I want to read for you an amazing passage that I may have referenced before. I am reading, these Indians whom I have described have intercourse openly like cattle. They are all black-skinned like the Ethiopians. They are seamen too, which they ejaculate into the women, is not white like other men's, but black like their skin, and resembles in this respect that of the Ethiopians. These Indians dwell far away from the Persians, southwards, and were not subjects of King Darius. End quote. This from Herodotus, book three of the histories, and this Caribbean rhythms, episode 132, and the question is, how did Herodotus know this? Did he witness public copulation, Ethiopia style? Did he watch the man from Rajasthan publicly gangbang?

Did he take trip down Red Sea to, for purposes of elucidation, watch this pornography? Or was it word of mouth? Is this in fact true? Do any of you have experience? Listen, where's their masturbation at Plato's academy? I ask the important questions on these shows. Where's their masturbation at the academy? Plato. I mean it was noticed in the ancient world that certain philosophers like Diogenes the Cynic acted like schizo-homeless bum and masturbating public. And if you understand that also, you know, Socrates in some of the dialogues, he's quite an abusive homeless schizo as well. I mean, consider the dialogue Hippias Major, okay, where Plato represents this character in the speech of Socrates that sounds very rude, but actually the historical Socrates was very much probably like that.

Basic schizo homeless bum screaming in your face on the street, of course he was executed. This one of my favorite dialogues, by the way, the Hippias Major by Plato. Some pedants say it's not real dialogue, but that it was attributed to Plato by a public masturbator and this, I don't know, Byzantine monk interpolated this dialogue into the Platonic tradition between bouts of obsessive masturbation. But listen, the Socrates you see in this dialogue is, as I tell you, a quite abusive man, and I think it is here or is it, I may be confusing it, but Socrates also asked the question, Is it ugly, is it really ugly to jerk off in public, or is that just something people say? It's just that your opinion, man, is that, you know, what do you think went on at the Academy of Plato?

Do you think they had banned masturbation and had a type of Sharia police officer check on the adepts with some type of a lamp or torch? Do you think it was encouraged, actually, do you think masturbation was encouraged? Or none of the above? They have dorm room style accommodations for students from out of town at the academy and what happened was their winner take all wrestling at night in the showers. Look ask, as I tell you, the important world-defying question on this show. This is actually an important matter I think when it comes to monasteries. I mean the practical aspects of what happens in such places. Is it a trust system or is there a Buddhist monk, for example, charged with making sure the initiates are not jerking it and such.

I mean, opinion differs on these matters, you know, whether you should practice NoFap or not. There are frogs who believe, you know, but how do you control these things? These are important questions on the dissident right these days. I mean, since most of us got censored, you have these, you know, they call themselves religious thinkers and theologians and some of them say they're Catholic conservatives or whatever. The real name would be ultra-montanist Jesuit liberals. People who would wish to submit the right to a theological view because then it is easily controlled by a central authority. But you have these Jesuits, really, and they want really the same kind of economic racial redistribution, the left ones, and they are the type who think if you don't live in a

hovel where a Jesuit like them can watch your son, if he jerks off and you can control that, and if you don't approve of this arrangement and you call it maybe the longhouse, then you might be a modernist Anglo-Judaic capitalist. who objects to but excuse me excuse me it's all about how you dress up living in a hovel these days ladies and gentlemen what matters is what color ornament will adorn your shack in a favela you know it's not it's not a futuristic pod in a city but a hovel in an excerpt or such and it's sanctified if you pray and you have a family in that hovel in that case that's traditional and that's good you know so you know what matters is what flavor Haiti you get you see but more on this later yes the passage with the black seed of the Ethiopians and Indians.

How did Herodotus know that? If anyone ever asks you whether ancient writers ever talk race, well basically geography is very big, conquering geography, ancient world, hard distance meant that their world, they didn't come into contact with the three or four main races that we distinguish today, but they certainly noticed it when it's brought up as you see. And then again, take for example, Aristotle Politics Book Five. Let me, let me quote from that also. This is from Aristotle now. Also, difference of race is a cause of faction until harmony of spirit is reached. For just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence, most of the states that have either to admit the joint settlers or additional

settlers, immigrants, have split into factions. For example, and he continues, I will not read off all the names, he continues with very many examples from the Greek world about how difference in their ethnicities, which he calls race, how this caused troubles for so many Greek states. So of course he believes that Dorian and Ionian might not get along in a state, but because he does not say the magic word Negro or black or other such things that are recognizable to a burger reader, he must therefore have denied the natural reality of race. And certainly he would have looked down on modern racists who happen to say the same thing, you know, right? So, Dorian, Ionian, it's okay to say they don't get along, but extend that a little

bit and it becomes a kind, they call it liberal racist modernism, you know. You might also find the same kind of liberal racist modernism in Federalist number two, by the way, I think by Jay, if you want to go in that direction. I don't know why I bothered to repeat these things. I suppose because the lies of the Conservatives, their cowardly lies are so obscene, you know, on this matter of the reality of race, as also on the lies closely related to this regarding religion, how supposedly a commonality of religion can bridge differences between people or even serve as the basis of civilization. So it's interesting that encountering this delusion in his own time, Gobineau pointed out that it's a species of theological modernism actually.

Don't tell that to the Christ-cuck theologians who try to use their religion to say that racism is evil and traditional religion is anti-racist and racism is the product uniquely of modern capital, they like this word, but because Gobineau points out Christianity was never meant to belong to one particular political system or level of civilization or level of wealth or economic system or any such thing, but to offer the promise of salvation to all souls no matter what their station or intellect or capacities for civilization. You see, in a similar religion, in the sense that it's international, in Buddhism, if you read Lotus Sutra, this point repeated again and again, you have to adapt to whatever the local politics are, you have to learn the local language and many such things.

kinds of religions, they operate on a level different from what level of civilization, what kind of political system you have. And so to ascribe to Christianity or any other religion the power to confer civilization, as for example this man E. Michael Jones who raised a scandal recently regarding his comments on Japan and so forth, but he's always said this. I don't like to attack him. I have many friends who love E. Michael Jones. But when he says that without Christianity Europe would be Africa in a recent interview and then I ask, well, why is Africa Africa? What is most of the Congo? It's nominally Christian at least. Or you can see, well, they're not real Christians. Okay, so who is? What is Rwanda?

Why are American blacks the way they are after 500 years of Christianity, which was unable apparently to bring them to the same level of civilization or even to make a united people out of the Americans, right? 500 years of the same religion did nothing. In general, the same is true for Buddhism, it's true even for Judaism, which is said to be an ethnic religion, but when you look at how Yemenite Jews, Georgian mountain Jews, others I've mentioned on previous show, they have a level of civilization and of intellect similar to those of their neighbors. And as Cochrane and Harpending say, the ones of antiquity from Roman times, who probably up to 10% of Roman Empire, by the way, was Jewish because they proselytized. But they had no special reputation for intelligence at that time.

The Greeks at that time did. And Cochrane and Harpending used this factoid to make the case that Ashkenazi intelligence developed uniquely in Middle Ages and so forth. But it is, by whatever evolutionary means it developed, it's very much a product of European civilization. It does not appear among, again, Yemenite Jews who have very little to nothing in common with the Ashkenazi, in other words, literally the Scythian or German rather than Jews. Or in all these cases that Aristotle mentions, it was the ancient Greeks, they shared the same religion, the same values, the same Bible, and Homer's Iliad acted as a sort of Bible for them, the same gods, more or less. And they shared pan-Greek religious festivals, sporting games, not only at Olympia, but there

were quite a few others as well, like Nemean or Isthmian games, which never stopped even during war. And yet none of these things were ever able to bridge the gap even between the different Greek ethnies. They stayed at each other's throats, especially Dorian and Ionian and so forth. So no religion can do that or is even meant to do that. The idea that it's meant to do that, that is the modernist delusion that tries to find a utilitarian and political basis for what religion is supposed to do. So more recently, this same man, E. Michael Jones, I don't like to pick on him, but he just said it so blatantly, but look, I don't know if it's true. An old poster even says he outsources his Twitter to some Zoomer, so who knows? I don't mean to attack him in particular.

But he says how Japan has a major demographic problem, a crisis apparently, and this can only be solved by importing Filipinos because being Catholic they're supposedly prolific and have many children. And this point is not unique to him, it's repeated by the Libtard and Neocon mainstream of United States commentariat and government, which are constantly trying to push mass migration on Japan as supposedly a solution to its so-called crisis. But some have pointed out in reply that even now in the Philippines, in the Philippines itself that is, the birth rate is at 1.9 children per woman, so even there it's sub-replacement, and foreign women in Japan have a lower birth rate than native Japanese women.

This has been a long trend, and many such things, which show you these sentiments expressed in this case and similar for the replacement of the Japanese people by another have nothing to do with wanting to solve Japan's so-called problems or with saving civilization, but with indulging some people's fantasy of revenge. And so in this case religion too is exposed as another weapon in this warfare of revenge. And I say this is how religion is used in United States political discourse in general as well. No religion, I repeat, can provide for the level of civilization, especially when it comes to international religions, it was never their purpose or intention. I direct you to the relevant chapter of Gobineau's great book, where he goes through many examples

showing that Christianity neither creates nor changes the capacity for civilization of a people. I believe that's actually the title of this chapter, I think it's chapter seven in his book, I forget. And Japan was never Christian, and in fact is not now especially religious at all, it has a secular public life, and as far as I know, invocations of religion almost never come up in public, and this just, you know, imagine people of this kind of Pharisee faction. Their whole public messaging is that your political problems today have to do with religiosity and religion, and that if you only install some theocratic flavors, which means of course funding and bureaucratic sinecures for them and their friends, and more and more of this

clawing, stomach-turning religious rhetoric that you've come to expect, especially from the American right for the last 30 years at least, but actually I think the left will do much better embracing this language. But the example of Japan, a state that is actually liberal, democratic, secular, not religious and so on, and a state that solves all of the problems that animated the Trump movement, but that cannot be smeared as fascist, Nazi, neo-Nazi, subnichean, or whatever other words they've learned, right, okay? This just shows the problems facing modern nations are rather straightforward, okay? And you don't need cannon to shoot at small hill, they are solved by simple measures. But I will be right back in a moment.

The machinery or theology of any religion at all to solve the rather pedestrian problems of the modern state, you need merely deal with facts that you have a mannequin class of, I don't want to say bugmen because the word has become overused, but they are just deformed stupid people. Most of them couldn't do anything else. They go into government. That unfortunately is true. They are earnest people motivated by stupid understandings of what is just and good. And you don't even need to replace them, except maybe the worst among them, the ones who are the stupidest and some who are actually have maybe malicious or at least corrupt intention. But if you can just persuade the way that the social democrats in Denmark who are otherwise

completely inadequate people but they were persuaded that mass migration is not good for them or for how they understand what is good for Denmark. And so through that and through the moderate successes of the hard right in Denmark which which put on a very professional public face, Danish politics, social democrat and crappy as it is, was turned around to where Denmark is mostly solving its migration problems now. But the misuse of Christianity in particular to argue that it should have some utilitarian civilization building function when, as Gobineau says, this is actually a species of anti-Christian, anti-religious, I would say, modernism. That has nothing to do with the actual intention of the faith, which is meant to work on a different level altogether.

The left does not oppose religion out of theological considerations, but because Europe tamed this religion and allied it to the large landowners and later more tenuously to the bourgeois commercial classes, certain denominations. And the left, because of this historical circumstance, hates religion because it wants to take stuff at point of gun, as this is what leftism is. So this is why it opposes religion out of historical circumstance, but it could in fact find an easy accommodation to, for example, the so-called social gospel from Christianity. And some of those rabid Antifa I've met are so-called Christian Marxists, and they were not being so cynically. They very much believed in this or that gospel, I don't know, but they had a completely materialist understanding of what it meant.

And this program has already been put into action in parts of Latin America. I quote for you from Washington Post, this is from an article from 1983, the guerrillas, this is the Guerrilla Army of the Poor, that was their name, this is what they're called, and technically they were a Maoist group, but in fact they had deep relationships to let's say a local Catholic church, let me be polite and put it that way, but here's Here's the quote. Here's the quote. The guerrillas have found valuable allies in and sometimes have grown out of a Catholic church imbued since the late 1960s with determination to help the poor and oppressed in a country where the military and the wealthy minority reigned, end quote. Liberation theology.

And by the way, the Washington Post, of course, is not attacking the guerrillas there, whatever you may have heard about the neoliberal capital establishment. They were then, as they are now, supporting this guerrilla movement to dispossess the so-called reach of Central America. Marxism with a Pharisaic phase, liberation theology. The article is actually written to quench about, to attack Rios Montt, who was then the military leader of Guatemala, and he was an evangelical, and thank God for the evangelicals there in Guatemala, because without them, as I tell you, the local church had gone completely red since the 1960s. totally compatible maybe with Christianity as well as with every other religion by the

way because it's possible to twist the words of any doctrine to mean almost anything. So you can have Buddhist Marxism, Jewish Marxism, Christian Marxism as well as the opposite of all of these. Religion doesn't make a political program one way or another and it doesn't make civilization. What makes civilization is race and the type and kind of religiosity is a reflection of the nature of a people, maybe, a reflection of it, not what forms it. And I'm ultimately not a fan of secularism either. I explained why in book, but I don't expect religious feeling to solve the rather petty problems of our time, nor to provide actually for much bigger things. See, you should not expect religion to provide something like civilizational level because

it's not meant to do that, it's not meant to carry that weight. But it's also not meant to be a replacement for things like manliness or honor or courage or the desire of defense of territory. When you arrive at this level that you have men who don't have these instincts in them that you have to use religion to provide for those things, well, what happens then? I think a total collapse because religion cannot do that. You will just have the natural consequences of a territory with a lack of men and a lack of honor, but with a religious hue to it. Of course, no one will read this. I don't want to read this chapter from his main book, it's chapter seven, but really I think the first seven chapters where he goes through the different usual arguments

for what is it that makes a successful civilization and he dispatches all of them and there's one particular one that will especially upset moral fags both left and right where he says The luxury or corruption of morals is not what leads to the collapse of civilizations. And what's great about Gobineau is he comes up with 20, 30 examples, the best kind of comparative, political, whatever you want to say, a simple and beautiful chapter full of examples. But this matter of Japan, it should really awaken you, their obsessions over the Japanese. It was part of neocon statistics born in the 1990s that Japan is a so-called dying society. They were saying the same about Russia. Russia has of course turned around its birth rate somewhat, birth rates are not static.

But I will give it to you that Japan is an ageing society and it's on the other hand subject to the same limitations of modern life you'd find anywhere else. It's kind of a playpen of own space, what I've called, but is it so more than the United States. Any trip to Tokyo versus any American city whatsoever will reveal to you which is the dying society. I never felt such depression as when you go to American, let's say, red hinterland, and I'm not talking about magic Americans, but you go to supposedly hard-headed a red area and you see by side of highway some obese women in Bermuda with beige kid. It looks like the incipient favela, but the declining birth rate transforms in these delusions about Japan. It transforms to a trend toward zero people. How does that work?

Just because they have a low birth rate, suddenly in some amount of time they never specify there will be zero people left in Japan, it's dead. But both Japan and Europe are horribly overpopulated. None of these people, when you press them, they don't know the numbers, 120 million people in Japan right now. And the projections are that maybe it will go to 80 million in 50 years. Now think compute art projections, how accurate they've been on other things, and think to 50 years ago and how much has changed. A lot can happen in 50 years, including, by the way, a change again in birth rates, which themselves are not static, what can I tell you? Regarding Japan, I think what gets to them, forgive if I repeat what I said in the tweet, but this is just too important.

What really gets to them about Japan, unlike about Russia, is that it explodes the favorite doxy of every faction that wants to see you live in a hovel, or that has become reconciled to you living in a hovel because all the main factions, Libtard, Neocon, let's say religious traditionalists are okay with you living in a hovel now, okay? So neocons and shit libs, they want mass migration for different reasons, slightly, but both want it, right? Both are reconciled to the fact that you will have 10 cities get used to it. So here is a nation, Japan, that seems to do just fine with no migration at all. Clean cities, high living standards, you know, they've had terrible projections for decades now regarding economic life, but daily life continues to be maybe far better than anywhere

in America on the average, it says when people quote GDP figures to show Mississippi has higher GDP than Hungary or Portugal. But then as my friend Pinson points out, such economic futurist theorists might be surprised that new millionaires, for example in cryptocurrency and many such, they're choosing to buy property in Lisbon and to live in Lisbon and not in Jackson, Mississippi. How does that work? I saw GDP, but I mean compare a Budapest café with a Jackson, Mississippi Starbucks. Who would not choose to enjoy Starbucks Frappuccino with Chabon in city, where the women must be 80% obese and 90% functionally illiterate? You say I'm being anti-American, but no, these are Americans buying property there, right?

Because they are being chased out of the country because the country is being run by people like I've been talking about on this segment. If you chase away men of quality, you get the expected results. But so now, right, okay, this about neocons, this what they'd like. We need fresh blood for economic revitalization, and because America can make anyone American, this is an article of faith among not just neocons, but almost any conservanormy, right? And because their donors want it, if you want to be cynical. But it's not just that. They actually believe in this. So some may even be honest, and they say that they hope a glut of migrants can destroy the welfare state. Some have told me this in private, which it never does.

It's a stupid species of accelerationism, and they do not, people who say this, that if you bring in millions of poor migrants, it will crash the welfare state, it will crash the New Deal Society of FDR, but they don't realize the capacity for pilfering, for expropriating white property owners, that capacity is very, there's a lot of ruin in the nation, right? You can keep that going for a long time. I mean, look at how 5-10% whites and colors of South Africa, they're getting pillaged economically through redistribution, and that's a case far more demographically extreme than the United States, where it's still over 50%, at least nominally white taxpayers, but still it keeps going. Similarly, look, Venezuela, I think it's about 15% white actually, and that includes many

kinds including Lebanese and also Jews who want to quench about the anti-Semitism of Hugo Chavez, but note that they do not leave. They did not leave for Israel or for any other country because their lives there as the lives of the Lebanese and the otherwise, despite considerable problems, and yes, I think in the last few years it got so bad that many people did have to leave Venezuela, but many of the white people who were being targeted for expropriation did not leave because their lives there were still relatively good in terms of, you know, you could have two servants and this type of thing. So you can keep the pilfering of a population going for a long time. But so look, okay, the neocons wanted for these reasons, they believe in America as

the new Rome and America, big empire, anybody can become American, we can have 400, 500 million people, 600 million people, and will be the new Rome. And then the shit libs, they want mass migration in part for humanitarian reasons, but they too believe or claim that it improves the lot of Americans already there. So in a Japanese restaurant of all places in the United States, I heard the shit lib case stated perfectly. It's very shallow, but it's just this, a pious male with a lilting voice informed by the sushi chef of some unusual fusion of ingredients, I forget what it was, he had some special olive oil or Spanish garnish saffron and the fish was from Japan or something and this guy say, oh thank God for globalization, look at all the different ingredients in my sushi.

I could hear it in his voice, it was about Trump, it's always in the back of these people's minds, okay the Japanese too however have excellent Italian and other restaurants, it's just they send their young chefs abroad to learn to cook in authentic style and then they come back and you can import ingredients. Nobody said that stopping globalization or stopping mass migration means you cannot import Spanish olive oil. But the point is you do not need a little China to have authentic Szechuan food. Somebody tell this to Tyler Cowen. I hear from friend that there are dark skins loitering outside Tokyo 7-Elevens now. Is this true? You know, you can eat really well at a Tokyo 7-Eleven by a delicious sandwich, other such thing.

The Liptar case, you know, and Japan on every point will, you know, accept their desire for compassion migration. Japan does not fulfill that, right? But is it really compassion, by the way? Look now at El Salvador. There are Salvadorians in America who want to return to their own nation. They don't like to live in a gray northern country that's not their own. They'd like to be in their own country, actually. And do you understand this, but they cannot go there because of crime and failed state before Bukele arrived. And so, you know, who was it who opposed Bukele's effort to bring order to that place but Victoria Nuland and other elements of the American foreign policy global Negro communism brigade? In other words, there is disorder in many of these countries, as there will be in Brazil

again soon too, from what I hear from friends, the street element that is becoming ever more arrogant knowing that their red patron is now in power. But because of the efforts of the GNC factions in the American state, who mobilized to prevent any attempt by local politicians to improve the conditions, so you know, they get called fascist if they try, compassion would mean allowing the conditions in these nations to improve so they wouldn't need to migrate. Ask Liptar, do you understand this man, that maybe they don't want to migrate, you know? But that's also fascism too, as you can see in the case of Bukele. But it's not compassion to skim the doctors from Haiti either, you know, and to leave Haiti without doctors and to brain drain every third-world place. That also is not compassion.

So leave the argument for compassion migration aside, when you look at Japan, it gets on the nerves of the so-called dissident right as well, the people who claim to have a solution to these migration problems and so forth. Because they say that globalism caused this, that global neoliberal elites, capital with the capital C calls this and we have your solution and their solution is always that you have to convert to their denomination first and you have to increase corporate tax rates and give child tax credits and this kind of measures that are either irrelevant or they're like shooting a bullet at a mountain you know they got a little sparkle in the eye with Trump so they saw oh look there's dissatisfaction with Trump and Bernie well I have the

solution for you oh yes it's a solution I've always had it has nothing to do with any of this, but the solution is always the same thing, they're always selling the same thing. So for years now, they made the absurd case that the only way to save America is to have it convert to, whether it's Catholicism or insert some other denomination, or have to return it to religion. But here in Japan, you have a secular nation that simply solves its migration problems by not having one in the first place, deporting people easily, and it does so based on common sense secular principles that you can argue to anyone of any religion or of no religion, you know, that migrants, for example, don't really add anything in terms of money or culturally or otherwise, which is proven from European figures too.

And Denmark, again, is the nation that has produced the best studies on this, that migrants are a net loss economically, which has come out again every, excuse me, one European country after another. Recently, I saw studies from France and Belgium showing exactly the same. But I say what gets on the nerves of these people most of all is the fact then, and these people I mean the libtards, the neo-cons and the so-called dissident right and left that pretend to have these solutions. But what gets to them is that Japan solved these problems so easily. And unlike with Russia, they cannot demonize Japan the way they do to putler. After all, Japan is a modern country that's ally of United States. It's host to a military base, it has plenty of gay bar if that's your thing, it has also

bar where you can, I hear, have tea and pet cats, they have cat petting bar, but no one can call that kind of a place fascist with cat petting bar. And I think this is what really gets to them, you know, it fits all the definitions of liberal democracy thing and so on, right? Japan has majority rule, parliament, enshrined rights for individual, separate judiciary, application of civil rights for all, it fits all requirements of a liberal democracy. On the other hand, the United States has race and gender-based tiers of applying law. It's neither liberal nor democratic. It gives exceptions to one race during a public health emergency to burn down cities and all of its public officials come out to say that this is allowed.

It engages in ethnic cleansing of the majority population from its elite or so-called elite educational institutions, while supposedly liberal and conservative professors, who should at the very least be expected to stand for a race-blind, sex-blind thing. Isn't that liberal? When it comes to their own students, but even then they diddle themselves. It's a nation where even a conservative, maybe on Twitter a conservative, I mean one, a politician let's say, who uses his face, somebody like Ted Cruz, he will say he's for race-blind, But in person and in practice, when it comes to it, he will not stand even by the minimal standard of race-blind institutions and laws. He will, in other words, give exceptions to all kinds of ethnic, racial, religious groups.

Basically, no one believes either in democratic ideals, which is what? It's majority rule, which has become synonym for fascism in America now. But they don't believe in liberal side of it either, which is to say idea of certain individual rights fairly and equally applied in civil law, chief among these being the right to religion, to free speech and such, and to property, but none of these rights are at all respected in America now, either in practice, where, for example, the richest man in the world is routinely threatened with expropriations and investigations by the state for merely wanting to re-establish some measure of free speech on a platform that, you know, You were cynically told, including by Hork conservatives at the NRO National Review,

they told you that the censoring on Twitter is a matter of its private property rights. But now it appears quite different, right? It appears no amount of money can keep you safe in America from the deranged will of the Reds to enforce their so-called anti-racism and equity, which are really code words, not even for a new Red Revolution. They lack the intelligence and organizational ideological coherence to pull off a Red Revolution. But they are code words, I believe, for a Rwanda Hutu summer that they earnestly hope for. It is their most fervent hope that priming their orc armies for this, a country with Hutu public rhetoric coming out of its major media organs and even its government is not plausibly a liberal democracy.

Please parade the body of St. Floyd some more and have Mr. Abbott, Governor of Texas, cry crocodile tears of submission and fear in front of that corpse. Mask off, by the way, so all can see, while his own citizens are not allowed to see their dying relatives in Texas hospitals, and talk more than about equality under the law and liberal democracy. It's what a joke you see. So this is why they hate Japan. Because Japan actually shows up why America and Europe, where they allow Antifa to hunt Rightist intellectuals in the streets since 1960s as part of the state's paramilitary arm But Japan shows these up as fake liberal democracies Japan by the way is a robust public debate political debate in which all sides from far left to far right can safely engage

I mean although he moderated quite a bit I remind you that the mayor of Tokyo and one of the biggest voices in Japanese political life for a long time was Shintaro Ishihara, a close friend of Mishima since 1950s, and that, you know, you could have called him, well, okay, maybe you read his book, Season of the Sun, but even now you have far-right candidates plus also vans going around Tokyo blaring certain slogans, but, and nobody bats an eye on that. But yes, in closing, in this segment I repeat, Japan shows up, if I may, critics of this rickety red new world, the critics, Japan shows them up too because they want to convince you that all problems today are a result either of hyper capitalism or godlessness or both

and that if you only elected a soft handed Jesuit to redistribute your property to masses of Africans and serfs that they import or a Mr. Hawley to lecture young men about the need to marry a fat whore who's, I don't want to get into that, but explain to me the reasoning behind Josh Hawley coming in public, giving speeches of young men need to put away the video games and do your responsibility for the state, marry a 29-year-old obese hog. What possible thing does he have in mind that for? Is this why he was elected by people of Nebraska? I don't know, look up the Franklin scandal, but they want import these masses of Africans and redistribute property and are okay, even if they don't intend it, they're okay with

you living in a communal hovel, and then maybe they would pay out some child tax credits while mousing pharisaic pieties in public. And they say that if you only had this, you'd be happy and the problems of this creeping third worldization would be solved or would not bother you. And they too, I say, not just the mainstream Libtards and Neocons, but they too, these critics of the Libtards and Neocons, are incensed by the example of Japan, which has a good life for its citizens, did not have to experience deindustrialization, does not have mass migration, but which, if you walk through Tokyo streets or any second tier Japanese city, you will see a far more bustling commercial and capitalist life than you do in the supposedly hyper-capitalist

United States cities that look like Soviet state with big box stores and this type of thing. So United States has stirred its inner cities into diabetes factories and is trying to turn them into Hutu machete breeding farms and made them no-go zones for its own citizens. And that was done out of communist morality and compassion and had very little to do with economics or religion or this type of thing. But it's easy to attack capitalism by much the same words that a leftoid professor would. To take on the problems of mass migration and of racial mobilization that has been encouraged in America for decades and increasing now also in Europe is difficult and risky. So cowardice is all it comes down to in the end. It's easy to put on a pious face. I will be right back.

I'm going to talk Homer Iliad on this show, but this has to be a short episode. I'm on the move. And when I come back next time with discussion Homer Iliad, it might even take me two episodes I realized, despite Homer's importance to me and to book I wrote that many of you like and so forth, and even though I mention frequently maybe on show, I never had episodes specifically on him. So I will do that. And if you want translation advice, my friend Yama is restarting Homer now. He says, what is this Fagles modern translation? I think Fegel's is thrash translation of Homer. He introduced certain modern casual language. It feels as you say cringe, it feels out of place. It fails to capture the rhythms and really the mood.

There's a kind of ancient, naive forest, prehistoric mountain feel to Homer. I mean even when it was performed in its own time, it was supposed to capture that feel. It was performed in public readings. Homer's epics, like many other epic, were deliberately composed in so-called naive style to capture prehistoric, prehistoric feel is not the same as timeless, it's a particular kind timeless feel. And for translation in English, I recommend a Latimore, it's not perfect, but better, most others, and avoid maybe secondary literature, although I think the introduction that's Latimore translation is usually pretty good. It deals just with nut and bolt so-called practical matters of what were the epics, how were they structured, and so on. And then

if you do read so-called secondary literature, I highly recommend Nietzsche's essay, Homer's Contest, in which Nietzsche has this striking phrase, I think it's there, this is why you should read Homer I think, but he has this striking phrase about how the death scenes in the Iliad where the divine bodies, physiques, Handsome Thursday of young warriors, they are mangled in graphic ways in violent battles with spear going through back of head, entering mouth and so on, and bodies cut up with sword and he has suggestive lines that modern would shudder if they understood how Greeks experienced these scenes. It's really foundation of tragic aesthetic sensibility. I mean, you should read maybe this Nietzsche essay for introduction, possibly to alien

mind that saw a very different world than you and that prized different things, very different things from a modern. And it is this shameless and naked display of this alien morality, for lack of a better word, that's not really an appropriate word, but I think you should read it for that, entirely new alien world. But I'll say more next time on this. The Iliad was codified, written quite late, I think during a reign of tyrant Pisistratus in Athens. But it was performed a long time before that, come out of centuries old, actually millennia perhaps old, oral tradition of bards that were in many case freestyling, innovate, improvise all the time on ancient formulas and lore. It was their special trait and it exists to this day or rather I don't know if it's carried

out right at this moment still, but not long ago, scholar of Homer went to Balkans and met Serbian and Macedonian, Slavic, and other barred shepherds in the Balkans who were reciting gigantic poems from memory, extreme long poems, which proved for sure that something of that length of Homer could be memorized and transmitted. And I've memorized many lines myself in Greek. Maybe I recite next time for you, there is a rhythm, a musical rhythm to it in certain formulas of words that act as memory devices. This is very possible. Your mind just ends up repeating especially the most intense scenes. For example, if you're in shower and thinking of drinking the blood of your enemies and such. I mean that the mnemonic devices, the music, the rhythmic qualities, the formulas help

you, make you want to recite it even to yourself and that helps you memorize it even better. But I joke, of course, regarding drinking blood, I don't know. Part of the bard's trade was this improvisational aspect. In other words, if you're an ancient poet, and in the Vedic times in India, among the Aryans in India, they were a hereditary class. It was the private preserve of certain noble families to be the poet who would transmit the warrior's glory for the future. This is what meant undying fame. It is what all of these Aryan societies prize the most. So whether you are a Vedic poet or somebody like Pindar in Greece or an Irish bard, and I think among the Gauls, the bards were also a hereditary group, a special case of the

nobility tasked with this all-important, you know, a modern idiot would call it propaganda, but of course propaganda is something of the day to convince masses of morons of something one day something different another, whereas a true bard would preserve faithfully the great deeds of a warrior for all time. But if you are part of this class of poets, you are ancient, extremely ancient traditional formulas that exist in the different Indo-European languages in the same way. So again, not only undying fame, but there are other formulas of that type that form certain rhythmic meters that get passed down over thousands of years into the dotted languages. But in making your new song, you had to put them in a new and striking way, you see.

And usually a local king or noble would hire you to write, for example, a devotional into a god or for some other occasion or festival. And it had to be paid, you know, and it was a striking newness and innovation of you restating an old idea in a new way. The living tradition does this, okay? This is why Pindar, one of my favorite ancient Greek poets, was at once the most conservative, conserving the most ancient formulas from Aryan tradition that exist almost again in exact same way in Vedic poetry or even in Norse lore. But he also innovate wildly on them, take them to edge of possible expression, and this is his special pride as a poet, this striking newness if it was actually well done and resulted

in something beautiful that has to work, but this striking newness is what served as an offering to the God's honor, to say something old in a new way. And it was this offering would obligate that God to pay you back in return with what was asked for in prayer, whether it was wealth or children or good health and many such things. And a different understanding of religion. Have you tried this, though? Have you tried praying for a girlfriend, for example? It might work. I'm not being ironic, you know. Isn't the relationship with a god supposed to be reciprocal in some sense? I think a Greek wouldn't understand it any other way. There's, of course, I'm leaving out here the Oriental understanding of one's relationship to the divine. Maybe I talk this on next episode.

But there's a certain naive, straightforward selfishness that men are denied today and they're forced to feel ashamed of, which of course in the most priestly and loathsome times but not only in them, but in them especially, then finds circuitous ways of expressing itself because you can't fully suppress that. And often that shows itself in such people in the attempt to moralize over others, to be a moral faggot. Another episode of moral outrage that is now yet again developing on Twitter and who knows what else, maybe there will be a new article written about me in National Review. But the moral facts are incense because I defend Roman Polanski. And that's right. I will keep doing it. I will not budge from that.

Even if it were not for the facts of the case, which is that Polanski was a spur artist and that girl's mom, you know, he's convicted I think of so-called raping a 13-year-old, which I'm not sure he was aware of her age at that time. But if you have a deranged mother hippie who pimps out her daughter and drugs her in the Hollywood of the 1970s, which was just, you know, it isn't just the Manson thing. The whole Manson story has so many different aspects and so many celebrities were involved in that. But the Manson thing is just the most visible garnish of this stew, this horrid stew that really if anything went on at that time, everything went on in Hollyweird of that time. No, you must fixate on this story from 40 years ago and go through all the gory details

because it checks off all the boxes. You can then display moral outrage. That's how you win. The new left and the new right are experts at this. Just come in public with a list of things that make you feel morally upset. And whoever has the longer and better list and whoever puts on a better show of spitting around your mouth in public and showing your moral outrage, that's how you win, you know. It's called a win. So you see, even if it weren't for the facts of the case, which you or I actually do not fully know, but Polanski as a spurg was, in my opinion, taken advantage of by an adventurous hippie deranged woman who was using her daughter as a weapon. I've seen these snares many times attempted on dumb European and American tourists in the third world, by the way.

And what stops an adventurous from trying it in Hollywood of that time? I mean, look at all the adventurers now in Hollywood and in Silicon Valley seeking to to make money off the new Spurg tech class, it should be, yes, listen in con artistry. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels movie has nothing on these people. Write please another three essays on how AI is going to take over the world and you're doing game theoretic AI safety speculations, you're just like Kissinger speculating about nuclear weapons you see. But look, even if it were some of what these moral fags are deceptively trying to imply, that Polanski had stolen some girl from a playground and sodomized, they like this word sodom, you know, let's get really graphic here, right, let's get the moral gibberish

and posturing really going, you know, adding that he's a Hollywood Jew, you know, and they prey on the blood of innocent women and children like vampires, right, so just play on all the buttons, right? He abducted a child and sodomized her, unprovoked, he drank her blood, the Babylonian demon faction unfurls its banner, call Alex Jones. Tell me, tell me, even in this case, even if it was as bad as this, why something that happened in 1977 Hollywood with some celebrity, in 1970s Hollywood of all places, why is that supposed to animate me morally today to wind me up in a masturbatory rage against a guy who makes movies and whose only interaction with me or you are the movies he makes. He's not presented by himself or others as a lifestyle moral paragon.

His only interaction with you are movies like The Tenant, which I find wonderful, a wonderful attack on exactly what I've called modern longhouse when you get into apartment building and you have community imposed on you. Many of his movies are about just that. Oh, it's a symbol of something else, right? I'm supposed to get mad at Polanski, rape, because it's a symbol of something else. So then in that case, if moral outrage is your thing, you have right now a collection of interests, which includes at the top level many Mark Nobody birds, if that's your thing, funding the dispossession of American bourgeoisie and its demographic replacement, and millions of unwashed serfs being carted in by this noxious lattice of moral prigs, cynical interests,

leftist politician entrepreneurs on the make, people like Ocasio-Cortez, but many others, lavender DC dwarves looking for a constituency to stick it to their hated angle. That's you, by the way. If you're a white property owner, you are the Anglo sucking the lifeblood of the community according to these people. But my point is if you want moral outrage, there are these more proximate things you could get outraged about. I look instead at the Pavlovian emotional response and the pornographic display of shopkeeper morality every time this subject of Polanski come up, and it happens the same way every time by the way. Nick Sallow and I have been pressing these trigger buttons for well over a decade on Polanski in particular because I know it always gets this response.

But if I can reach you on this point, if you're reachable at all, if you're not in such a moral rage, but maybe seduced by wanting to be. I ask you to reconsider, to reconsider the trivial moral outrage response in general, because being hyper-emotional about anything makes it easy to be manipulated. And it's furthermore a mirror copy of the moral outrage machine of mass media, which by the way initially mobilized against Polanski as well, if that matters to you. I mean why was he convicted, a prosecutor on the make and so on, but now this moral outrage machine using the same type of arguments against white college students and others accused of looking wrong at a girl or whatever, their life is ruined.

And that come out of the same moral universe, this Oprah, femoid, satanic panic that men are corrupting the world with their evil cocks and their vile sexual desires. It's ultimately meant to demonize and police white men in particular, I think, which is a beast that you can't grab by the tail and use for yourself. You think you can, but in other words, the reason that listing moral outrage offenses for two minutes of hate, it seems to work for mass media, but that's because they're mass media. You are not. They have some of the 1984 element. But you don't. You're on the receiving end. So merely listing series of outrages that you then expect your actually rather small audience to get frenzied at, it doesn't achieve what you think it does if your motives are

cynical that is. If you think copying leftist media is a way that you can also win, I'll be dominant like the left. But I feel the motives of people who do this are actually not so cynical. I think people who get in this emotional, moral fact state of things like Polanski, which should be his actions irrelevant to you one way or another, but I think they have no devious Machiavellian plan in mind. They've merely internalized public square primitive shaming moralism for themselves, they just think in that way, they've never reflected on that this is how it's supposed to work and they just repeat it mindlessly. I know when hearing such that you all might have stalkers, arguments ready, some of you may think, oh he's talking about this thing I've heard, the woke left are the new puritans

and you can just repeat this phrase and simply be aware of this posture which is misused by some, but then that means you've discredited it. But you haven't anymore, by the way, than posting a fedora image means you've disproven atheist arguments. Arguments that are true don't go away. And the fact is, the moral outrage machine of the leftist media is hardly even working for them. That is the reason a lot of people turned away from them. That's the reason many frogs started to have such large audience in the first place, by the way. In fact, this is a deeply repulsive posture that you cannot maintain for a long time. The moral braggart, moral outrage machine. It exhausts people. It turns people off. And the lies of the leftist journalists, their lies are a big reason the legacy left media

was and is losing. It's not something that you can emulate and win, especially from a minority position. What was effective for their side actually was not this but mockery, mockery of traditional norms but especially of traditional stuffed shirt types. This why Rodney Dangerfield type movies were so effective. People love Seinfeld. People love humor. And if you're in opposition minority humor is your only real weapon. Without humor I repeat you are nothing. This why Trump freaks them out because he was Rodney Dangerfield but for them they are the stuffed shirt establishment now. They are the ones who should be lampooned. you come, not people who listen to this show of course, but the people who get into this

moral rage, I mean, they come like a dummy, whether it's on TV, some go on Tucker, I don't know why he has them on, or they come online, and they act like the school marm shopkeeper morality with a stuffed shirt. I don't know what they're thinking, I don't know, but this is why the response about Polanski, when you know that humor is your only real weapon, but the response about Polanski, which which is a verbatim copy of what I used to see from the matrons running right-wing forums of 2010 or so. It's not that it's disappointing. I knew it would happen, but it shows how little has changed in this regard, that you have people who are illiterate even because they use the word irony as if it's something bad. They do not actually know even what that means.

They say you are being ironic and therefore you are refuted and I'm unironic and I'm sincere and what do you really believe? I want to know what you stand for. Sir, do you denounce Polanski or whoever, do you denounce? It's all ironic versus unironic, that's it. That's the word they use when it comes to humor. They have no feel for humor at all. No feel for the different species of humor in which you need to become a real commissure if you have any hope of opposing stuffed shirt senile establishment. You do not defeat them with moral rage. How dare I not have Polanski personally extradited for a 40 year old crime? How dare I not join in repeating words, reprehensible degenerate, I'm supposed to repeat these.

Did you know that the more you repeat the word degenerate and the more bad things that you list, the more you win? That's how you win. But look, I talk Homer next time and you will see what I've just said now is related because insofar as Polanski is concerned, him as a person in his crimes concerned me in no special way any more than the crimes or not crimes of anyone else. It's not important about him. Because art is great and exists in a domain that has to be weighed on its own terms beyond moral considerations. And that goes for all art in general. When it comes to content, for example, didactic art is a sermon and homily, it's not art. Even if the message should be good and something you agree with. And then the moral or immoral life of the artist himself is yet another third matter

that is also irrelevant. It is the moral posture towards the world that I object to fundamentally in the end. Because I think quite aside from any tactical consideration whether this can win or that can win, and it can't win, not in the modern world it can't. Moral outrage will not win. It's a loser game. But quite aside from all this, it is a lie in itself, and you will see what I mean when I talk in detail about Homer. I hope you do read this essay, Nietzsche essay, Homer Contest. As a tautology, you can stretch the meaning of the word morality to include what you see in Homer, but it's a distortion because in fact in Homer you don't see moral interpretation of the world as you do in the Bible or in Zoroastrianism or such thing.

It's an aesthetic interpretation which has its own hierarchies but is very different from the moral posture because it accepts the inherent immorality you could say or amoral nature of the world and accepts man's condition in this world, excuse me, in this world, it's much misunderstood this word, tragic. And this was the greatness of the Greeks, that they had a tragic confrontation with life which you as a moral fag do not. They had an aesthetic openness to the world and not a moral one. Their moral faggotry, Greek moral faggotry, is later an alien intrusion from Socrates and those who followed Socrates, which is why Nietzsche's analysis of Socrates is so important because it shows the origin, I believe, of all moral approaches to reality. Nietzsche makes a joke.

He says, Plato studied with the Jews in Egypt. It's a little joke, but morality is anti-nature. And no, you do not need moral interpretation of the world, not in any way the way this word or phrase is used after the coming of the Socratic or later of the Bible. You don't need this approach to have a society or a group of people doing things together. In fact, I think this is the basis fundamentally of types of social community that distort, that commit violence against nature and natural hierarchy, that in a better mood, let's say, in a better mood, such relations shine in a casual and beautiful way. So I repeat, a group of men on a hunt, that is not a community. And the bonds between them are not sustained by morality.

And insofar as any man among them is motivated by the need for community, or the need for that feel, or needs morality to act as a friend, that man is possibly disloyal, to say the least. Link. Community is for Community Center. Community Toilet. Neon Lights. Depressing. Community Center. Excuse this talk. A group of men on a hunt is something else entirely. Club Tropic Excellent is something else. I say more soon. Until next time. Bap out.