You are f**king, you are f**king, you f**king, f**king, you bloody, f**k you bloody, b**stard b**ch, f**k you, f**k you, f**k you, f**k you bloody, f**king mother bloody f**k b**ch, bloody f**k you, you, f**king bloody b**stard, b**chwood bloody, b**chwood you, you blunder, no, but why is, bloody no, why, bloody f**king, why you f**k me, I f**k you bloody, bloody b**stard, f**king running like lady, yes, bloody b**chord, yes, bloody b**chord, f**k you, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, b**chord, I like this spirit. You are the fuck. I like what the bureaucrats say. Every Pakistani entourage also has guy in a suit. I walk around with them, his job is to yell, you are the

fuck randomly at strangers. I like this aggressive energy of chaos, of fighting from that part of world. Do you like fighting? Steve Saylor say, the more east you go, the more arrogant men get. Does this true for, I don't know how true for Japan's, the eastmost country, but I think it's true, what you just heard, continue free-ranging spirit of Indra, Tony bearded lord of the chariot. Yes, what you just heard from the Vedas, you know Nietzsche says this about Schopenhauer, he was not a pessimist, despite wanting very much to be and some Schopenhauer followers commit suicide end of 19th century but not Schopenhauer himself. He relished life. You can see this in his writing, full of verve and passion and wrath. He relished his enemies. Hegel, woman,

sensuousness, and not that Hegel implies the other two things I just say, that would be funny, but Schopenhauer needed enemies. Do you agree with this spirit? Enemies and fighting are what always brings you back to life. I myself can't live without antagonism, having everyone shoot at me from all sides, you know, what is life without war? There is no life. I mean literally Phenomenologically for you that I pronounce this right is big what phenomenal they do. There's a dwarf on my tongue I can I'm tongue-tied today Yes Phenomenology is latest culprit for woke left. Did you know they say they have a new? intellectual genealogy. It's now Husserl and Heidegger. That is root of walk left and presumably that means you don't need to say any uncomfortable

racist sound things. You can critique Husserl and once you critique Husserl you write a big essay on Husserl. Of course many people have tried until now but you will write the definitive essay on Husserl or on Hegel and that will just destroys, you know, the woke left will just go away, you know? But really, if you're depressed, it can always bring you back to life, war calls you back to life, and even an inner war for the most spiritual type of man, which isn't necessarily the monkish man, but when you look at Alcibiades and Caesar and Frederick II Hohenstaufen, Nietzsche singles out as the most dazzling specimens of mankind ever generated, maybe, If you want to read, there was a Stefan Gheorghe circle, and he wrote monumental biographies of these men.

The Frederick II Hohenstaufen one is by Ernst Kantorowicz, if you want to read that. And I think Gundolf wrote the one about Caesar. I don't know that a definitive monumental biography of Alcibiades has ever been written. Maybe one of you wants to. But Nietzsche singles these out men as some of the most dazzling specimens-created flowers of the human species. But they were themselves a war. There was a war inside them too, between various impulses. And this hint of decadence within them and the outwitting of it, of that decadence, this also, this struggle called them back to life. The inner fight was one more inducement to life for them. You see, what you can deduce from a fight outside a pakora and lentil curry restaurant, spirit of Indra on his all-ranging chariot indeed.

I have been prophesied to lay the path toward the Chakravartin, this is true. The woke revolution will lead to our own Napoleon, the redeemer of the world. Have you ever bullied an Indian restaurant to go back to cooking with ghee? Yeah, I've tried this, and they pull the whole, we stop the ghee because the saturated fats and unhealthy and vegetable oil are heart healthy, and I bullied them and shamed them. They said they would go back to heritage, but I doubt. I love Thai flavor, but the ingredients Thai restaurant use, of course, are trash. So maybe you make a relationship local Thai place because I like flavor, I like the spices. Thai coconut curry I think is better than South Indian Kerala coconut curry, I think.

But you give them jar coconut oil and you bully them to return to their traditions. And then if you don't want rice, you use quinoa. You see I'm a health show now. I'm a gnostic health show. That's not agnostic, G-N-O, without an A before. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a new thing, the gnostic accusation. And by the way, this show, this variety episode on many things that please me, but in middle sections I'm going to discuss wonderful Nietzsche essay from Genealogy of Morals, where all the recent fights and chimp-outs against me started from which is, if I remember, I paraphrased Schopenhauer's theory of the beautiful and of aesthetics, almost verbatim, and I got 1,000 quote tweets ritually calling me gay, and so I've defended his view because it was

attacked by submorons who didn't even understand it, by yokels, by the yokel right, and of course many on the left, also the dirtbag left, the populist left, who think that ritually invoking slur like this for anything that seems abnormal to, you know, Schopenhauer and Kant theory of beautiful is way out there, man, you not having a normal one. But such people are eager to call this any unusual position, any position that stakes a claim against their debased cult of normalcy and domesticity, their cult of utility. They will call this gay and other things like they will call have not having a normal one. But I defend Schopenhauer and Kant on the idea of the beautiful even though I myself don't especially hold to their views, but to Nietzsche's revision of these instead.

And on this episode I will in the middle sections discuss Nietzsche's attack on this idea that apprehension of what is beautiful is something disinterested or in which especially the erotic desire is subtracted. Although it's not really an attack of this but an extension, an enhancement, a new understanding of this. And Nietzsche explains also the meaning of the ascetic ideal or the ascetic mindset in really one of the most beautiful and perfect essays ever written. The third essay in genealogy of morals on the ascetic ideal and the priestly type. But look, I was thinking about this thing with the restaurant I just told you. You have to treat the city as your place where you are able to bully people and if you like woman you very legally and calmly in a legal

way you pursue her in a hunt, you find her on the street, I'm not encouraging anything I'm just observing that some men choose to do this, this is a historical observation. Friend recently told me he's in Madrid, he likes to walk streets of Madrid at night, It's a great pleasure to do this, by the way, it's one of the few cities in West Europe that is spark-clean, and the other cities of Spain are even more so, in the north especially. But Madrid, compared to other European cities, sparkling clean, beautiful architecture, and wonderful to walk alone at night. There is Boccherini, I think, or how you pronounce Boccherini is the night streets of Madrid, the famous music. I think it was used in Movie Master and Commander. Maybe I'm confusing things.

But he liked to do this, to walk the streets of Madrid at night, and he was especially obsessed with an ex of his, and he find her outside a bar restaurant recently, and Madrid this time of year is quite cold. People don't realize actually Madrid is at the same latitude, more or less, I think as New York or Connecticut or something like this. It's very up, you know, Europe is shifted very up north compared to United States. It's just a blessed continent somehow because jet stream bring cloud cover or a temperate weather, otherwise it would be an ice country like Russia. But I think London is further north than Quebec City, it's very strange, this blessed continent. And even in Iceland, this time of year, often many days, I think this winter actually one

of the coldest on record in Iceland, but historically Iceland, less cold in winter than Northeast United States, which is just hellish, how cold it is. I wonder how pilgrims and so forth, what they thought when they first arrived, the weather there is hellish in winter and hellish in summer, the infernal humidity. The entire east coast of United States is damned, it's doomed, it's a cursed land, I think. So my friend, Waka Madrid, that he sees his ex, he is still, I think, enamored of her. You see her walking out of a bar restaurant and he pursues her, legally at a polite distance he pursues. She does not see him. He keeps his distance and she is with a friend and he goes for many blocks. It's called tradecraft, okay? It's desinformatia, you look desa for those who don't know.

John Schindler from the committee, he tells me, Victoria Newland, she tells me, she teach me these words on the internet. So he goes on these streets and he follows these peoples and eventually she goes into an apartment building with, it's a female friend, they go in together. And so he hides outside a van outside of her apartment building and he waits there. And Madrid this time of year can, yes, it's very hot dry summers, but the winter can get quite cold in Madrid. It's still quite a northern city as cities go, and it can get very drafty, very windy. It cuts right through you, the wind. But so he's hiding behind this van, and eventually he gets bored, and he gets bold, he gets emboldened by the spirit of the fight.

he goes into the stairwell of a building when, you know, somebody else go in, the door opens, you can use that if you are, you just need, you just need to look normal and use a normal charm and he goes in stairwell and as he's doing this, there comes out the friend of his ex and they run into each other and, oh what are you doing, I don't know exactly what conversations they had, but they end up going out for the night together at various bar hopping and this, and he end up making out with, you know, sexors actually, full sexors eventually, I don't know if that night or another night, with this friend of his ex. And so it pays off is what I'm telling you, the spirit of knowing that you own the streets of your cities, that you are a predator, that you can barge into restaurants, force your

oil on them, force the coconut, you see? But what can I tell you? This episode on Nietzsche's ascetic ideal, excuse me, there's a dwarf, they try to put it on the back of my neck, it keeps mocking me, I don't understand this. The sixth hour of the morning is the hour of the demon. This is a whole superstition, I think, I don't know. But I strongly encourage you to read Genealogy of Models, the entire book I think can be read in one or two sittings, and certainly the third essay you can do in one sitting. I mean, re-read it, re-read it if you have before, I re-read it for a show and I just remember it's one of the most perfect things ever written, the art of writing consummate in every sense. But let me talk first some recent online disputes, blood-blasted bank show disputes.

There was one tweet that Elon Musk himself liked, I think two or three days ago, which by now is, last I checked, it's 20,000 retweets, and it was a meme which had me, Jordan, me, Peter, Zorn, and Tate on one path available in life, and that to me is great insult as I don't have anything to do with these men. It's a great misunderstanding of me to lump me together with them, but I think most people who know about my account have no idea what I actually say either in book or on this show or even on my Twitter feed. Some actually think I'm a 1950s conservative who tell people to lift or others still think I am like these two or I don't know. I don't care, but a bit of an insult to be lumped together. But this meme had me, Jordan, Peter, Zon, and Tate on one path available in life.

It is like a forked road. And at the end of the other path was a sign that just be a normal fucking person or human being. I don't know. And it's this that I talk about how important actually is cult of normalcy to the left. And there are people on the right who think we should take on ourselves the banner of normalcy and present ourselves as normal ones, we as normal ones, and in this way we win, we get in a contest to see who is more normal. Because the left now of course are pushing dilation, cutting off your dick and fricory and poly things and many other things and so on. And I understand this tactic, it can have its advantages. If you want to appeal to Magamam for example, you want to mobilize middle class normal fags

then sure. And I wish luck and success to such campaigns. When people try to do this, I don't criticize them. The Rufo campaign I've praised, it's to mobilize normal middle class communities and school boards and so on. But I never understood myself and neither the frogs to be an applause gallery for normal fag and face fag campaigns as good as they may be sometimes these campaigns, but I don't see myself as an auxiliary to that. And I I think multiple strategies can be pursued simultaneously and not all are easily translatable from one world to another. As an online shock force, we have our own methods and actually we have our own aims and our aims are not always the aims of the normal fag and Trump obscured this for a while

because he is a larger than life man who awakened and really it was a surreal moment in 2015 As that year went on from the time he announced, it was a surreal year and people still have not come to terms with what happened. I never thought I'd see in my lifetime that what happened then. White America awakened to fight like that. And this is why the most lurid anime youngin frogs who post the most lurid insane type tweets, they still like Trump. They would never stomp for a stiff like the Santists, okay? was like surreal character partly out of our world, a consummate troll, he was a consummate troll himself, but aside from that I do think it's a misuse, a misunderstanding of what we do best and of our aims actually to push normalcy

because as much as it can be rhetorically useful occasionally the banner of normalcy okay it can be sometimes useful but ultimate the cult actually of normalcy is actually very important to the left okay it's a spiritual basis of their cult of let me tell you what a friend say to all this chimp out over me paraphrasing Schopenhauer on women which of course in this gynocracy if you attack women that's the ultimate in you know you're not having a normal one is the ultimate freak for them if you attack women you know it's it's quite weird actually to call something gay as if this is the world of Oscar Wilde or gays of that type who say catty things about women. In our time, a gay would get absolutely socially ostracized if he said anything off like this about women.

He'd just be crushed, you know. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to get into a discussion with, let's say, bread and butter gays and I got into a talk with them once and I don't know how the subject of women came up and I made some snide remark about feminism, they became extreme defensive and they said that they deserve privileges now because they've been suffering for thousands of years. How does that work? The woman who is alive now has been suffering for thousands of years, I mean even if you accept the idea that they have, don't they also have male ancestors by the way who were exploiters in the model that they hold in their head? How does that work? Do they only inherit by blood the privilege of the victim but not the

exploiter? I don't know. But anyway the gays as they exist now are some of the most conformist people. I just saw this statistic. Ninety-four percent of white gays are vaccinated okay and it's the most the most demographic the most vaccinated demographic next to the extreme olds and why is that I mean the extreme olds are doing it they're afraid of the disease they're afraid of death but for the gays is it a health concern I think it's because they're so incredibly conformist that it's almost a sacrament of prestige of having a normal one to them either they crave normalcy so so much they were also some of the most vicious and hypocritical enforcers of lockdowns as well. I briefly discussed this in book, how they become regime enforcers of conformity of what now passes for normalcy.

Whereas the traditionalist, the fake traditionalist online right, the fake trades, they have this false image of the gays as, oh, they're women hating anarchic estates from a movie or an an old book they read, a stereotype, there's something, when today there's actually these extreme conformist clones and I go on many tangents just to make my case, you see, but consider marriage, let me go on this tangent, consider marriage, and in part because of the legalization of gay marriage, but really before this formal legalization because the very desire of gays to have marriage legalized and to take it upon themselves in the first place, that desire for teachers say it's okay, for my identity is now accepted, my identity I have is the approval and the recognition of others.

You see in the movie about Cheney where his lesboid daughter has a mental breakdown because her meme conformist identity is not recognized by her family and what a slap in the face she takes that to be to her self-worth as a person. but because of this, because of the acceptance of gay marriage now, or rather its legal enforcement, both the gays and the left in general are quite reconciled to marriage, and they have been for quite some time, which again, it's bizarre when I see this fake online trad right, my cradle Catholic real life friends are just confused when they see this. They say they've never met a Catholic like these online ones. it's something else, you know, but the so-called online social conservative who attack me or

others like me are supposedly left-wing for, and I don't even do this by the way, I'm proud to say that my Twitter feed has probably led to more marriages and children, far more than most of these fake closet case, neurotic so-called trades, not only because I've inspired so many men to improve their physiques, which yes, that does help you, by the way, even though that's not why you should do it, but it does help you in that sense. But I have frogs telling me also they met wife in my mentions and such things, and I've seen it happen more than once. So I don't even say this, you know, I don't even say this, but again the criticism that I supposedly tell men not to marry and instead to bang many girls and to play field or whatever

is claimed that I say that not even Hartis said, by the way, his famous Chateau Rossy Rasi Hartis, famous PUA era man. And to claim that this is like the left, and you know, yes, I actually do tell men not to marry a fat pork, a fat pork who wants to settle on you as an ATM at 33 after a decade or more of sucking cocks or wanting to suck cocks in Starkak's bathroom. And Chateau Rasi Hartis is perfectly right about telling you not to accept that, okay? But again, these people are fighting the shadow of a shadow because I'm not aware of anyone on the left who says such things now, as Hartis says, or as I'm alleged to say. Maybe in the 1970s, some on the left did with sexual liberation for men, but the left, and I've known leftists my whole life, and the left simply does not say this now.

They all get married, and yes, with all due respect to Charles Murray, they do not actually promote an ethos of liberation or sexual liberation or whatever of this kind for others, they don't practice it and they do not promote it for others, especially not for men. If you're a man and you, in let's say leftist academic dinner or coffee klatch, not to speak of leftist political coffee klatch in Washington DC or equivalent, if you express skepticism of marriage today, on the left, any of these academic lefts, for example, you're seen as a freak, you're not having a normal one, you know, you're possibly a dangerous incel or PUA, whatever other name they come up with, and this is a hard core, they are all into marriage now, at least for men, okay, the left is, I think they will make marriage

mandatory for men soon, you know, they will just pair you up with random pork, but okay, They are all into it now, culturally, socially, they're into marriage. The left is right now, indisputably. And if you deny that, you do not know them. And they might encourage women to seek their career or even sexual self-realization. Maybe they wouldn't actually put it in those words, by the way. But they might say something like that for women before marriage, although they do not tell women not to get married either. But they would never do that for men, okay? You already live in an equivalent of Saudi Arabia, but where men are targeted for sexual and social control, not women. Just to give you a small story, quite some time ago, when I was in the United States,

I was using a college gym, and I was outside this college gym, and I say it's a college gym to tell you it's not a gym for families and small children and so on. people who would use it would be you know 18 and up and so forth and it was a summer day and I finish using gym and I take my shirt off in front because there was sun I wanted to get some sun after and on that particular day I think the gym was excuse me was being used for some type activity I don't know what there was some event and there were some families there they were walking outside at the time. I could see a mall cop type on a bike circling some distance away and I could see this, you know, I could feel it. He was looking at me, he was one

of these neurotic closet case mall cop types as campus cops often are. And I could see was trying to build his courage up to come to come toward me so he's circling around there looking at me getting sons and he come at me and he starts to question me what are you doing here why do you have your shirt off and this type of thing and he said there have been complaints I mean I I saw him from beginning to end there were no complaints whatsoever you know yeah his His point was that it's somehow indecent or unacceptable to be shirtless in front of a college gym getting sun because there might be a woman or a child nearby walking nearby and so, you know, that is so incredibly indecent in the same ways that track coach, now if

you read articles, newspapers, track coach for high school is forbidden to let the boys team run shirtless. I am not joking, this big deal now United States, you know, it's Saudi Arabia but for men you cannot make eye contact or take your shirt off in front of one of our irascible lower nobles, you know, the women with their hoary pussies, okay, these extreme Virgo roasties, you know, or one of their white knight mall cops on a bike will come, you know, the morality police for going shirtless. It's very similar actually to the type of ginomail, the type of half male who is a ginomail who chimp out, the kind of closet cases and neurotics who chimp out when I post Handsome Thursday. It's exactly the same spiritual term.

But look, I go on many tangents, I was telling you, so in response for example to the chimp out over my paraphrasing Schopenhauer on women and on how their bodies are sexually exciting perhaps but they're not aesthetically pleasing and Schopenhauer has his own reasons for that and yes it's an unusual view especially for modern but these friends say you know the issue with the people who chimp out as with the 13,000 retweets now or 20,000 I guess retweets of just be a fucking normal person, don't be like Bap. And Elon himself liked this tweet, maybe he, you know, we have to convert Elon, he's too much into the rationalist community, but I don't know if my book is a good way to start him. Maybe he should go straight to Nietzsche, maybe someone close to him should force him

to read prologue to Zarathustra, I don't know. But the question is whether their minds are too full of emotional mental blocks to have any kind of interesting conversation about anything, even at a very basic level. How can you have such conversation with someone who has the, sir, this is an Arby's mindset, that kind of thing. Touch Arby's, this is a grass. It's indicative of a certain spiritual lowness that if you ever talk, for example, to a lefty academic girl and I've heard identical stories from friends and you ask them for example what is greatest European civilization in history and they will look at you with no comprehension and answer some type of constipated thing like oh it's not my place to say that

there is no metric for judging that they will say or they'll pretend not to understand or I would talk about European Union and I would mention that the Europe of today for all its supposed prosperity produces no great art or cultural works like that of the Europe of the past. And they will say, there is no way to judge that at all, you know, that's outside my pay grade. And this happened to me. I've heard identical stories from many friends. It's a lack of love of knowledge, of dispute, of spontaneity, irony, and so on. It's minds constrained by literalism and utility and domesticity. And if you try to have a provocative discussion, it's always the response is this over-socialized exaggerated slapstick reactions they get from TV.

Oh, okay, okay weirdo, you know, so okay, you understand the Reddit over-socialized thing, but what means over-socialized? Well, yes, that's exactly the thing you are happen to be swimming in the leftist sea, and it's been a leftist social sea for decades promoting a world of misbegotten natural freaks, but it's entirely possible for something to be normal by convention, but freakish by nature. And the purpose online of frogs, of sensitive young men, isn't necessarily something easily translatable into real-world campaigns, a political campaign to mobilize normal fag moms and such, and nor should it be. Our purpose is different. It is to recover rudiments of nature that are covered up especially by the modern left,

but no less than by also the complacent right, the communitarian right, the shtetl right That would have us become demi-papings. They want you to be a paping, a walking serf ATM, the cops of the shit lib empire for one thousand years. And one thing, sovereignty, which is to say freedom, independence, ownership of territory, we are already seen as not normal. I'd say even by much of the right that has resigned itself to a dependent and woman led existence, those impulses I just named are not normal. So you know, actually come to think of it, while the right can still claim normalcy in relation to the tranny lunacy, it's become even harder for them to do so, for example, regarding immigration restriction.

Because the general culture has been owned so much by utilitarian morality, a low morality of low aims that if you oppose migration, you may be asked why? What sort of hangups do you have? And aside from some very weak economic objection, much of the normal and populist right, they can't really even here mount a convincing objection without it itself feeling that it's not having a normal one. I'm talking about the new populist right now. Racism isn't normal, bro. Racism is cringe, bro. Don't you want a multiracial Christian salt of the earth coalition against the abnormal? And here they go with a gay tranny, lizard people, demon, Nietzschean, Nazi deep state eugenicist thing where the Alex Jones and the Bannon types on the right are seeking

desperately with that kind of thing to reclaim the title of normalcy from the left, you know, but I think not with so much success. They cannot even mount convincing, like I say, on migration regarding that, let alone on something like miscegenation, which some decades ago, and by nature I believe, is rightly seen as unacceptable, but if you stake a position against that, imagine that, you're not having a normal one. And in this connection, note how weak actually is their claim, the populist, social conservative so-called claim, that trannies for example, okay, and what I'm about to say, if you are online you've seen this. This is a wholesome, chong-less, populist right talking point, and populist left too. That trannies, for example, or movements of sexual liberation

like of Foucault, that they are the real Nietzscheans. They are the Nietzschean supermen, right? They are the abnormal ones living beyond law and morality, and we have to be the normal moral ones. And if you're online, you've heard this claim many times, I'm sure. The trannies are the Nietzscheans of our time, Bill Gates is the real Nietzschean, and so on but as with the gays and they're striving for gay marriage and conformism, trannies are not any kind of Nietzscheism, they are actually movement for social acceptance, for normalization, for teachers say all is good, whereas let's say a real sexual liberty and if that was their aim and not identity, they would have no need for acceptance and in fact

they would even disdain it maybe and in fact even they may need to feel like they are trampling on norms to get off but that is not what the tranny thing is about and it's not what the left is at all about today, that's a misunderstanding of them spiritually. But take for example a sadist, the true sadist and not the sadist identity. You don't necessarily want the target to like it if you are a sadist, right? You don't want it to be accepted, I remember I was a Jew dork once, I went into a sadomasochism bar just to look, you know, it's incredibly lame, you know, unconvincing, you know, with these paddles and they lightly, oh so lightly pretended to slap people on their bum bums and it was also genteel like, uh, what is this man? What are you doing? I want hardcore

Satanism. Okay. I want to say the masochistic satanic temple where people are seeing hail Satan man, like in the Rosemary's baby, you know, the church of Satan. Right. But actually, boys and girls, Church of Satan, it's not what you think because we don't promote crime or evil or it's all actually been a misunderstanding. We support loving kindness and peaceful self-realization within reasonable bounds. This is what the new Satanists say and it's like, why is everybody such a pussy now? You know, it's just make a karpokratian church if you want. Say it. Say it. Say crime and atrocity opens the gates to paradise. Say it. Say sin is salvation. They say this liberates the spark of men from within, from the strictures and the law and the darkness of matter. But no, nothing like this.

You think trannies talk this? You think they talk this way? You know, they're broken people hoping for acceptance, for recognition. This is why they all love Hegel. They like Cogev and Hegel. They read Hegel and become a tranny. Hegel tranny amusement park ride. There's your intellectual genealogy any day now for sure. Hegel tranny amusement park Disney ride. Compare with, compare this with, and I give credit here to Alan Bloom who I disagree with him on a lot, but he's right on this one. In famous Stendhal book, The Red and the Black, Julien Sorel protagonist, he carry on a fair multiple women, okay, or Maupassant Bellamy, which is my favorite, one of my favorite books, I don't think Bloom mentions this one, but one of my favorite novel, Maupassant Bellamy,

he has been called a fascist book and the protagonist of Bellamy carries on a fair with multiple married mistresses and uses them to advance in corrupt French society, cynically. And neither one of these men from these books I mentioned has the slightest desire for social approval of their behavior. They don't seek affirmation or recognition or validation of their identity, their behavior, let alone identity that doesn't even cross their mind. They don't even consider at all, is this ethical? Is this ethical? The ethical slut, right? You may have heard the name of this book, well that's, you know, Aela, how you pronounce her name, A-E-L-L-A, the most popular girl on OnlyFans who caters to the rationalist tech community and San Francisco, I don't know who are her customer base, I've heard

It's Pagetes and people in the rationalist community circling around, Elon, I don't know. But Herr Horden, how you pronounce that name, Allah, I don't know, Herr Horden does not offend me, but her speculations on what is and isn't ethical and moral is utterly loathsome to me, right? Because it's not even right to call Nietzschean, but that position is applicable here, is, you know, you don't care, right? But as Bloom noted, there's nothing of this in the gay liberation and other such movements of our time. And that was in the late 1980s, he wrote about it, it was all about we need to get others to approve, to give us validation, otherwise we feel less, you know. And that's what the tranny thing is now too, and it's all part of the relentless drive

to normalcy, the competition to see over who's having a more normal one today. And by definition, those who struggle to return to nature, to recover at least the path back to natural greatness, who can even conceive of thinking in bold new ways like this, sensitive young men like I say, by definition they will never be normal in this pedestrian, utilitarian, domesticized woman-led social miasma. It's really the biome out of which the left oozes its hateful bile. I've been talking for a while, I go now take a quick break. I have people telling me they enjoy when I get to work up with fight and attacks on me. So let me continue then with another recent dispute. Some guy, Jay Rickards, work Heritage Foundation. They're always buzzing around me, these heritage guys. I don't understand.

They have a hard on for me. I don't know. But he said he's reading or listening to my book on audio. Let me read the tweet, you know, listening to Bronze Age mindset on Audible, it's engaging but mostly devoid of anything approaching argument. It is one Delphic pronouncement after another. Some are insightful, some bizarre. He refers to the Jewish hatred of matter, in quotation marks, who is not a normal one. And then James Lindsay is a known homosexual cult leader responds, that's more accurately the gnostic hatred of matter, which he's projected onto Jews because he's either an idiot or an anti-Semite, to which Mr. Ricard replies, yep. And okay, what do you think this? What do you think? The gnostics. The gnostic menace, man. It's hardcore.

Lindsay, this Lindsay the known homosexual was calling me gnostic the other day actually, he was calling me gnostic. And then they got some bantoid on a leash, a new one now, some new fat pile driver who pretends to be, it's always the label, socialist conservative. It's the third or fourth iteration of this that they send after me. They make him a new article today about how frogs are racist, it's very, you know, that's their concern in first things, or is it compact mags, they all move in between these like they do between public rest stops in Tennessee. But it's weird, isn't socialist conservative supposed to be attacking the neoliberal capital or whatever new name for Seaton they've come up with? Shouldn't that be expected target of a dirtbag leftist or whatever these are?

But instead it's 100% or 90% of energy, it's on some obscure online account called Bronze Each Pervert. And on my friends had hired out to write about me and my friends at places like City Journal or Compact Rest Stop. Isn't that odd? How does that happen? After 2016, you thought places like City Journal or this new supposedly conservative magazine would ask Steve Saylor or some smart frog to write for them about the race relations and HPD and so on. And by the way, I'm not talking about myself, they could not afford me. But no, you do not get that. You get some weird bantoid wannabe literary critic or a James Lindsay calling me and my friends gnostics, you know, the real problem of our time, gnosticism.

I mean, you know, Voglin had an essay about this, so it's, you know, it makes you sound smart to trace modern problems back to the gnostics. It's also super safe, right? Very convenient. So James Lindsay is the other day calling me agnostic, and now I'm an anti-Semite, and also I'm projecting my agnosticism onto the Jews. I don't know how this works, Mr. Lindsay. This special form of argumentation I don't know, but let me answer Ricard's and also this claim. The reason, okay, let me restate this. Maybe it's repetition, but repetition of truth always interesting when the truth is interesting. pagan metaphysics, if you want to call it that way, the world is eternal. Nothing is created or destroyed. Things are reborn or reconstituted in different forms.

Everything arises out of acts of generations similar to sexual copulation. Things, even inanimate things, are everywhere impregnated with spirits of different kinds, usually. Many animals are superior to men and holy. And Judaism, metaphysics, created in the reaction Listen to all this, okay? And it's almost an inversion of Babylonian feeling for the gods. In Judaism, the world is not eternal. It was created out of nothing and has an entirely dependent existence. The soul is created also out of nothing. Everything arises out of an abstract god outside the world, talking it into existence. Nothing has any spirit or anything inside it. Matter is dead. It is inert. It's all the creation of a maker. are machines, they are inert as for the use of man, and Adam names them famously in the

Genesis, one of the biggest lies ever told, and so forth. And just to simplify is what I've said now, but Lindsay has no understanding or education in postmodernism at all it seems because the idea I talk about is hardly strange to postmodernism, everything I've said up to now, in fact it's the departing point for many things in postmodernism because Nietzsche's argument is that nihilism comes from the metaphysics of theism, which all is made to depend on the postulated one God, and then this belief in this God leads to total nihilism in regard to everything else, right? It's creation out of nothing is a lie that conflicts with every observation about the world. And in the world you see nothing is created, nothing is destroyed.

It conflicts this idea of creation out of nothing, conflicts with every intuition you have. Every, you could say in the Kantian sense, every a priori intuition about the world. That's why the Greeks and the Romans considered these religions to be atheism, because really that's what theism is. It's atheism plus one. And that one God is made to be, everything is dependent on that one abstract creating maker God. in a way that it's not in pagan theology at all, which is ultimately rooted in an intuitive and imminent animism, you know, but if you look in Old Testament and it's a work of great poetic beauty, okay, poetic genius, I mean, listen to this, I love these lines, this is thrilling, just thrilling Semitic desert fanaticism. The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel says

the Lord, which stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the the spirit of men within him." And that's the line, okay, but look, I can't help myself when it comes to this. He continues, okay, this is from Zechariah, the prophet, it's just, it's just magnificent, it's magnificent fanaticism, okay, you know. And I'm reading now from Zechariah 12, Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem, and in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people. All that burdened themselves with it shall be cut into pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

In that day, says the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment and his rider with madness. I will open my eyes upon…" He keeps going, I, you know, I will skip around a bit, but the poetry, very powerful fanatical. In that day I will make the governors of Judah like an earth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf. They shall devour all the people round about, on the right and on the left, and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place." And he keeps going, and it shall come to pass in that day that I will destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And in that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and He is at His feeble among them, that they shall be as David, and the house of David shall be as God, as

the angel of the Lord before them." You know, okay, that's very interesting. Some people say it's not man who has created an image of God, but only the kings, only the lines of kings, maybe only the line of David, from whom Jesus is of the 14th generation, so they claim. But look, okay, that first line says, "'The Lord which stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of men within him. And despite poetic genius of this, you see also that at least part of this fanaticism is that without this god, everything falls apart. And it's not a big step to deny this god, actually. Then you are left with a world of inert matter, which is not the case with paganism when you deny the gods of paganism, you know.

And the idea that you see matter as dead and inert is already there in the Bible, TBH, TBH, okay? It's already there. It's part of the point made in Marcel Gaucher's book Disenchantment of the World. It's a decent book. It just expands on some niche in the footnotes as almost any modern insight does that's worth hearing. But you would think a critic of postmodernism would be aware of this book, but no, Lindsay is not aware of this. agnostics, you know, he can repeat that. He read a footnote somewhere in Molbag. You know, my friend Loki, he thinks the core of the pagan world view is flux, it's creation, dissolutions, conflict and strife. Much you see, you see the philosophy of that view perhaps in someone like Heraclitus. And that is something that mirrors reality quite closely. You know,

pure monotheism on the other hand mirrors nothing of the sort. And in fact David Hume made this point that polytheism is more likely to be true than monotheism because it reflects world better and more societies have historically believed in something like it. But the big divide is not this monotheism versus belief, it's really atheism and monotheism on one hand and then the native religions of men on the other which are polytheism and animism on the other. That is the big divide, I think, and his point, I think Loki thinks that Christianity or New Testament somewhat reestablishes this older traditional view of the world as one of conflict and flux between multiple forces. I don't know if that's true.

I leave this for biblical exegesis, but the point remains, yes, there is a hatred of matter, and when you contrive your theology to make matter inert and dead, that's what it is. Its existence is contingent on a postulated abstraction that lives outside the universe. But what is there to say is these people are just cloud-chasing internet commentators. They are people who aspire to be on Talmud vision and to yap mouths to impress rubes and they aim to be impresarios for decorous cretinism. But this guy, I think he's a banto, whatever, I don't know who he is. It's again the third or fourth iterations, they keep coming up with a new one every year, socialist conservative, whatever they style themselves, they're being paid whatever small sum to go after me. It's an insult.

Can you guys bring back Tara Isabella Burton again? Can I at least have a roast he fed on me? But this guy, his point, I didn't read his article, but people tell me some article he wrote back, was that he interpreted working out and going to the gym and having a diet you know, as a kind of extreme self-flagellation and nature denial in agnostic sense, right? So how weird is that? How warped does your mind have to be by, is that the adipose tissue impinging on your hungry brain? How deep in body positive feeding fetish culture do you have to be to think that for example an athlete who deny himself certain foods or extra foods or is striving to achieve something physically that this is some type of extremely painful form of world-denying self-flagellation Gnosticism. Right?

It's the Cathar Endura. Look it. Look it up. The Cathars, European Manichaeans or Gnostics even, whose perfects, their saints and priests, in some cases they underwent this right of Endura, which means that they starved themselves to death to achieve liberation, nirvana, moksha, same as there is a Japanese practice I mentioned on show before, self-mummification, same actually as the early Christian Stylite saints, maybe, who they inspired such terror in late antiquity. They lived on abandoned columns and they let their legs atrophy in expectation of transport. The Cathar and Dura, right? Not quite though, but to someone like this guy or maybe like Mr. Lindsay, it seems, denying yourself dessert buffet, donut pastry, glazed cruller stuff your stomach, to deny yourself

this is something equivalent to the Cathar Endura, you know, and feeding fetish culture it's inconceivable, you know, and that's about the level of critics that I have now. You know, in the case of Mr. Rickards of Heritage Foundation I will be generous and say he's just pretending to be stupid so he can say he enjoyed some parts of my book, but that's okay. You know, if you are a face fag you don't need to say anything at all about it. I don't need, it's not for you. Anyway, so it's good to discuss Nietzsche actually on precisely just these matters and I will be right back Absolutely unconditional atheism does not stand opposed to this ideal. I am reading now I will explain to you what this ideal is in a moment unconditional absolutely

unconditional atheism does not stand opposed to this ideal as it only appears to it is much rather only one of its last Stages of development one of its concluding forms and in early logical outcomes It demands a reverence, this catastrophe of 2,000 years of breeding for the truth which concludes by forbidding itself the lie of a faith in God. The same process of development in India, which was fully independent of Europe and therefore proof of something, the same idea forced things to a similar conclusion. The decisive point was reached five centuries before the European calendar with Buddha or more precisely with the Sankhya philosophy, for it was popularized by Buddha and made into a religion, putting the question as forcefully as possible, what really triumphed over the Christian God?

The answer stands, and he give example of just, I stop reading now, but this is from Third Essay of Genealogy of Morals toward the end of it, where Nietzsche is explaining that there is actually an inner process by which the monotheism I talk about leads directly atheism, it is by almost logical necessity within itself. And he deals of course with Christianity because it's philosophically interesting, whereas the other two, Judaism and Islam, are already dead religions and they're not so interesting at all. But presumably they contain the seeds of their own destruction in the same way, in their rather inert utilitarian religions in any case, so not worth talking about now, but he has ingenious idea for how it happened that Christian morality destroys Christian dogma,

and now we are in an age where we are left without Christian religion, but we are left with its residues, the Christian morality, which then becomes warped in various, let's say, in liberalism, anarchism, socialism, and many such different things, you see. But that is toward the end of this essay and I am rather concerned with a different part. I won't talk to you this beautiful essay, essay number three of Genealogy of Morals from Nietzsche on this segment. Because this, how a dispute started some time ago, I paraphrased Schopenhauer's idea of of aesthetics, can you look at something, can you be spectator and perceive what is beautiful for example if your needling will, if your desire for some other goal gets in the way of you just sitting there and observing it with pleasure.

Let me say it in a simple way, observe something with pleasure but your will, your anxiety, your desires for something else gets in the way. Can you actually then perceive it as beautiful? I think the answer is obviously you cannot. If you define things literally enough, you can't, right? If you're looking at a sculpture, for example, while thinking how to extract the raw material from that sculpture to resell it, you know, to melt down for copper or something like this or to melt down a gold sculpture, and so you're looking at it for its weight in gold and how much money that would make you. And in a similar way, actually, the vast majority of art academics, maybe most art appraisers of various kinds, art critics of the type, especially Tom Wolfe criticizes the modern art critic.

They do not look at this or that piece to enjoy it. Maybe they're even unable to visually enjoy something anymore, but they look at it as an object in a kind of game of, verbal game of status and prestige that is quite alien to the qualities of the visual art itself. It becomes social object of prestige mongering, even perhaps in some cases money laundering object for extraction, right? So I met one unfortunate creature some time ago, I think he probably transitioned by now, but he was such a weak washed out character who he was saying with smugness that he went into art criticism and art history because he liked looking at art but that after a while in that field, you learn no longer to enjoy art in that way, and he was referring to that

as if it was something naive and vulgar, you see, because if you're truly an expert, an expert at it, if you make it your livelihood actually, it becomes something else. Something else. He used these words. And maybe he wanted it to be understood that it becomes something high, like it become intellectualized in some sexy way, but really you know what it meant is it's a prop in these kinds of people's polemics at best, you know, if they're even capable of disputation anymore. But it's like I say, it's an object to write an article in a journal, to make a wage, to position yourself in scramble for whatever passes for prestige in that world. And similarly you can think on same but less bad or somewhat higher level from let's say

Schopenhauerian point of view, if the object depicted in the painting, if it is too sexy a woman, or if the food looks too tasty, if it's a painting of food, it takes away from the aesthetic apprehension of the beautiful because the appetites then that have nothing to do with that absorption in pure perception get in the way. Which is funny if you think he said, if you think about this, I think he said Dutch still paintings, and he sees some of these as pinnacle of art in some way, but he said it's not good when they present food that look too tasty, it gets in the way. I don't know if to agree with that, but I do know that in analog, if you like listen classical musics and you listen to, for example, famous pianist Artur Rubinstein and the sound he make on the sound he elicits

from the piano. I do not know music fag, it's not called rhetoric, terminology, right? Is Is it called timbre? I don't know what the particular word for, but the actual sound of the piano, he makes it so lush and sensuous, I don't really like to listen to his recording. It takes away from the pure enjoyment of the music for me, and it's the same with certain orchestral recording that pay too much attention to sound quality or homogenize it or too much attention to the technology of recording it. I think Deutsche Grammophon does certain things in this regard, whereas actually the most moving music sometimes you hear on very old, very bad recordings, you know, and in these senses and more you can, I think, very strong support the claim I made and the claim Schopenhauer

and Kant uphold in a much better way than I can do here, is that your personal interest, utility, will, appetites even, they get in the way of apprehension of the beautiful and And that perception of something beautiful has to be somehow separated from your own petty interest in it, that is, even actually the beautiful is a release from the struggles of will that you might be undergoing, you know, in the same way that you will not perceive the beauty of a hillside in autumn and the colors of the leaves and so forth and the undulations of the hills and so, if you are full of anxiety or if you are full of a need of some other kind. But actually the opposite, such a beautiful view can even jolt you out of your petty self-involvement. And is that the key to it? Is that what the beautiful is?

And in all these senses and more, I think Schopenhauer and Kant are right, but they are also incomplete because everything I just said may be true, but it's all from the point of view of the spectator, right? So it's from the point of view of what you would call, you know, people online now would use this word the consumer, let's be more fancy, use the word, be more precise use the word spectator, you know. And there's no need I think to privilege this view of the spectator over that of he who makes the work of art, shouldn't the point of view of the artist himself take precedence and then something else appears maybe that was missed in all of this discussion. So leaving alone Schopenhauer's otherwise wonderful observation that for many writers

their first book, which in some cases it was composed when the writer was poor, was not expecting success, not expecting recognition, you know, they're not looking around in expectation of their audience and so forth, but simply writing for their own enjoyment, their own delight, their diletto, right? They were dilettantes in the best sense then when they were writing their first book and And that's often the best one and he gives some examples. Whereas the second and third book, after they have success and they've made money and they know they can expect money and they're doing it for money, more money, more fame, more this, and then such utilitarian motivated productions according to him are often less

good than that which was composed in obscurity and so to speak for its own sake, for enjoyment of its own sake. But this aside, Nietzsche nevertheless has some power criticism of the Schopenhauer view of the beautiful, which isn't really actually in the end the same as the Kantian, as I will show in a moment. And this is again the third essay from Genealogy of Morals. The Genealogy of Morals is Nietzsche's book that is maybe most beloved by leftist academics but it's probably never read by them because actually it's one of his most explicitly right wing books. I mean there are Wignat storm frontier passages in this book, white nationalist, online white nationalist commentator passages in this book, like in essay one, aphorism five, where he

talks about the pre-Aryan Europe and how the words for good and bad men in various ancient European languages track with words for light and dark coloring of hair and so on. You know I will post that passage, it will cause another, actually you know what I'm going to do the same thing. I will post in my own words, and after the chimp out, I will post the passage, you know, and I'll have leftoids. I mean, there are leftoids who are genuinely unaware Nietzsche even wrote something, you know, such things, you know. But anyway, this is the third essay where he criticizes Schopenhauer's view of aesthetics, with which I call such chimp out by paraphrasing almost verbatim, and yes, I know it was mostly just submarines taking it as an opportunity to dunk on me in particular because they don't

like me, but it is in itself a striking view, Schopenhauer view that should someone keep open mind to, at least open mind to dispute and debate, rather than, you know, have response a touch grass friend, you are not having a normal one, but anyway, the third essay, yes, it is master work both in philosophical content, psychological insight, also just art of writing, I was amazed to reread it for this episode and remember how well-crafted this essay is. It's a classic, it's maybe the ultimate statement in something you can call perspectivism, but really it's a kind of moral relativism, right? Moral relativism doesn't, shouldn't mean hey man, anything go, it's all cool, that's a trivial point, you know, you can't and shouldn't judge anything.

No, moral relativism is this, where Nietzsche takes a phenomenon, a moral phenomenon, in this case asceticism, ascetic behavior, or more actually what he called the ascetic ideal, and he show how it's meant different things to different type of people, how it's worth, whether it's something good or bad, actually changes depending on who it is who holds this ideal and why and how. And he goes into micro example to make his case, and you see, right, this is true psychological insight. This is through moral thinking. You know, moral thinking, I'm sorry, any true moral thinking has to be relativist of this kind because moral legislation, which is what most people think about when they talk about moral thinking, moral legislation by contrast

is by definition imperfect. It has to be one size fits all. To the extent it loses sight of the difference between man and man, between need and need, of the hierarchy between man, It becomes a species of anti-nature that in the worst cases causes harm to the higher for the sake of social peace and ultimately it stunts and really in most cases it beats down man. It turns him into a domesticated deformed beast. That has been the result of almost all, I'd say 99% moral systems in world history. But I will read for you the first aphorism in this essay because it's a condensation of Nietzsche's entire point here, okay? I'm reading now. What do ascetic ideals mean? Among artists, they mean nothing or too many different things. Among philosophers and scholars,

they mean something like having a nose or an instinct for the most auspicious conditions of a higher spirituality. Among women, at best, one additional seductive charm, a little morbidetza on beautiful flesh, the angelic quality of a nice-looking, plump animal. among physiologically impaired and peevish people, that is, among the majority of mortals. Let me repeat that. Among physiologically impaired and peevish angry people, that is, among the majority of mortals, ascetic ideal are an attempt to imagine themselves as too good for this world, a holy form of orgiastic excess, their chief tool in the fight with their enduring pain and boredom. Among the clergy, they are the essential priestly belief, their best instrument of power and also the highest of all permits for power.

Finally, among the saints, they are a pretext for hibernation, their novissia, excuse me, their novissima gloriae cupido, most recent desire for glory, their repose in nothingness, god in quotation mark in parentheses, their form of insanity. However, the fact that generally the ascetic ideal has meant so much to human beings is is an expression of the basic fact of the human will. It's horror vacui, horror of the vacuum. It requires a goal and it prefers to will nothingness than not to will. Do you understand me? Have you understood me? Not in the slightest my dear sir. So let's start from the beginning and I end quote. That's how the essay starts and it's in a nut case, is that the expression? In a nutshell, it's the whole point of the essay.

And I cannot discuss this whole essay here, but Nietzsche goes into many examples. He starts with the case of Wagner and how Wagner was seduced and actually corrupted by Schopenhauer's philosophy. How he came to misunderstand himself and his own art in the service of this philosophy late in his life. How and why he became enamored with asceticism, the ascetic ideal in his late opera Parsifal. It's actually a very insightful thing Nietzsche say here about Wagner's music, it's unrelated actually to my point in this segment, there's no direct relationship, but I want to go on this tangent because it's interesting, Wagner was primarily before this opera he made toward the end of his life, merciful, extolling the ascetic ideal of a kind of saintly fool.

But before this, and he made this in service of Schopenhauer's philosophy with which he had become enamored, in the same way that many artists did toward the end of their life in 19th century, Tolstoy, very famous also, same type pathway almost as Wagner. But Wagner was primarily before this dramatic and tragic artist, he was a theater fag, okay, He was a good theater writer, and he used music too, of course, but he was using music for dramatic ends, and I think not vice versa, which apparently, when he sent Schopenhauer a copy of his ring, Schopenhauer remarked, this man has far more talent as a dramatist than as a musician. You know, Schopenhauer did not like this kind of music, so he liked Rossini, he liked melodies, things of that sort,

in the same way that Nietzsche liked Berlioz or Bizet. And you will hear Jörne Hörz denies this and say that, oh, it's unlikely that Schopenhauer would have preferred Rossini to Wagner or whatever. But I think it's very likely because men like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, their inner life is so dramatic. They are looking for music, for relaxation to kick back. They're looking for to chillax, to chillax with musics. And something like Rossini, where the beautiful melody transports them away from heavy drama. I think they appreciate that, you know. Same way, you should listen to Debussy, I like this, but I saw Frog today say that he went on a repeat diet, all sugar, and now he loves Debussy, he loves anime girl. What does that mean? But so anyway, once Wagner encountered

with Schopenhauer philosophy, which was becoming predominant in Germany in, yeah, 1970s, And Schopenhauer elevates music by a series of very interesting reasonings and observations and wild rhetoric, but Schopenhauer identifies music, he says, it's not just another kind of art, it's its own thing, it's not just a representation of the one inner will of the world, but it is in some way the will itself reproduced, it is the inner essence of the world reproduced in a third form. So you know his famous book, The World as Will and Representation. Music appears as the same thing but in a third way. It's hard to explain because we'd have to go into Schopenhauer metaphysics and maybe I do show on that in future. But in some sense to condense it, it's really the voice of God.

Music is the voice of God for Schopenhauer. And Wagner, seeing this and reimagining his mission, no longer as a dramatist and expert musical miniaturist, but he imagined now himself as something else entirely, as a musician whose mission it was to reproduce the inner voice of the one will, the voice of God in other words. So Wagner then of course took upon himself the moral reimagining of the world late in his life with again this opera Parsifal that Nietzsche both praises and attacks, but it It is a consequence of this change that the moral inversion or reimagining in Wagner arrives, that he embraces the ascetic ideal because of this new vision, this change in himself and of his mission as an artist. It's a kind of vanity and self-misunderstanding maybe.

But Nietzsche goes on in this essay, and I don't want to cover it here in detail, he go on to treat the ascetic ideal as it was held in different ways and for different purposes by philosophers, by priests, by the people, by saints, as you see in opening paragraph I read for you. And then there's a knockout end, a revelation end to it after he discusses how Christianity canceled itself by means of this ideal. But anyway, you go read it. But for you here, I will read one aphorism from this essay. let's say, moderate length art aphorism, I hope you do not mind, but it covers really everything there is to say about what I've talked about on last couple of episodes regarding the apprehension of the beautiful, okay? So I will read for you now. Schopenhauer used Kant's formulation

of the aesthetic problem, although he certainly did not examine it with Kantian eyes. Kant thought he had honored art when among the predicates of the beautiful gave priority to and set in the foreground those which constitute the honor of knowledge, impersonality and universal validity. Here is not the place to explore whether or not this is for the most part a false idea. The only thing I wish to stress is that Kant, like all philosophers, instead of taking aim at the aesthetic problem from the experiences of the artist, the creator, Kant thought instead about art and the beautiful only from the point of view of the looker on, and in the process, without anyone noticing it, brought the spectator himself into the concept of the beautiful.

If only these philosophers of beauty had also been at least sufficiently knowledgeable about this spectator, that is, as a great personal fact and experience, as a wealth of very particular strong experiences, desires, surprises, and delights in the realm of the beautiful. But I fear the opposite has always been the case. And so from the very start, we get from them, from these philosophers, definitions like that famous one which Kant gives for the beautiful in which the lack of a finer self-experience sits in the shape of a thick worm of fundamental error. The beautiful, Kant said, is what pleases in a disinterested way. In a disinterested way, let's compare this definition with that other one formulated

by a true spectator and artist, Stendhal, who once called the beautiful promise de bonheur, a promise of happiness. And yes, I will always pronounce French with unapologetic East European accent. I like this. I do not like to pretend. I like in France you meet East Europeans, I like the ones who don't try to mask the East European or Russian pronunciation of French. And actually, you know, the American pronunciation of French with thick American accent can be very charming in its own way if it's done unapologetically. But I continue to you to read, yes, here at any rate, the very thing which Kant emphasizes in the aesthetic state is clearly rejected. He's talking about Stendhal's definition. So here at any rate, the very thing which Kant emphasizes in the aesthetic state is

is clearly rejected and deleted. There's interest amount, disinterestedness. This disinterestedness, being disinterested in the definition of beautiful is rejected by somebody like Stendhal, a true artist. Who is right, Kant or Stendhal? Naturally, if our estheticians never get tired of weighing the issue in Kant's favor, claiming that under the magic spell of beauty, people can look even at unclosed female statues without interest, we are entitled laugh a little at their expense. In relation to this delicate matter, the experiences of artists are more interesting, and Pygmalion was in any event not necessarily an unaesthetic man. Let's think all the better of the innocence of our estheticians which is reflected in

such arguments. For example, let's count it to Kant's honor that he knew how to lecture on the characteristic properties of the sense of touch with the naivete of a country parson. He makes some fun of Kant here, I interject for a moment. And this same idea, by the way, is repeated by Nietzsche. I remember the words, but I don't remember exactly where he say this, if it was, I think, maybe in Twilight of the Idols, but he uses a similar criticism of this idea of the disinterested perception of the beautiful, and he criticizes Schopenhauer, he say, you know, Schopenhauer, you say that perception of the beautiful edits out all eroticism, but actually, what is the What is it that the beautiful, the shimmer, the hue, and so forth, what is it that it

actually reproduces for the perceptive spectator Schopenhauer? He makes a little hint there, a very suggestive passage. I go back to reading from this aphorism now. This point brings us back to Schopenhauer, who stood measurably closer to the arts than Kant, but who nonetheless did not get away from the spell of the Kantian definition. How did that happen? The circumstance is sufficiently odd. He reinterpreted the word disinterested in the most personal manner from a single experience which must have been something routine with him. There are few things Schopenhauer talks about with as much confidence as he does about the effect of aesthetic contemplation. In connection with that, he states that it counteracts sexual interest in particular and thus acts like lupulin or camphor.

It's an anaphrodisiac, right? never got tired of extolling this emancipation from the will in quotation marks as the great advantage and use of the aesthetic state. Indeed we could be tempted to ask whether his basic conception of will and idea in quotation mark will and representation the notion that there could be a redemption from the will only through representation might have taken its origin from a universalizing of that sexual experience. With all questions concerning Schopenhauer's philosophy, incidentally, we should never fail to consider that it is the conception of a 26-year-old young man so that it involves not merely the specific details of Schopenhauer, but also the particular details of that time

of life. If, for example, we listen to one of the most expressive passages from the countless ones he wrote to honor the aesthetic state, and he's quoting now from World as Will and Representation, we hear its tone, the suffering, the happiness, the gratitude uttered in words like these. That is the painless condition, he's quoting Schopenhauer now. That is the painless condition which Epicurus, valued as the highest good and as the condition of the gods. From that moment, we are relieved of the contemptible drive of the will. We celebrate a holiday, then Sabbath, from the penal servitude to the will. The wheel of Ixion stands motionless. He stops quoting Schopenhauer now. What vehemence in the words! What a picture of torment and long weariness!

What an almost pathological temporal contrast between that moment and the usual wheel of Ixion, the penal servitude to the will, the contemptible drive of the will! But assuming that Schopenhauer were right a hundred times about himself, what would that provide by way of insight into the essence of the beautiful? Schopenhauer wrote about one effect of the beautiful, the way it calms the will. But is it a regularly occurring effect? Stendhal, as mentioned, a no less sensual person, but with a natural constitution much happier than Schopenhauer's, emphasizes another effect of the beautiful. The beautiful promises happiness. To him, the fact of the matter seemed to be precisely the arousal of the will, of interest by the beautiful. And could we not finally object about Schopenhauer himself,

that he was very wrong to think of himself as a Kantian in this matter, that he had completely failed to understand Kant's definition of the beautiful in a Kantian manner, that even he found the beautiful pleasing out of an interest, out of the strongest and most personal interest of all, that of a tortured victim who escapes from his torture. And to come back to our first question, what does it mean when a philosopher renders homage to the ascetic ideal? We get here at least our first hint. He wants to escape a torture. And I end here reading of this full aphorism, it's number six, essay three, from Genealogy of Moral. Yes, do you like this? Well, Nietzsche go on to discuss what this ascetic ideal means for the philosopher.

And for the philosopher and the scholar and similar men, the ascetic ideal may actually be a great good, you know, to go monk mode. It may be a necessity for such type of men, a condition of their reaching that point where their abilities, their claws and talents can come out. you know, their most highly developed condition to unleash their might upon the world. But it has got nothing to do with virtue, you see, in that sense. You know, not as the word virtue is normally understood anyway. Nietzsche is very strong on this. Nothing to do with virtue any more than an athlete's training or abstaining from certain things, including sex. That also has got nothing to do with moral virtue as it's normally understood, right?

It's done for reasons entirely different than, say, what a normal fag, which, you know, if you remember right, this is incomprehensible to an obese, distended spirit who celebrates body-positive, sex-positive, you know, you have to, are you a healthy, wholesome, chongous man who, are you having a normal one, are you porking your fat wife, are you into a feeding fetish, domestic at life, like I mentioned before, you know, for whom self-abstention from Chinese donut buffet is some great gnostic anti-material self-flagellation, right? It's the cathar and dura of having to not stuff your face with general chicken, all you can eat noodle, sweet sour pork, right? Okay, so it's gotten to where this is impossible for many people to understand, but anyway,

so Nietzsche explains in many ways then with reference actually to this nice line from the Buddha, you know, the home is a place of filth. I use this in my book, how philosophers and men like the Buddha avoid family life and woman and even see intercourse as a potential enemy, not just because a release of vital essence actually destroys your spiritual focus for greater tasks, but also because of this. Not because they're so good and they're holy and chaste and they abstain from it in order to be saints, but because they see it as a potential shackle, an obstacle in their liberation from such constraints that would get in the way of their intellectual and spiritual mission. But of course this doesn't apply at all to the rest of mankind.

So Nietzsche is not in this essay recommending here how you should live. That all depends on one's physiology. And moralizing about it is, you know, that's why moralizing about such things is stupid. But of course moralizing is how the common man and his demagogues is how they get the upper hand. the sick get the upper hand over well-constituted people. So much of this essay is about that, about what means the ascetic ideal, not necessarily for men like Buddha or Plato or Schopenhauer or even a capable, well-constituted scholar, nor for an athlete, but what it means for the physiologically botched mass of men, petty, full of rage, and for their medical demagogues, I mean their priests. And I can only refer you to his essay to see for yourself the many examples and so on that he gives.

But I will tell you here, end of this essay, it's an amazing end, one of the most revelation insights ever. Because you know, peoples, peoples have had each their different goals, for each people a different aim, a different god, a different goal, breed a different type of man. But when you look away from historical peoples, when you look at mankind as such so far, what has there been for mankind? And so far, the only goal postulated for men as men has been this, various forms of the ascetic ideal, whether it's the universal religions of mankind that spread at the same time roughly starting 2,000 to 2,500 years ago, Christianity and Buddhism, or whether it's popularized Socratic or Platonic philosophical ethics, whether finally it's modern movements, but okay, we'll not touch on that.

But he just outright says, if we leave aside the ascetic ideal, then man, the animal man has up to now had no meaning, right? The only attempt to give man meaning as man has basically been that, Christianity and Buddhism. They're basically only game in town for man as man. His existence on earth, aside from this, has had no postulated purpose yet. And so here you have the whole of any attempt to posit a name so far for man as man was based fundamentally on a physiological or biological political misunderstanding where the – I'm greatly simplifying here, you know, for shock effect – but where the philosopher or the sage, the wise man, as part of the necessity for his survival in a hostile world, he had to misrepresent what was fundamentally not a virtue for men as men, what was actually

just a very particular condition of his own existence. He had to misrepresent this drive to asceticism, however, as a virtue for all. He had to come disguised in the garb of the priest and the moralist merely to survive, to be allowed to carry on his true pleasure in private. The drive for knowledge and the ravenous hunger to unveil truth in the world, to have insight into the world and so forth. But yet this propagation of this morality as also the saintly man's propagation of the same under a similar necessity and misunderstanding. All of this led in long run to a kind of insane asylum, a kind of parasitic universal morality of man as man once the religious aspects die off. That is what is left, this parasitic universal morality that does nothing but promote the

interests of the sick, the invalid, that represents ultimately when it gets pushed through the The big snoods filter, right, when it gets filtered down to the practical day-to-day life of the mass of men and the lives of nations. It translates into the infection of life, into the corruption of healthy life by sick life. And now, with, however, the death of these religions and the unmasking again of men's natural life to full view, to the full view of all, there appears, alongside this nihilism, the opportunity to formulate for the first time with a view back to the heights of men, Archaic Greek, to formulate for men the true and natural order of values based on the true and natural biological order. I believe in this, and the laboratory for this will be under the protection of a tropical

club of excellence. There will be massive orgies, okay, not just massive orgies, okay, very good. Until next time, bat out!