim expertise to, for example, excuse rioting because it's in the name of righteous race riot, as we've seen Fauci do in summer of 2020 or whatever. But I mean to say this kind of slave rage psychology, which to be fair an American friend tells me I go too far maybe because to some extent America itself has always been a kind of peasant revolt in which such ideas found really spread and which never really had any aristocratic taste whatsoever. And that might be true.

I mean take athletics for example before I return to this matter of the criticism of technocracy and expertise. Take athletics, for example. If there was anywhere that you could say, at least here, show aristocratic reverence and glorification safely that you can do so. It's for athletes. But even here, America refuses in the relatively democratic object of the athlete, right? I'm saying even a democratic society can recognize human superiority usually when it comes to athletics for obvious reasons. First of all, an athlete's superiority in his skill is never seen as threatening. It has no direct relation or threat to your rights or even your self-worth usually. The fact that somebody is good at a team game or an Olympic throwing or something or running

fast or swimming fast, even the democratic man can safely admire because he doesn't feel that his interests and even his self-worth are threatened by this. I'm saying now in a democracy of relatively normal men like existed in ancient Greece or 1930s America or something like that, although not that I approve of that type of democracy either. But that's not the case now. Now it's different. But let's say this. And then also the athletic skill is relatively easy to quantify, easy to objectively judge in a neutral way that is accepted by all, easily quantifiable, hard to deny athletic skill. other things the works of artistic and literary genius and poetry philosophy or god forbid military and political skill and achievement these things are harder

to judge they take more discernment of taste and in some cases they can be felt to be very morally and politically threatening so to glorify and admire them in an aristocratic sense I mean because that's what aristocratic sensibility is expert at how to honor and reverence something which is why all All this is why in the famous episode, Musel, famous novel, A Man Without Qualities, there's a famous episode in that where the main character just ends up demoralized. This is happening in Vienna before World War I. The main character in this book, The Man Without Qualities, ends up demoralized when he sees in the early 20th century, now he sees a newspaper talk about a racehorse of genius, a certain a racehorse of genius, you know, a society that has no taste for real genius, no capacity

to judge or appreciate it, that discards it, but what I tell you, even a democratic vulgar society like that can appreciate a racehorse of genius, and this is what genius means now, and he sees this and he becomes demoralized, and it's part of the book. But I was telling Fran, Pindar absolutely glorifies athletic victors of his time. This is ancient Greek poet writes Olympic odes to athletes, and I told him, for all of their worship of sports, Americans never come close to this. I mean, it's just so totally different, you know, it would be so foreign to an American to idolize an athlete like that, and to engage in that kind of praise, to recount, for example, the exploits of his state and his noble lineage. It makes you laugh, right?

But he responds, this friend responds, yes, even for athletes, Americans would be extremely uncomfortable acknowledging any kind of aristocracy and expressing any kind of aristocratic sentiments. You know, instead the American style is to compare an athlete to a previous one who might have been slightly better at one thing and so on, but to try to actually talk them down. But like I say, I'm not so much attacking the American tradition of anti-aristocratic taste here. This is why I went on this tangent. I'm not so much attacking that as what Nietzsche talked about, which is much more serious when When he talk about slave rage psychology and an inversion of morality, it's something that goes much farther.

And so to go back to what I was saying, yes, the slave rage psychology in this realm of expertise or criticism of technocracy that you see incipient of Alex Jones and others, I don't want to single him out, I'm just giving him as an example, but you see this very much online too. They don't just claim that experts now are unworthy of the name, but that expertise as such is questionable, that being wise, so-called, worldly or knowledgeable in something like a hard science or law or finance or many such things as such makes you de facto your suspect, your suspicious, you are one of the evil elite bad guys. And to be fair, you don't see so much on the side of Alex Jones, I should correct that, because to a large extent, Elon Musk alone is redeeming the name of the man of science

and technology for at least many of the right populace. But there otherwise still remain this tendency, you know, I think it is inherited from the left. A lot of this comes from left-entryism, you know, a lot of Bernie people came in and, like the neo-cons who came in to the right in the 80s and late 70s, they as leftists are very pushy, they think they have the right to redefine things. I think some of this comes from left-entryism, but in which the poor in spirit shall triumph over the whys of the world, the foolishness shall triumph, you know, because the fake wisdom of science and of the whys of the world and of, I'm saying real legitimate experts is nothing, nothing I tell you next to our superior morality.

Again this is much less likely, I know, to catch on to the right in general, I'm using it as an illustrative example, but there are tendencies like this all over the populist right, unfortunately, the religious populist right especially and so on, whereas in the end they cannot compete with the left on this you know the old left would view with suspicion any scientific expertise or military expertise or political because of the associations with Nazi and deep state and military industrial complex conspiracies whereas most relevant to our condition now it's well known the extent to which the new left the woke that eagerly eagerly abandoned and condemned science white men in technology and science in particular the science of biology especially, white man science in general as a form of

trichnology, which must in all cases be made subservient to the superior morality of the left. You know it's protection of biological refuse, excuse me, of at danger minorities and identities and womans and how all wisdom of the world must be subordinate to this moral aim, which again is a restatement of how Nietzsche describes the slave rage overturning of classical morality When especially when it concerns the wisdom and philosophy of the Greeks this is to be dismissed by by some Judean Take your average Judean or North African arrogant convert pile driver saying you Greeks you Greeks is nothing We have our own books we have our own superior wisdom because we have chosen by God because we are foolish and He God hates your fag wisdom of the world

You know Al Sharpton talking about all them Greek homos, same thing, but to return to point in general Is he extremely common lying you see repeated non-stop on all sides of the populist convergence? That the real Nietzsche and Superman are men like Bill Gates and the Trannies. You've surely heard this They are the real aristocratic radicals beyond all good and evil. Have you heard this line? I'm sure you've seen it Bill Gates and Gavin Newsom the governor of California. They are the eugenic neoliberal elite They are the real Nietzscheans living beyond good and evil. The real eugenic Nazi neoliberal elite are the rich of today like Bill Gates and so on. They have a depopulation agenda, they're eugenicists, and of course they're also behind the massive

explosion in world population since 1900, as they must be, right, because they control world events on all sides. So then, I like this example, let's forget about what's happening now with sub-Saharan Africa which will explode to three billion people apparently in the next hundred years if you believe the demographics, but in the case of Egypt it went from two million in 1910 to a hundred million now. This was done by the evil Nazi elites that have controlled world history for a long time so that then they can depopulate it now, you see. You cannot fathom their plans. So anyway, they have all these Machiavellian bad guy elite plans, and did I mention they're lecherous and lustful, they have eyes wide shut parties with hot women that you're not invited to.

gay, but you know, we are the poor in spirit, we are the losers, we are righteous losers. You know, don't look at tropical architecture with palm trees, it might make you want to jerk off, you recovering Coomer addict. We are the Guatemalan army of the poor, we are moral, we are the multiracial salt of the earth poor who must bend against the evil elite bad guy man in a working class coalition. I mean, it would be funny if these people actually knew someone like Bill Gates or your average CIA officer take two quite different examples, but if they actually knew for example your CIA officer average and understood that these people have a mirror understanding of the enemy, that there is, if you were to look at mind of CIA polite officer or Peter Stroke,

it's all about evil sinister dark money gunking up the works of democracy and they have to step in and protect the people, the poor in spirit, from the machinations of evil Nazi billionaire cabals and so forth. And I tell you it's a competition in the end to see who is the real poor in spirit. Whoever is the most poor in spirit wins. That's the thing, right? Who, who are the real left? A competition to see who is the real left, who are the real Jews. That's basically the formula of all modern mass politic among the factions I'm talking about. Can you prove that you are the real Jews, the real victim, the real poor in spirit loser salt of the earth, oppressed by monstrous bad guy bullies orchestrating world history.

And it is not a consistent thing always, right, because obviously the ones today who can most easily embody this narrative is the biological refuse that makes up the far left. And so now because the character of the right is not yet decided, you will see people on the right will move between this kind of argument to, on the other hand, accurately seeing that the vast mass that provides the social basis of all forms of leftism is a biologically deformed negrada of POC and mystery meats and trannies and so forth and merry goblins and all the kind of detritus really of late imperial dumpster societies that also form the social basis of the prison society of late Rome actually. So someone on the right might on a certain day invoke slave rage argument and say that

that he is the real poor in spirit and oppressed by the pedophile elites, who – see, here's the one thing where acquaintance with so-called elite society does help, and it's that you are not fooled into saying or believing things like this, because they are bad people, but they're bad and inadequate people for reasons entirely unrelated to what is claimed by this kind of Alex John narrative. And knowing them is useful for understanding that, and maybe for demystifying them to you. But anyway, so the populist right might say that kind of thing one day, and then the next might accurately note that the left is the revolution of biological trash of our time, and maybe even realizing how it uses moral rage and fake compassion and fake empathy as a cover for the lust for power.

And this is because the character of the right is not decided yet, whereas of the left it is. And it's also why trying to adopt this slave-loser-rage mindset on the right is not going to work, because you will not be able to out-compete the left on this psychological downward slide. Insofar as you take on this way of thinking, you can't really understand, I think, even how the left mobilizes the mob. Now, I don't mean operationally with media and so on, but the particular psychological past they do it on, their secret promises, which isn't really as much available to you unless you actually join them. And to join them, you have to join them in hatred against what's actually better. You know, all that would be really required for you

on the right is to be like Putler, and I don't like to mention Putler anymore because he's not fighting so well in that war, and I don't want to strain relations also with the European and the right that hates him. But all, Butler didn't have to engage in this slave rage type thing about evil elite bad guys. He was himself an elite guy coming from the Russia deep state, you know, as high as it gets within Russian security apparatus. All he did, he said, there are these oligarchs, there are a few hundred names, they are traitors, they harm our country as a whole. I'm going to take their stuff and put them in jail. That's all that would be required. You don't have to embrace slave rage mindset about the evil as such of hyper-capitalist, neoliberal, reptilian elites that are always

plotting against the people and, you know, you can't compete with the left on that. You can't compete with them on that. What they want ultimately is not what you want. What they want is to have vast camps, you know, and no doubt there are people especially also wearing the garb of dead religions on the right who maybe would be very happy doing this what the left, being Pol Pot, you know, but with religious bells and whistles, you know. But they'll have to be convincing if they want to do it, and I think maybe they'll be able to be convincing, as convincing as the left is at mobilizing refuse, which the left is because it's believed they believe it that's why they can mobilize refuse and because they pursue down to the details where you attack all expressions of higher aspirations that

you see in daily life because ultimately your mob that is what motivates them it isn't just or really just oppression it's still less a notion of equality or of empathy the empty word that keeps being repeated now empathy right but ultimately what motivates them is the feeling of the mass of mankind, the misbegotten throughout its cycle, that they are hurt, that their vanity is wounded by somebody being happy when they are unhappy, that there should be someone naturally distinguished when they are naturally broken that hurts them. And so ultimately this hatred has to be turned on white people, whether you like it or not you will be a pole pot to smart middle class white people. And if you are on the so-called populist right you will join this hatred of white people

if you go down this path, whether you do it under cover of leftist equality or of multiracial religious cover of some type, it's the same thing as long as you are genuinely driven by this, which I hope you're not, but some are. I mean, nobody listening to this show, but you understand what I'm saying. Parts of the populist right converging on the same, which inevitably will end up with anti-white hatred. I've seen it in other countries. I keep telling you, unfortunately, Argentina went down this path, the Peronists went down this path and now they are anti-white, it's inevitable. So this is why that regardless of whether Nietzsche is correct on the whole about slave revolution and morality as applied to these religions, he's certainly right about certain

important and persistent strains in them and that these strains were motivated, this is what I mean when I just mention white people or wasps just now, you know, evil Anglo who secretly bullies the world, right? Because these strains were motivated specifically by this exact same feeling against Greco-Roman aristocratic civilization. I mean, the same feeling that the left now has against whites, the religions in question had this against Greco-Roman aristocratic civilization. It was motivated by just a burning hatred that that civilization should have existed at all in that type of splendor, whereas for all its beauty in poetry, the actual personages and tales and stories and people and achievements spoken of in the Bible, not to speak of other

sorry national anthologies of the time, but even in the Bible it's so much less impressive than one or two great men of the Greeks. Oh, you had Julius Caesar and Alexander, well we have our own, we have our own. You know, wonderful, let's not forget that the entire world submits before him Alexander, which is how I believe, if I remember right, the book of Maccabees begins like that. I'll discuss another time why that's significant. But it was this burning hatred at the magnificence of the Greco-Roman world, you know, on behalf of the beige masses, the POC of the time, right, because that's what Judeo-Christianity was at the time. And it is this burning hatred at the achievements of the white world now that most strongly

and convincingly drives this slave incel rage masquerading as religion, but the religion of secularized form, you know, it's the same type of innocent, loathsome, innocent, self-serving lie. I give you this example in closing, that there's another element in the definition of evil that is darker, that shows really the face of this inversion in values. Because in Nietzsche's formula, just to repeat, it's not comprehensive, but violent, fear-inspiring, oppressor, worldly, sensual, rich, lustful, these qualities were associated by really Even before Christianity, when the Jews became completely corrupted by their priestly class, let me be polite and leave it at that, and their entire history was falsified during that time.

But to all of these qualities that in a novel way were tied together to mean evil, you should maybe also add beautiful or attractive. Think about a reformed Kumar or a reformed Pathak with a difficult past on Twitter, who is raging at Calvin Klein ads from the 1980s or at Handsome Thursday photos as hypersexualization. You know who I'm talking about. That's right. You want to see slave rage at Handsome Thursday, calling it immoral or this while wishing for its immolation. Here it is for you. Let me just read to you from Tertullian, the Psycho, and just translate what is said about Greeks and Romans and their respected personages into the language of the left of today. It's one-to-one, but let me read for you from Tertullian, the Psycho, and this I'm reading

from again Nietzsche quoting him in Genealogy of Morals, essay one. I forget the section. I think it's 15. I'm quoting now. Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its eternal blessedness, it would in any event be more fitting to let the inscription stand, eternal hate also created me. He's playing a what he had just talked about Dante saying that eternal love created even the Christian hell and he's saying no it would be more fitting to put even over the Christian paradise the quote eternal hate also created me provided it's alright to set a truth over the gateway to a lie for what is the bliss of that paradise perhaps we might have guessed that already but it is better to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot

underestimate in such matters Thomas Aquinas the great teacher and saint he's quoting Thomas Aquinas now in the kingdom of heaven he says as gently as a lamb the blessed will see the punishment of the damned So that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss Or do you want to hear that message in a stronger tone for example from the mouth of a triumphant father of the church? Wands his Christians against the cruel sensuality of the public spectacles But why and he's quoting Tertullian now faith in fact offers much more to us as he says in the Spectaculism, something much stronger. Thanks to the redemption, very different joys are ours to command. In place of the athletes, we have our martyrs. If we want blood, well, we have the blood of Christ,

but what awaits us on the day of his coming again, of his triumphs, and now he takes off the rapturous visionary. However, there are other spectacles that last eternal day of judgment ignored and derided by the nations, when after so many years, the old age of the world and all the many things they produced will be burned in a single fire. Oh, he's fantasizing about the Greco-Roman world being burned, statues, etc. I continue reading. What a broad spectacle that appears. How I will be lost in admiration, how I will laugh, how I will rejoice, how I will exalt as I see so many great kings, who by public report were accepted into heaven, groaning in the deepest darkness alongside those very men who testified on their behalf, along with Jove himself.

They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord melting in flames fiercer than those with which they proudly raged against the Christians. And then those wise philosophers who convinced their disciples that nothing was of any concern to God and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies are shamed before those very disciples as they burn in the conflagration with them. And the poets too, shaking with fear, not in, let me just make an aside as I keep reading. At least up to now when he attack supposedly governors who have persecuted Christians and philosophers who misled disciples, it's very ugly I think still and inexcusable the things

he's saying, but at least there is a reason, a justification given, but listen to this next what Nietzsche quotes Tertullian saying now. And the poets, too, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Radaman to Sorbinos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate, they will be easier to hear the tragic actors. It will be easier to hear them because their voices will be more resonant with their own calamity, better voices since they will be screaming in even greater terror. The comic actors, the comic actors, the comic actors will then be easy to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown not in the gymnasium but into the flames, unless I have no wish to

look at them then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord." The athletes, do you like this? This is Marquis de Sartre from one of the founders of the faith, jerking off imagining athletes burning in hell, with no justification given by the way, other than they're Greek or Roman athletes. Now, I mean, what this, tell me what this is, or what I quoted to you before from Paul in Corinthians, but tell me what this is if Nietzsche isn't on target, tell me what the interpretation of this is. And now imagine the modern versions, the modern slave incel rage, driven by this same psychological darkness saying the same about Handsome Thursday actually I will not stop posting physiques you know it's your Norwood molding Judaic man in black

robe rages at Handsome Thursday and at fun posting and at physique posting I say to you instead strength through joy you can look this up strength through joy hey hey yes you like my chuckle strength through joy until next time BAP OUT