Welcome Caribbean rhythms episode 133 emergency broadcast with Soso You need no introduction If you are listener to this show he come on here before to discuss Russia Military history and many other matter history and on this program we talk Napoleon principally But many other thing but it's also welcome to show how's it going back? It's a pleasure to be back on this fine program Yes, it's going good, except now rumors, off topic, not Napoleon, current event, if you don't mind, so-so, because there are urgent rumors that Trump, formerly called the lion, is to be arrested on Tuesday, and much ferment on Twitter about this. I wanted to ask your opinion because I think perhaps Trump should goad this prosecutor from New York into arresting him.

I think it could help Trump if he spent even a few nights in jail. But he can go much further than that. He can goad this man. can post tonight or tomorrow he say you are not a real man you will never dare to do this you know with these libtards they are extremely sensitive about these matters of manliness and this why they are many times so triggered by the kind of thing I post and the kind of photograph that I post this why they want so much to have the respect of special forces You may know that Democrat and Libtard politicians and journalists are obsessed with special forces. You see this on West Wing and many other things, special forces, special forces, you may have heard this. They are extreme sensitive, this is why you had State Department official, I don't remember

if it was Obama's man Rhodes, was that his name, or some other non-entity, challenging putler to judo match because they felt slighted by putler's photographs which he took of himself as for humor as far as i can tell no one in russia thought this is a dictator showing off his physique but he did it tongue in cheek but these state department pansies who are extreme sensitive on these matters are you a real man and so they started to challenge him to judo match and two years that a decade later they were still talking about those photographs that very moved by them as they are triggered by a photograph handsome Thursday and other Pietro Bozzelli matters that I post. So I think Trump could press this trigger emotional trigger button for prosecutor New

York arrest him, and then in jail, Trump can call on patriots to walk on the jail, to storm the jail building, and this so-so can perhaps inaugurate the keyed moment in American history. That's keyed, for those of you not in the know, is the new way to say base. Do not say base anymore. come in slangs that come out of negrotic rap hip-hop's sphere of things all all the cool kids now are saying keyed and perhaps Trump should goad this man press on these pansy buttons you're not a real man come and arrest me and then from there inaugurate keyed moment imagine columns of patriots of what do you think So-so, I don't know if you're allowed to comment on this. Oh, no, I absolutely am. And you know, if Trump really wants to be keyed, I think on the eve of this trial, he

should watch the trial of Saddam, you know, I think Saddam's tirade against the kangaroo court that he was strung up by is really inspiring, and I think that could be the kind of energy Trump should bring to this. You know, I'm not so concerned, I think many great men in history have been tried by their enemies in courts of dubious legality and I think if Trump is able to play his cards correctly and he always seems to come through in moments of pressure like this then he can use it to his advantage. Yes I very much like image in Saddam's face, intelligence in his eye, the contrast between him and the nobodies who are prosecuting him and then when he was asked about Muqtada Sadr's father I think or something like this he he contemptuously said who you know he

did not even remember this man I think trial of Saddam will be remembered centuries from now as a prosecution of a great man by the rabble is this but speaking of plans so so let's move to serious plans for a moment you may know our friend I don't know if I can say his name but he wrote article for new let's say it's magazine or a web sign called jacuzzi from England and he wrote article called the plan and I wanted to talk to you about this for a moment have you read this I think it's under paywall I don't think he will mind though if we discuss this with audience what do you think I did read the plan and I have to say, it's probably the most inspiring thing I've read since Bronze Age Mindset. It's really

articulate and quite far envisioned. So I think if anyone has read it, they probably come away with the same conclusions. And I fully endorse it and I think this is the path forward long term. Yes. Well, let's just summarize quick his argument. He say that really only prosperous future for America is a kind of union with at least a part of Europe enough European countries to join United States as new states to then rewrite constitution in favor of the European founders of America and of the European populations of the original mainland continent European Peninsula he say this would have to come later in the century after European Libtard leftist governments fall, which he predicts they will, quite soon, maybe by 2040.

I think he perhaps optimistic about that, but certainly I think there will be civil wars in Europe. I'm just not as optimistic as he is about what the outcomes will be. He doesn't think there will be civil wars. She thinks simple economic problem in Europe is impossible for modern Libtard states, their leftist states, to continue as they are because mass of migrants cannot provide for them, cannot provide economic growth as it has up to now, and so massive unrest will follow as pensions get cut, jobs get lost, further cultural tensions develop. What do you think of this argument? He says some other things, too. He makes the case for this strange radical idea better than I have here. But what do you make of this?

Well, I think the real crux of his argument is this idea, this vision of a unified people, people of the steppe that have spread across the European continent and then into America, and really the rest of the world. And that, you know, there's others that have had similar visions in the past, and I really think in terms of something that's going to both inspire men and have any real practical purpose moving into this century and the next, it's the only possible way forward. It is the plan, and I think his arguments in regards to the specifics in terms of how Europe may move forward in terms of its political and organizational structures and how it joins with the United States. They're creative, certainly, I haven't

heard anyone argue something like that before, but how they play out is anyone's guess, but really it's that inspiration I think that's most important. You have to have people thinking about this, have this plan enacted, and I think that's That's really his strongest point, is to provide that inspiration. Yes, strongest point is vision of future very hopeful of united European people, again, reaching for space exploration instead of sending its best people to build screws in Mississippi for you know what. But the way he deals also with counter arguments that are brought up today is interesting too. he Chides people for cheating on China and Russia in the hope that they can defeat Is he what some called Zog other call gay American Empire? I have called GNC

He thinks that even if they sustain losses at hands of Russia or China, it won't necessarily lead to domestic reforms or at least not the kinds that American patriots would would like. I think this important point to make, and his other observation, which many of our friends have realized also, is that so-called American nationalism, the way it is developing in the next, I don't know, already maybe, but in certainly the next few decades as demographics of America already changes, and which, unlike Europe, this is part of his big point, that in United States a constitution very strong in Europe, a constitution very weak. And a constitution in Europe can easily be moved aside and the people can be disenfranchised who were invited there without permission of the European peoples.

But in the United States, this is not so possible and so democratic politics in America will always, unless something changes in this sense, will always be about courting third world populations, and so you see these tendencies now even among parts of the so-called American nationalists. We have to side with the based third-worlders and the based third-world working class against – I've complained against this myself in recent shows, so because the natural outcome of this is that you will want to import Guatemalans as a weapon against so-called urbanites. These urbanites are mostly white, you know, and so I've seen this happen in Argentina where national populist, leftist nationalist government imports vast numbers of Peruvians,

Bolivians and others, and the union leaders are very happy about this because when you ask them, they say, oh no, these kids in Buenos Aires, they just want to work in television and writing and science and they don't want to do real work with their hands and we're importing the salt of the earth people, they're like us. So even if a leftist populist nationalist movement starts as immigration restriction, just because of these social dynamics, they will eventually cave and want to import more of the base working class allies. And of course, the only other alternative to this in the United States would be a lib-tarded GNC, you know, imperial class, so-called. So it's a very unhealthy process unless the United States could somehow again unite with

European states, which is a better and more hopeful vision. I think his point is it's a better and more hopeful vision than anything anybody else offers. Certainly the national divorce people, they say, rather bleak idea, which I don't think would work anyway. But what you make of all this, what I've said. No, I mean, I absolutely agree, Bap. And I think this idea of an economic priority put by several members of the so-called dissident right, where it's, you know, these working class Guatemalans versus the aristocratic elites in the cities, which itself is a very stupid conception. It's just a... Aristocratic Huma Abedin, yeah, Huma Abedin and Anthony Wiener, I keep encouraging people to watch documentary about them, yeah, there are natural aristocrats, so, so, yeah.

Yeah, the true Nietzscheans, apparently. But it's just a recipe for disaster. The same goes for advocating for China and other third world nations to sort of rebuke the United States. It's not a benefit to us to help our enemies, whether they be opposed to our own enemies within the apparatus of the American government. Because fundamentally, when that fails, they will simply supersede us and that can't be allowed to happen. argument that the plan makes, this article, that the most important center of gravity in the world for the 21st century is the American government, its military capabilities and its economic power. And if you cede that to our enemies, we let them have it in things like national wars or these other

insane plans that are advocated for, we lose. That's it. Whoever controls that wins and that's why he advocates for a union between American nationalists and these European states to form a truly imperial system in which through the union of these states we're actually given a majority a true majority that's able to influence policy and that's really the only way that this century and the next can belong to us. Yes I wish that America had done its original manifest destiny and spread to the West and focused on Asia and conquered China and Japan and became a Rome of the Pacific, ruled by Anglo-German elite that rule Asia and the Pacific, but instead it enmeshed European politics in unhealthy direction led by communists like FDR administration, and the result today is what it is.

But his vision is inspiring. I agree with you, because, yes, unlike what everybody else proposed, it is a hopeful vision that preserves European world dominion, which is what I believe in so-so and the only thing that matters in the end, I think. Absolutely. And he's not the only one to have this sort of vision of the Union of the European People. Many have had it before Nietzsche had it, some members of the 20th century had it, as well as the man of the hour, Napoleon. He had this idea, of course it was built on this petite nationalism of the French, but as his empire grew it became a much more inclusive, in terms at least of the European people, this idea of an entire continental empire, and really it's been tried many times to greater and

lesser degrees, and once it's achieved, and I think it will be achieved, the stars will belong to us. That's just as simple as that. Yes, Nietzsche says something wonderful about Napoleon in this way, that amidst the shabbiest democratic politic of French Revolution, which was, I think, fundamentally a racial revolution by pre-Aryan elements within Europe, by the serfs of France. Gobineau take is this. And this is also the take, not just of Nietzsche, but of every French racialist of 19th century. Gobineau and Georges Montandon, they believed that French Revolution was a racial revolution. But whether it was or not, let's say for the argument, it was just ideological. Its ideology was democratic, shabby, and in the middle of that terrible egalitarian bleakness,

arrive out of nowhere the classical man, Napoleon in the form of a Corsican pirate, and just like, comment out of nowhere is how Nietzsche describes it. And he described the coming of Napoleon and of Schopenhauer, who were contemporaneous, he say both of them came out of nowhere. Schopenhauer reviving the classical tradition of philosophy, the classical vision of the philosopher as standing above all other men, standing above society, and Napoleon reviving the terrible, awesome idea of the classical man, which, you know, people think it's about statues and moderation. It's not, it's not, it's about Alexander, it's about Caesar, it's about Napoleon. And through this coming of this man, Napoleon, all of the higher hopes of the 19th century were ignited.

We will talk this in more detail later on this show, but this another of Nietzsche closely related insights that all the great men of 19th century, the great German thinkers, the great novelists in France, the great artists, they look back to Napoleon. He inspired generations of great men in this democratic age that came. And perhaps we go to breaks also, but would you mind if I read something from Nietzsche about Napoleon? And this from Twilight of the Idols, it's section 48 of skirmishes of a man against his time. Skirmishes of a man at war with his age is what the title roughly is. I'm reading now. Progress in my sense. I also speak of a return to nature, although it is not a process of going back, but of going up. Up into lofty, free, and even terrible

nature and naturalness. Such a nature as can play with great tasks and may play with them. To speak in a parable, Napoleon was an example of a return to nature, as I understand it. For instance, in rebus tacticis, and still more, as military experts know, in strategy. We will talk about this on this show also. But Rousseau, whither did he want to return? Rousseau, this first modern man, idealist and canai, that means rebel, idealist and canai in one person, who was in need of moral dignity, in order even to endure the sight of his own person. ill with unbridled vanity and wanton self-contempt. This abortion, who planted his tent on the threshold of modernity, also wanted a return to nature. But I ask once more, whither did he wish to return?

I hate Rousseau, even in the Revolution – with a capital R, he speaks of the French Revolution – I hate Rousseau, even in the Revolution itself. The latter was the historical expression of this hybrid of idealist and canai, the bloody farce which this revolution ultimately became, its immorality concerns me only slightly. What I loathe, however, is its Rousseau-esque morality, the so-called truths of the revolution, by means of which it still exercises power and draws all flat and mediocre things over to its side. The doctrine of equality – you see how he infected my mouse when I said that? I repeat, the doctrine of equality. But there is no more deadly poison than this, for it seems to proceed from the very lips of justice, whereas in reality it draws the curtain down on all justice.

He's quoting, to equals equality to unequals inequality, that would be the real speech of justice and that which follows from it never make unequal things equal. The fact that so much horror and blood are associated with this doctrine of equality has lent this modern idea par excellence such a halo of fire and glory that the revolution as a drama has misled even the most noble minds. That, after all, is no reason for honoring it the more. I can see only one who regarded it as it should be regarded, that is to say, with loathing. I speak of Goethe, and I stop reading, and the next passage, which I will read later, you talk about Goethe and Goethe's great admiration also for Napoleon. But yes, so-so, what do you make of that?

Yeah, absolutely. His take on the revolution, this idea that the lessons should be given up, everything that exists in the state and beyond it. And those that have built it, those that have cultivated it, the natural superiors should be given a lot of nothingness, a lot of even worse than nothingness, execution. They're next in the guillotine, right? And Were it not for Napoleon, who knows how disastrous this revolution could have been, but luckily, through force of will and force of genius, he was able to co-opt it to his own ambitions and thank God that he did. Yes, Napoleon returned to nature in Nietzschean sense, upward into lofty nature. It's hard to understand that from just that phrase, but perhaps we will talk a little

on this show and certainly is a big idea for future discussions also, but it is the classical as opposed to the modern idea of return to nature. But also if I may go back to Mr. Trump for one moment, who let's not forget that he's kind of a buffoon and the things he did before and so forth are not worthy of a great man I think, but people were saying he is like this other man from French history, Boulanger, who around late 1880s was threatening to destroy the Third Republic in a similar way by getting elected on a populist, nationalist, revanchist platform, and he is a sorry character because He led a lot of people into a trap. He got their hopes up, he made all kinds of, there have been threads on Twitter about these people have talked about,

but he got their hopes up, the French nationalists and so forth, the people who despised the Third Republic. But in the end, he failed with a whimper. He didn't deliver, and he just sold out in a sense. He wimped out in the end. People were saying that Trump did that in 2020, and I don't know. I don't know if he did that or not. Maybe there is a sequel to the Trump drama. We will see. But I think both Trump and Bolsonaro have the Boulanger syndrome in them. They are boomers. They are big talkers, and fundamentally, they don't deliver when time comes. And what the world needs is not Boulanger, but Napoleon. And I don't know if either of them is capable of being this. I don't know. Well, I think when you look at some of the great men in history, particularly Napoleon, you see them forged

in these crucibles of great turmoil. Napoleon was the revolution. And you say Julius Caesar, of course, had civil wars, and then his campaign in Gaul. These are necessary for real greatness to emerge, particularly for military genius to emerge. And as boomers, you know, these men, they never had that. They never really had that. So the degree to which that they could be compared or even strive to become like these men, I think is kneecap. It just can't be done. But perhaps they can set the conditions for such things to be achieved. And perhaps there is a Napoleon among us already just waiting for his own crucible to be ignited. Yes, I believe this. Soso, this good time to take a short smoke break. Phil, come back. What do you think, to talk Napoleon in detail? What do you think?

No, this sounds good. Very good. I say, Ave, and we come right back. To show Soso, we are here to discuss Napoleon, and I want talk this matter. What Napoleon was, a genius. I want to talk this matter of genius. This, what Napoleon represented for so many great minds of 19th century and after, and of course for military historians, signature example of genius. And there is a wonderful passage, if you don't mind so, so I'd like to read. It's a little bit long, but not that long. Also from Twilight of the Idols, aphorism 44 from same section I mentioned before. It's not that long. one longish paragraph about, it's titled My Concept of Genius, and he mentions Napoleon in it. So I will read now if you don't mind, yes. Go ahead. Yes. I am reading now. My concept of genius.

Great men, like great ages, are explosive material in which a stupendous amount of power is accumulated. The first conditions of their existence are always historical and physiological. They are the outcome of the fact that for long ages energy has been collected, hoarded up, saved up, and preserved for their use, and that no explosion has taken place. When the tension in the bulk has become sufficiently excessive, the most fortuitous stimulus suffices in order to call genius, great deeds, and momentous fate into the world. What then is the good of all environment, historical period, zeitgeist, and public opinion? Take the case of Napoleon. France of the Revolution, and still more of the period preceding the Revolution, would

have brought forward the type which was the very reverse of Napoleon. It actually did produce such a type. And because Napoleon was something different, the heir of a stronger, more lasting and older civilization than that which in France was being smashed to atoms, he became master there. He was the only master there. Great men are necessary. The age in which they appear is a matter of chance. The fact that they almost invariably master their age is accounted for simply by the fact that they are stronger, that they are older, and that power has been stored longer for them. The relation of a genius to his age is that which exists between strength and weakness and between maturity and youth. The age is relatively always very much younger, thinner, less mature, less resolute, and more

childish. The fact that the general opinion in France at the present day is utterly different on this very point, in Germany too, but that is of no consequence. Nietzsche hits here on – he has contempt for the German culture of his day and very much respect for the French culture of his time, but I keep reading. The fact that in that country the theory of environment, a regular neuropathic notion – this is the theory of the milieu, he calls it a neurotics idea, has become sacrosanct and almost scientific, and finds acceptance even among physiologists, is a very bad and exceedingly depressing sign. In England, too, the same belief prevails, but nobody will be surprised at that. The Englishman knows only two ways of understanding the genius and the great man, either democratically

in the style of buckle or religiously after the manner of Carlisle, molebuckle not like this. I continue. The danger which great men and great ages represent is simply extraordinary. Every kind of exhaustion and of sterility follows in their wake. The great man is an end. The great age, the Renaissance for instance, is an end. The genius, in work and in deed, is necessarily a squanderer. The fact that he spends himself constitutes his greatness. The instinct of self-preservation is, as it were, suspended in him. The overpowering pressure of outflowing energy in him forbids any such protection and prudence. People call this self-sacrifice. They praise his heroism, his indifference to his own well-being, his utter devotion to an idea, a great cause, a fatherland, all misunderstandings.

He flows out, he flows over, he consumes himself, he does not spare himself, and does all this with faithful necessity, irrevocably, involuntarily, just as a river involuntarily bursts its dams. But owing to the fact that humanity has been much indebted to such explosives, it has endowed them with many things, for instance, with a kind of higher morality. This is indeed the sort of gratitude that humanity is capable of. It misunderstands its benefactors. I stop reading. But yes, this wonderful passage for many reasons, I think. You like this? No, this is very good, yeah. Yes, I like very much. His description of relationship between great men and his age, which I think also applies to when he talk about Schopenhauer and his age, a great thinker, not just a great general,

is of course very much reverse of the theory cell, abstruse notions popular today among almost all intellectuals who imagine interplay of mysterious forces completely determining all thought and determining all individual action, all men are shaped by their time and the zeitgeist and so forth. But anyway, many other wonderful things in this passage and he talked about genius. I don't know if you want to discuss this on this segment so we can talk anything, but I'm very interested in the idea of Napoleon as military genius, meaning for example in musics. You take musical genius and let's take somebody like Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff who are relatively popular composers but nevertheless geniuses, they are some of my favorites, but you take

even let's say a half a second or actually much less, two notes of either of them, and this can apply to any great composer, and you say, that's him, I know that's him, you know. They put, their stamp comes out in their work immediately, their signature character comes out, and I wondered, I don't know too much about military history, I don't know nearly much as you maybe you want to talk this does Napoleon's character appear can the generals character appear in the military campaigns like you you see something without even knowing who it is you say that's that guy it could only be him absolutely I mean there's a reason why when you look through history at great men particularly great conquerors there's really only three names that you

can name off the top of your head and really anyone could name off the top of their head Alexander Caesar and Napoleon and the reason being is that these men were military geniuses and their character, their genius is exposed in every little thing that they do in their battles, their plans, their strategies, their adaptations to circumstances as they fight the wars that they're involved in. Compared to competent generals, generals that have some martial capability and are relatively skilled in military matters, nonetheless they tend to follow basic military maxims, hold high ground, flank the left and the right. There's not a lot of real inspiration in those movements. They're following really a formula. Whereas when you look at say Napoleon,

he has these moments of brilliance throughout his entire career that really only a genius could see. It's as if he's this conduit to a higher dimension where he can see the battle before it begins and and orchestrate it to his own advantage. And I think that's really what separates him from so many others is this ability to envision, to visualize victory and then achieve it. Yes, would you like to discuss some of these in detail? I am very interested, does it come out in his early campaigns also before he become a leader? Actually I would argue that his most obvious examples are in his early campaigns, particularly the Italian campaign, the first Italian campaign. He has this quote where he says, I have fought 60 battles and I have learned nothing which I did not know at the beginning.

Look at Caesar, he fought the first like the last. At the very beginning of his military career exhibited his genius. his genius. It wasn't something born out of experience or, you know, many battles that he had seen play out. No, he just knew from the beginning. He intuited this this brilliance that he demonstrated. And in that Italian campaign, you know, he was only a lower-tier general, right? He was not yet Emperor of France, and yet he's able to command the entire campaign with the sort of authority that he would later demonstrate as basically sovereign of Europe. So I think these campaigns, particularly his earliest campaigns, you can see, you know, he fought like 20 battles in that and pretty universally dominated in all of them. He won like

almost 200 standards from enemy units, you know, he seized their Eagles. This is the Italian campaign? Yes, this is the Italian campaign. This is when, you The Republic sends forces to Italy to defeat the Piedmonts and the Austrians because they were threatening the revolution. In this campaign, he gets a feel for both command and politics. He establishes two newspapers, he is able to promote his own image and starts intermeshing politics with his military victories. It's through this, and later the Egyptian campaign, the Egyptian expedition, that he's able to position himself within the very chaotic French government to eventually take it over. Yes, I know I have friends who say that he was a great tactical leader but that he was

not a great political strategist because look what happened. ended up invading Russia, that was obviously a mistake, they say, but I don't think it's possible to rise from a station like his where he was really, I think he was almost last in his class in military academy and apparently frequently AWOL. I read a biography of Napoleon, I don't know if it was Andrew Roberts who is a liar or some other, I think it was Simon Shama, the libtard professor. And they were trying to use this as a point against him. Oh, he skipped class, he didn't do well in school. He never had, I think, the slightest interest in grinding at military academy. But how you rise from a Corsican, lower mobility, who does not do very well in school, and he becomes Emperor of France and rules half of Europe.

I don't think you get to that without a political genius as well, you know? It's not just about winning some battles as a tactical tool, right? I don't know. Oh, absolutely. I mean, he was a brilliant strategist, political and military. I mean, really, especially if you read Klossowitz, the two are intertwined intimately. It was his ability to curate his own image at home, to inspire the French nation, in addition to defeat his enemies at home, that enabled him to have these successes across the continent. Anyone that would say that he was poor in this regard is completely ignorant, because he's really first of his class in that degree. Yes. He's able to act a statesman, and then use his military victories to further propel his vision of Europe and empire?

Yes, well I would like to talk his political ideas and vision on later his show and actually to talk about his tactical genius as we started on this segment, if you don't mind. I am interested in this Italian campaign. It was, when was it, 1799, 1800, something like this? Do you want to discuss some famous battles in this? I mean, some of his most famous battles really occur later in his career, but what's demonstrated in the Italian campaign is his ability to move rapidly. People today, they sort of have a misunderstanding of how 19th century, and prior to that too, as well forces were able to campaign go on march and his ability to move his armies through Italy and engage the Austrians and the Italians in places that they didn't expect him to be is one

of his most striking characteristics he has this vitality that he's able to infect his his troops with that enable him to move much faster much further than any of his contemporaries could and this ability to rapidly deploy his army through Italy in this campaign and engage them in places where his opponents in places where they weren't expecting him is one of the keys to his victory. You know he had this fierce spirit that enabled him to strike just over and over again and shatter these armies and make them unable to regroup and unify. He just shatters them over and over again and he had this wonderful insight on, you know, deception. Many battles in this campaign, he's able to sort of hide the main bulk of his forces, or at least significant portions of it,

and goad the enemy once they're engaged to expose themselves, in which he will either fully envelop them or have at least one flank dominated and then cause them to rout. It's this ability to envision what his opponents were going to do and make them act as he would like them to, almost as if he was commanding their forces as well, that really exhibits his genius as a tactician, not to mention as a strategist in his ability to use these battles as the campaign progresses to shatter the Austrian army and force them to retreat back into Austria, essentially cede Italy to him and the French Republic. Yes, and I think it's important to note, you've told me this before, that one of the marks of military genius is that he's able to win against all odds.

Military competence can, you know, one general is slightly more disciplined than another, follows the rules slightly better, and can win in normal conditions. But military genius can win in totally abnormal conditions. And I think it's important to emphasize because one argument that the bunkers often try to make about Napoleon is that the French army was revolutionary because it had levy in mass, it had mass mobilization, and the other European powers were still fighting according to premodern aristocratic professional soldier standards. And so the argument is that Napoleon only won because of the French Revolution's mass mobilization of society, and so he had numbers on his side. But in many of these battles he was actually outnumbered, was he not? Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, particularly in the wars of the coalition, he had Prussia, Austria, Britain fighting against him with his own just French army, La Grande Armée, and a few auxiliary units from conquered territories but by and large a lot of the battles that he fought were either parody of equal size on both sides or slightly outnumbered it's its ability to concentrate force and strike at the enemy's center of gravity that his successes were achieved and the idea that he's just sort of a product of a system that this military was just created by virtue of the revolution and he just happened to be the guy in charge of it is ludicrous. I mean he built this army and certainly you know the levy en masse that he had access to thanks to the revolution

was very important but it was a system that he basically created and it's not that these were unwashed peasants you know he had very professional very well-drilled disciplined troops and in many cases it's that discipline and that strength particularly when you look at like the Imperial Guard you know his most prestigious and well organized units that he's able to win these battles. Yes. And there's just very few examples where he fights battles of any consequence that he is the superior sized force. Yes. It's like you know a lot of people will look at great men throughout history, and they try and excuse away their genius, they try and make up these ludicrous ideas that they're not responsible for their own greatness and the achievement

of their own ambitions, and with Napoleon, these arguments just fall flat, because he was the man of the age in which everything else orbited around him. Even at this early time, when he not yet truly leader of France, he managed, I think, the decisive battle is the Battle of Marengo, right? And I think he was outnumbered in that battle, actually, so I don't know where people come with this fake argument. And because I am fan of food, a factoid everyone knows is that Chicken Marengo is named after this battle, this French dish in tomato sauce. I don't like very much. I don't know about you, but they name it to humiliate the Italians, I think. I don't think my Italian friends would like to hear this. But the next big and exciting campaign is, you know, Napoleon

in Egypt, just like Caesar in Egypt, right? Why go to Egypt and what means? Well, of course, you know, this is before he has seized power in France, but he gets sent to Egypt to sort of deal with the Ottomans and the Mamluks. And when he gets to Egypt, you know, he fights these battles as the famous Battle of the Pyramids in which he engages the the Mamluks and only like 29 French men are lost against 2000, Mamluk Calvary. And I think this is probably the most significant moment in Napoleon's career that would set the tone for the rest of his life, because Egypt doesn't go well for the French. They suffer pretty significant attrition. They even fell victim to the plague. And then the French Navy is destroyed by Nelson, with the British, at the Battle of the Nile,

which is where Nelson's career basically takes off and he earns his own place in history. But despite these defeats, he actually returns inspired and he comes home to a hero's welcome. And one aspect of military genius that is so critical is the ability to handle reverses. Very often you'll see, just like many other sports, in fact, that the psychology is almost as important as the physical skill. And when men lose that confidence, it all falls apart for them. And in spite of the reverses that he suffers in Egypt, and the French suffer in Egypt, he comes away with this vision of himself as this new prophet of a new religion. Much like Muhammad, when he spread across the Arabian peninsula he has the same idea for himself and is inspired by it and I

think he takes that vision and realizes it you know later in his career yes no this is very interesting I am curious about this famous battles in later in his career do you want discuss perhaps what are one or two signature battle of Napoleon that you know well the most famous battle he has a quite a few actually right he fights like over 60 but the Battle of Austerlitz I think is the most decisive and the most important of the entire life in Napoleon and really arguably the age he comes up against the Russians and he comes up against the Austrians it's known as the Battle of Three Emperors because you have Napoleon on one side and then the Austrians and the Russians on the other and in this battle he decisively defeats an army almost a third as large as

larger than his own with very minimal casualties comparatively it's during the war of the third coalition and it's this defeat on their side on the coalition side and the victory of Napoleon that cements his rule over Europe it It basically routes the Austrians, it routes the Russians and to the detriment of Napoleon of course it makes them think that the Russians would be much easier to defeat than they would be later on. But in spite of that, this battle demonstrates two things of Napoleon. One it demonstrates his ability to deceive. A key point of this battle was deceiving the enemy and believing a certain flank was weak and provoking them to attack it, and then rolling up on the other side, sort of hinged upon this key hill in the middle of the battle,

and essentially just rolling up the weakened flank of his enemy and forcing them to rout. In addition to this, he also demonstrates great courage because he rides to the front, he's personally directing his troops, he's getting them to hold the line, especially on the side that was deliberately weakened to provoke the attack so that the plan could go ahead. It's this ability to both deceive and then command personally through the battle that essentially destroys the Austrian and Russian armies and grants him the sovereignty. Yes, no, it's very good. And what of a problem in Russia that you mentioned. I know it's a depressing thing, but did the Russians, I mean, I guess they won a military victory over the French, but really it was the Russian landscape, but

I guess they knew how to use the landscape to do that, right? I don't know. Well, it's a curious thing, right, because it's this victory at Austerlitz that forces the Russians to act in the way they did. You know, no sane nation just willingly lets its country get pillaged and destroys it itself, you know, the scourged earth tactic that the Russians become infamous for. That's not something you sort of begin to think about, but when you're faced against Napoleon and you realize, well, if we try and meet him face to face on battle, we're going to lose. He's just that great. There's no chance, no matter how many men we amass against him, that we could defeat him, that they have to resort to this tactic. And on the other

side the confidence Napoleon gets when facing the Russians and their ability and his ability to defeat them sort of goes to his head and this is a an issue that happens quite often when dealing with great men through history where they become so self-assured that they sort of move into their own follies and the campaign in Russia is the best example of that. Throughout his career, he very often looks at maps, he's constantly obsessed with terrain and maps and knowing where things are, and he sort of puts that to the wayside for the campaign in Russia. He becomes too self-confident in his own abilities, and this causes the defeat. The defeat was of attrition, more than it was any sort of military tactical Well, this is how the Russians always fight. They scorch earth in their own country.

They use the terrain and the weather and they, you know, their army just keep going until they run out of vodka, you know, I think something like this. But I want to ask you also about campaign in Spain. You know, we will pass over the depressing matter soon. But was Napoleon really responsible for this? The problem in Spain, you know, they say this where guerrilla war was invented and so forth, and they kick out Napoleon, they're very proud of that, that they resisted. Is this a blame you can put on him? Well, the Peninsular War is interesting because I think it's more of an example of the brilliance of the United Kingdom, particularly Arthur Wesley and the Duke of Wellington. He uses these tactics to strike at these extended French supply lines throughout France and

strike them on favorable ground and then retreat and use the terrain to their advantage, more than I would say it is Napoleon's fault. a very difficult campaign for him in which you know he loses something like 300,000 men and of course the Spanish suffer similar casualties and the state itself I mean the whole countryside is torn asunder there's anarchy it's all sorts of things but they do succeed in and pushing them out of Spain and it It causes basically the collapse of his empire at that point. But it's difficult to lay the blame at Napoleon's feet because I think a lot of it is the result of coalition forces, particularly the British, aggravating tensions within the peninsula to defeat Napoleon rather than do what's best for the Spanish.

Of course, the Spanish will say, like you said, they're very proud that they were able to kick Napoleon out of there. When you look at the cost and lives and the destruction that that country suffered at the hands of that, it's hard to say that they really came out on top long-term from it. Certainly the British did, though. Yes, so I do not mean to grill you on these things, they're extreme interesting, though, and I want to ask you about one more thing to end on a high note, since we had to cover Spain and Russia just for the sake of completeness. Well, one of Napoleon's great achievements is just previously, Frederick II of Hohenzollern, the leader of Prussia himself, maybe military genius, had also managed against all odds

to fight multiple powers at the same time and achieved immortal fame as a general. And the Prussian military machine was founded by his father, the Neo-Sparta, so-called, And the Soldier King and he had handsome Thursday, very tall guards. He went around Europe, is that true? He went around Europe and collected very tall guards for his king's guard. I don't know if this, I think this is true. Yes, Napoleon did the same, yes. So did you see today the special Handsome Thursday posts I made? I made four of them today. Did you see this? Yes. It's very good. I like the turn. I think you finally understood that, of course, this is something you know for a long time, but the essence of male physical perfection is, you know, Arno Brecker statues, but the

essence of female perfection is the anime girl. Yes. I like to pair the two in something astounding and new that I learned from someone called neo-eugenics, you know, but I posted several Scandinavian Danish Anglo-Saxon types today and I think this greatly inspires some people and greatly upset some when I put these photographs up and I talk about nuclear detonation in the future and a new basis for humanity, so so. And in interim, a possible outpost in the tropics, I don't know if you agree with that vision, it's compatible with what we were talking earlier, what's his name, I cannot say his name, but the man who writes the plan article we spoke from magazine, Jacuzzi, I think the two plans are compatible, the tropical readout. His plan is longer term plan, you

know? Yes, no, absolutely, I agree. But look, I go on tangents. Anyway, so Prussia, Spartan states, very famous for military power itself, had military genius Frederick II not long before all of this. And Napoleon managed to defeat, to defeat, Prussia, Battle of Vienna. And he was outnumbered in that as well, I believe. And how, we don't have to get into the details of the battle, although if you want to please I'm interested, but how was he able to do this amazing thing and defeat Prussia, outnumbered as, you know? Well, that battle in particular is of significance because it's really two battles, you know, it's the Battle of Jena and it's the Battle of Auerstatt, and they're fought basically at the same time at two different locations, and Napoleon wins both of them.

able to hold the line in one place and route his enemies the Prussians and the Saxons at one and then turn around and go back and win the other battle and it's that vitality it's that energy his ability to seemingly be everywhere at once and have the energy to move around and move his troops to engage and concentrate right you know he's he's outnumbered uh at jenna i think something like uh almost one and a half men to each of his own and then uh more than three times more enemies at him and also uh at our staff and despite this you know he causes you know almost 30 000 casualties 40 000 casualties against the enemy and suffers maybe you know 12 000 15,000 of his own. Yes. And that sort of disparity in troops and the fact that he's fighting on two

fronts at a single battle and still comes out on top is really astounding. I mean you wouldn't think that it would be possible but through genius he's able to visualize and see what needs to be done and react to situations on the fly with energy and vitality that no one else could match at the time. And it's at this battle where he shatters the Prussians, right, and occupies Prussia. And in that, there's a nice little anecdote that I like to think of, you know, you mentioned Frederick II and Frederick Dothraosa, one of my favorite leaders of history. Yes. He takes Saint-Souci... He was sensitive young man, for sure. Yes, yes, absolutely. As they all are, as it turns out. But, you know, he takes Saint-Souci, this palace of Frederick II,

And he's asked afterwards, you know, why didn't you take the sword of Frederick II? He says because I had my own You know, he was his own man. He was his own, you know, he viewed himself as A peer if not superior to Alexander and Caesar. No, no small king of the Prussians. Certainly. Yes Very good. So so know this very interesting that he didn't take the sword. I would have taken the sword. I I don't know, there is a samurai sword, apparently. Someone told me about the samurai sword and that is in the Japanese Imperial Palace and I am thinking that what happens if Thomas 777 gets his hands on this samurai sword. Look, I go on tangents, but this long segment already, why we don't take a break soon and come back to discuss Napoleon's legacy in the 19th century

and after. What do you think? I think that's a perfect plan. I want to ask you one more thing. It comes to mind now and it's related to this. But this is an extreme noob question, please understand. I don't know military history so well, so forgive for extreme noob questions. But it It sounds, from your description, it reminds me of, I had show earlier on Timoleo, a Greek general who made Sicily great again, Sicily was a Greek outpost and they were not doing well against the Carthaginians and they were mired in all kinds of political problems of their own with proto-mafia tyrants essentially breeding the place dry, depopulating it. And this Timoleo come and he makes Sicily great again and how he achieved his military

victories was again through extreme speed and surprising his enemies with mobility. Then I heard that Mongols, almost all of their successes are, it was always enemy thought they were far away and actually they were around the corner, they arrived days sooner than enemy thought. And I remember such detail, maybe even Caesar's campaign also in Gaul, you know, this, I'm sorry, is extreme noob question, but is this essential matter of all innovations in mobility some type like this? I mean, absolutely. I mean, that's the problem of war. Clausewitz has this good quote, he says, you know, in war, everything is simple, but the simplest thing is the hardest. And this friction that is caused by moving tens of thousands of men in addition to their

weapons and the cannons and the horses and their food and all this stuff, it slows things down immensely. And if a man is able to make all the mechanisms of war move smoothly and exploit it to achieve superior mobility over his enemies, he's going to win the vast majority of the time. It sounds simple, but it's so difficult to do because of everything I mentioned, you know It's you have to feed these men you have to clothe them on them. They're gonna be tired They're marching on old boots all these problems come up and it's the ability to overcome them and then use that to Make his enemies Respond in ways that they're uncomfortable, you know to appear where they're not expected or to be places that they shouldn't be

It's that sort of essence that propels so many victories and particularly Napoleon's victories in his campaigns. Yes, it's very good, and I hope that if some tech lords listen to this show, they invest in dune-style armor, because this can permanently change political organization away from need to cater to so-called democracy. But this different subject, so maybe we can talk next segment. What you say we take other break? Actually Brennan is back in my life. Brennan is here. He has the cauldron of water to bathe my feet. What do you say we take a short bath break? Absolutely, Beth. That sounds like a plan to me. Yes. We will be right back. Welcome back to show, and Brennan has been disciplined. We can continue our conversation. So, so I don't know, have you seen new account

Biden Rape Groyper? He make amazing documentary series, Scary Stories with Biden Rape Groyper. I encourage people to watch this. We don't need to talk this on the show, it's naughty matters, but I want to talk on this segment if you don't mind so-so about Napoleon's legacy in 19th century and after because as Nietzsche say more than one time, and not only Nietzsche but many other thinkers agree to this, that he was inspiration for all the high ideals of not just political thinkers but philosophers and artists and writers of the 19th century mentioned almost any great writer of that time and they had, it is said now, some complicated relationship with Napoleon but actually usually one of great admiration.

And to begin with just the basics, take Rosetta Stone, he found Egypt and led to decipher of hieroglyphic script and I find very funny if you remember recent disputes online where leftists had statements of how evil European colonialism was because they go around the world and they steal ancient artifacts and they bring them back to European museums and and they despoil the great traditions of native peoples, well, the Rosetta Stone, you know, how was it found? A lot of these artifacts actually end up being found at the bottom of, you know, they're being used as a footstool or something, and I cannot think of a number that must have been melted down or are still being misused in some dirty hovel, some peasant families

He's using it as a washbasin or replacement toilet and it contains perhaps the location of Mitanni capital or some other great thing and none of this could have been done without European colonialism and without expeditions such as Napoleon which find these implements, these artifacts, and studies them for themselves. I don't know what you think about this rather different topic, but no absolutely I mean the entire study of like Egypt ology begins with Napoleon's campaign into Egypt, right? They find the Rosetta Stone I believe it was a used as a stone in a fort Yes, just replaced a crumbling wall with the Rosetta Stone or something along those lines and then after that, you know this this Revolution in archaeology occurs in Egypt they find all these tombs, all these artifacts,

and were it not for that expedition, none of those things would have been found, or the process in which they were found began. Yes. Well, this, I think, consistent pattern, the reality is the opposite of what these leftists say about rapacious European pirates that steal native culture. Native culture, my ass, when you look at what these peoples actually do, The Aborigines that were pygmy inhabitants of Australia before the Aborigines, especially I believe Western Australia, they had been there 60,000 years ago or something on that order. Their article, I believe, by Keith Winshuttle about this, I don't remember, but they were there for sure before Aborigines and they left paintings and the Aborigines, when they find these, they try to scratch them out.

I've mentioned also Case with the, what is the name, it's actually I think end up not being a European man, but he certainly has very European facial features found in Seattle area I think or somewhere northwest United States. Is this the Kennewick Man or am I confusing that with something else? And whenever such remains are found, the local Native American so-called tribes because most Most of them have very dubious blood continuity with the tribe that they claim. There are a lot of what is that senator from Massachusetts who claimed to be an Indian because of her high cheek bones, you know. Yeah, Pocahontas. Yeah, the Pocahontas actually because North Europeans share 10% DNA with Native Americans, it is possible that some have such a look.

I mean, you look at that Icelandic singer, what's her name, Bjorn or something like this, she looks rather odd and then there are odd-looking people in Scandinavia itself. I suppose they can claim Native American ancestry. Look we're going on too many tangents maybe. But I'm saying whenever they find these ancient remains, they hide them and then they claim that you cannot test them scientifically for what their DNA is because that would upset their burial rites and you know you say well but that's not your ancestors they know that means you are attacking my religion because my religion says I've always been here and so anybody who's been here before I was could not that couldn't have happened and so you're attacking my religion and so this third

worldest cult of native peoples is giving license really to continuation of destruction of ancient, not just mummies and such, but ancient structures that was probably happening before European colonialism all the time. And I would say because of native human wickedness in every human being, part of the motivation for it was this. It was people trying to blot out the memory of previous inhabitants, even before the Europeans arrived, I believe that this was part of the motivation. And now it can continue again because of pussy Westerners with their notion of human rights, native rights, and so on, and allowing this leftist lie that, oh, it's actually the Europeans who go around to steal native artifacts, you know?

Yeah, I mean, routinely throughout the course of European expeditions into the various parts of the world, you see them collect and preserve and document and study these artifacts that they find and many a time they're left to rot in the dustbin and nobody seems to care until a European finds it and is able to identify it for what it is. I've always found that the most curious aspect too, that these people who apparently have such long histories and traditions and respect for their ancestors seem to leave all their goods discarded and it takes a European scientist to determine what they really are and then they become valuable and then they become untouchable by these people. Yes, instead they have absurd myths like that Napoleon used a cannon to lob off the nose

of the Sphinx because it had a sub-Saharan African nose, you know. In fact, I'm sure that before Napoleon did that the Sphinx looked like Toussaint Louverture from Haiti, you know, he's the most important general of the 1800s or so, if you didn't knows this. And Napoleon did this to blot out the historical memory of the Bantu, that they built the pyramids, and they had Wakanda, you know. Yeah, I'm not aware there's enough sandstone in the world to make a sub-Saharan noise that day. Yeah, yeah. I want to read for you again, for audience, from Nietzsche, Twilight of Idols, his passage on Gerstner, because it It has much to do with what we talk on this segment, so I hope you don't mind I read. I read now, it's segment 49, same as from what I've been reading so far.

Goethe, no mere German but a European event, a magnificent attempt to overcome the 18th century by means of a return to nature, by means of an ascent to the naturalness of the Renaissance, a kind of self-overcoming on the part of the century in question. talk about 18th. He bore the strongest instincts of this century in his breast, its sentimentality and idolatry of nature, its anti-historic, idealistic, unreal, and revolutionary spirit. The latter is only a form of the unreal. He enlisted history, natural science, antiquity, as well as Spinoza, and above all practical activity in his service. He drew a host of very definite horizons around him. Far from liberating himself from life, he plunged right into it. He did not give in.

He took as much as he could on his own shoulders and into his heart. That to which he aspired was totality. He was opposed to the sundering of reason, sexuality, feeling, and will, as preached to its most repulsive scholasticism by Kant, the antipodes of Goethe. He disciplined himself into a harmonious whole. He created himself. Goethe, in the midst of an age of unreal sentiment, was a convinced realist. He said yea to everything that was like him in this regard, and there was no greater event in his life than that ends rea lissimum, surname Napoleon. Goethe conceived a strong, highly cultured man, skillful in all bodily accomplishments, able to keep himself in check, having a feeling of reverence for himself, and so constituted

as to be able to risk the full enjoyment of naturalness in all its rich profusion and be strong enough for this freedom. A man of tolerance not out of weakness but out of strength because he knows how to turn to his own profit that which would ruin the mediocre nature. A man unto whom nothing is any longer forbidden unless it be weakness either as a vice or as a virtue. Such a spirit, become free, appears in the middle of the universe with a feeling of cheerful and confident fatalism. He believes that only individual things are bad and that as a whole the universe justifies and affirms itself. You see how they try to attack my tongue? He no longer denies, but such a faith is the highest of all faiths. I christened it with the name of Dionysus. I stopped reading. You like this passage?

No, it's very good. You know, it reminds me, so many characters in the 19th century, particularly those of significance in philosophy and political theory and military theory especially, look to Napoleon and orbit around Napoleon. He's like this great star in which that entire century, which is truly the zenith of European cultural victory over the world, that he inspires all of it, really, in so many different ways. Klossowitz, he writes, he begins his military career as an ensign at 14 years old, serving with the Prussian army against Napoleon, and at another point resigns his commission with the Prussians and fights with the Russians against Napoleon, and then goes on and writes the greatest piece of military theory, his book, On War. And in it, he can't put praise Napoleon enough.

He's the model for military genius and many other things, you know. Hegel, when he writes and he sees him after the Battle of Yina, he thinks this is the world's soul upon horseback to survey his reign. Over and over again you see these great thinkers and artists and leaders inspired over and over by Napoleon's true perfection as a great man. Yes, one of my favorite examples also is Stendhal, who is a favorite author of mine. I frequently recommended his book Charterhouse of Parma, where the hero takes part in battle with Napoleon. And then also he has famous, his most famous book, Red in the Black, where the protagonist, I believe, he reads a book by Napoleon in the beginning of book. Napoleon's one of his heroes.

So this may be one of the most famous novels of the 19th century and one of the best ever written has Napoleon as undercurrent in running in back of the plot. And Stendhal also, I am told, I have not read it yet, but has a biography of Napoleon that apparently was quite important to Nietzsche. This must be read, it's very good. But yes, an example of Stendhal is not alone, an example of Goethe is not alone. I think almost any great name that you mention has Napoleon on the mind. And I think there are many possible reasons for this. mentioned a few, Nietzsche mentioned in the case of Goethe the reason why, but I think what comes out to me strongest in all these cases is the contrast, again the contrast

between Napoleon the man and everything else that was around him, even before him and especially after him with the coming of the democratic age, he stood as the one example against this This dreadful, bleak, hopeless egalitarianism that encroaches completely now in our time. I don't know what you think of this. No, absolutely. I mean, he's almost an anachronism, right? Yes. If he had existed during the ages of the Greeks, then Plutarch would have put him at the very top of his list. Yes. He's the spirit that really harkens back to this classical idea of virtue. He is the ideal and he exists among this modernist milieu that simply can't compare to him. And even his greatest enemies can't speak any higher of him. You ask the Duke of Wellington, right? His greatest opponent,

the orchestrator of his greatest defeat at Waterloo. He was asked one time, who is the greatest captain of the age? And he replies, in this age, in any age, in every age, Napoleon. Yes. No, it's very good. I mean, imagine someone saying that about Hitler, and I don't want to make a comparison because there are people who would get offended either way, but I will make the comparison because I think Napoleon is a much more flashy character, and whether it's because he supposedly committed less crimes, but I don't think the difference between the two is so-called war crimes and such, there's something very inspiring about Napoleon that they hated him, but they could not censor him, they didn't try to censor him.

The name of Hitler has become synonymous with satanic and so forth, and so he cannot be used as a counter to the egalitarianism of our time, but aside from him, there are really no other candidates, I think. People try to contrive Churchill or some other presidents after Reagan. The comparison is pathetic, right? But he's the only candidate, let's say, and he's been so demonized for whatever reason. But I think also in terms of quality, he doesn't rise up to the level of Napoleon. But now, we are in this terrible condition where the French Revolution is unfolding continuously in our time and the example of Napoleon does not inspire men to do any kind of resistance, spiritual resistance anymore and there's nothing else to replace him, so what do, what happened, I don't know.

Well I would wonder if that's true because if you look at the youth of Napoleon, he studies many of the greats, particularly Caesar and Alexander. Alexander, he ranks the highest. And I think, you know, you look at most men of his age, I'm sure plenty studied them as well. I mean, that was par for the course for education standards back then. But the sort of intimacy in which he followed these great leaders of the past, I think that's certainly true of at least one man, and it only takes one man. There only had to be Napoleon. Perhaps, as I mentioned at the beginning of the show, He's out there in this moment still, so what it does for the masses, what it does for the common man, I think is mostly irrelevant. It only needs to inspire the one.

Yes. No, I think you are right. The problem that people like Fukuyama have, who say that we have entered an age of, let's say, spiritual democracy, he has gone back on his statements recently. He doesn't, I think, understand his own thesis in the book that made him famous, End of History and the Last Man, which made, I think, the wrong argument that liberal democracy became the only game in town after the fall of communism. These were the only two competing systems left for the soul of man, and people had decided definitely for liberal democracy because, and he has this Hegelian-Kozhevian idea that it's because liberal democracy satisfies everyone's desire for recognition and so on. But it's, I think, a very inadequate argument and he notices that, anybody would notice

that had IQ above 115 would notice that it's an adequate argument because mankind reduced to the life of a dog, of a lazy dog who aspires to nothing and so on, is let's say spiritually unsustainable. But I think him and other conservatives underestimated how awful that kind of life is. They think it's merely comfortable, that it satisfies the vast majority of people, that people who have spiritual objections to it are rather few, and that their aspirations toward nobility can be satisfied in other ways. But I think they underestimate what happens when you have a society where you raise—I We know this is a very different subject because we're not talking about the kinds of men you just mentioned. We're talking about, let's say, somewhat above average intelligence people.

But when you have a critical mass of such people and they are raised in a society complete with nothing, absolute no aspiration for any great action, I mean you look, look, Napoleon acted as a spur to the imaginations of people who were not as great as him in the 19th century is what I'm saying. And in pre-modern times, I've mentioned, for example, earlier on this show, this man Timoleone. He's not so well known. He did not conquer the world like Alexander and Napoleon. He conquered one island, Sicily, and not even conquered that. He was a guy, came out of political retirement, and his city, Corinth, told him, go and save our daughter's city, Syracuse. And it was because nobody else wanted to do it. But think of that in

the ancient world, even, let's say, a slightly above average man had example of this. He became a hero to Molyneux, and not just him, but many other, many other such more minor generals from Roman history that you can read in Livy and Tacitus and so forth. And these smaller generals, why do I mention them? I mean, imagine the contrast between a man's sent, go save our daughter's city, right? And he ended up saving Greek civilization in that area from Carthage, which actually did end up having long-term historical benefit for Rome. So it had important historical role, et cetera, if that's important to you. But the point is, his opportunity for action was so dazzling compared to what's available to anyone of our time.

Roman times if you were 17 or 18, 19 of patrician class you would be sent across the empire on tasks that seem by today's standards extreme colorful adventures from a boy's adventure story and nothing like that is available at all to anyone even in the imagination they look in the last 50 60 years I've mentioned a few of the of such men in my book and at At other times, the mercenaries, Dennard and Mike Hoare and so forth, there are a few people like that that are not celebrated. But I'm saying all this because it's a dead-end existence that's presented to everyone as something that's supposedly good and they should celebrate. And then the Conservatives' answer to all this is to say, yes, it is unsatisfying, but

you should put a religious picture on the wall of your cage and you should pray and that will satisfy you. And of course, that's, I think, probably a modernist, I don't speak as a theologian, I don't know, but that's probably a modernist misuse of religion. I had, I spoke Bishop Richard Williamson, he said, that's not supposed to be the purpose of Christianity, to adorn the life of a slave, to adorn domestic existence for man. That's also not what spread Christianity around the world, it was the conquistadors and so on. And I guess my point is also that when you have this cage-like existence with no countervailing example, your son turns trans. Your son ends up looking around, there's nothing in the recent past that's presented

to him at all, there's nothing possible in the future, it's a dreadful boredom, and so, you know, of course they, why not turn trans or, you know, your son will turn into a trune. So it turns out that the complacency about the spiritual barrenness of liberal democracy was misplaced, and also that religion is not a solution to that either, as some conservatives imagine. And so I suppose this is what I'm trying to say. Without an example like Napoleon's, an active one, not just one from the past, what to do? I don't mean for the individual great man and so on who we talk in a moment, but what do for let's say the 120 to 125 IQ slightly above average, I think they are lost completely without something.

Well to that I would say this, and again it just depends on that seniorly great man, right? Because right now you're correct, they are lost, and what solution do they have? What hope do they have? There's very little in this world that can govern any sort of absolution to the problems, particularly the spiritual, in this iron prison that we find ourselves in. And it sort of depends upon the great man to emerge from this emptiness, this total bereftment of real meaning and virtue to inspire the, you know, the Gothas and the Nietzsche's and the Hegels, and a thousand other great men, not quite the cowardly Napoleon, but the men that followed in his wake. It takes that sort of new age, this paradigm shift caused by a singular great man to revitalize

these men, and to add a spirit to the age, and I think that's what's so important of like this podcast and this sphere that has built up over the years, is that to those Those men we provide, in some sense, both historical examples, like you mentioned several times, Tim and Leon, like that's my favorite show that you've done, and you know, the different great men that you've given examples to, like the Normans and many others, those are I think your best episodes and I think they're some of the favorites among the audience, because they provide those examples, and if such a great man does not yet exist or has not risen the power, that at least it gives men hope that someday, preferably soon, such a man will arise. Yes.

No, well, I was a bit, perhaps it is jet lag, I agree with this also, perhaps it was jet lag kvetching on my part, but no, I think you're right, and of course I didn't mean to imply that Goethe or Nietzsche or Stendhal were 120 IQ compared to Napoleon, but I'm Saying the spiritual crisis of our time is caused by this bleak, brutal egalitarianism. And the only thing that can offset it is, I think, the spur of somebody who's able to break through it. That's why Trump, for all of his faults, that's why he's so important and the alternatives presented to him so far are so bleak and irrelevant because it's ultimately not about policy at all. But let's not talk about Trump. Regarding Napoleon, you are right, I think, exactly in what you said.

He was surrounded by mediocrity of late 18th century France and then of the French Revolution, its shabby, aggressive, Rousseauian egalitarianism. And his counterexample was, as you said, Alexander. And so it has to be the classical man. It has to be the Greco-Roman heritage that can act as spur of some few men, obviously not the ones I've mentioned who end up being crushed by this egalitarianism and turning true or whatever because they think it helps them. But a few great men can arise perhaps inspired by Plutarch's heroes who were also the heroes of the American founders and also of Rousseau himself actually and of Nietzsche and of many others, but these great examples from Greek or Roman antiquity, if they can be made to

come alive and show a few men, you're right, it doesn't need to be a great mass, it can be a few or even one to break through this modern prison, then I think that is enough, no? absolutely yes no I think so I think so but very good what you say I have been keeping you for a while what you say we and show for now and continue on longer talk next time on Napoleon matters absolutely BAP I'm happy to be here any time I mean there's such to discuss with Napoleon from his battles to his impact to so many other things I mean there's been more books written about him than over days since he's been gone you know he's truly a man of all ages and to him I say see yes we say let a new Napoleon return in our time perhaps with dune armor but even without I think it's possible I think even without it's

possible so so yes I I want I'm sorry I need to keep going another minute if you don't mind. I was very upset at what happened recently in Brazil, okay, where you had Bolsonaro, this Boulanger figure, who end up being like, I don't want to say, you know, he end up being again a boomer, okay, and he end up doing nothing after saying he would never accept them to steal election. And he had example of Trump before him, what they did to Trump, and he made no preparations apparently to stop election being stolen in Brazil. Everyone in Brazil knows it was stolen. The Brazilian state had become, even before the election, a kind of judicial tyranny where one of the Supreme Court justices, who used to be, by the way, a lawyer for the drug cartels,

had assumed essentially dictatorial powers in the nation, overriding Bolsonaro on many points that he had no authority to do so. And Bolsonaro, during that time, was already asking the military to intervene, and this is my point. The military did nothing, even before the election. Now, after the election, the Brazilian people did everything that the American right was hoping the American people would do. They went out into the streets, the truckers stopped highways, they brought the country to a standstill, and anyone in the Brazilian military who wanted to take a risk could have at that point. All it would have taken is maybe one general to take a risk and to say, you know, I may end up going to jail or getting killed, but I'm going to go for it all.

I'm going to use these popular protests to intervene and not put Bolsonaro in power. We will say we'll have a transitional military government because, and by the way, that would have been the just thing to do from a normie point of view also because neither Bolsonaro nor the guy now is acceptable to the other side. The military could have intervened as some kind of neutral party and established some kind of provisional government. What I expect will happen to them now is what happened to the air force and such in Venezuela under Chavez. They were against Chavez and he decimated them and then Erdogan in Turkey decimated the military because they too, they too, the military in Turkey, which has a constitutional

role to preserve the secular Turkish Republic, but they too acted in this pussy way. So they act, everyone today act like a pussy and nothing ever happens. And people have systemic explanations about historical forces or in this case, to be fair, There are some explanations about, well, Brazil was abandoned by Russia and China, and it didn't have America, and so it would have been alone if it had gone in the direction of a coup. I understand that, but still, how could a man in a Brazilian general resist the temptation to do that unless they were all caponized, they were all unmanned previously, and I believe in this. They are all pussies, and all it would have taken is not to be narcissists, is for one of them to have read my book.

And I say humbly my book because I don't expect them to read Stendhal and Nietzsche and ancient history or to read about Scipio or ancient Roman heroes or Plutarch heroes or such. But if they had read my silly book and maybe been inspired, that's all it would have taken to end Brazilian state. And one thing that our friend said in the article, the plan that I very much agree with, is that all it takes is one country. Once it happens in one country, it will become case of monkey see, monkey do. There will be imitations in others. People will see, oh, this is possible. We can do this. I think a lot of these boomers who are now generals and in power are just such complacent people and have no historical imagination

at all. They do not read any of these old books. Excuse me, that has become a kind of contentious phrase, old books. It's not all old books. They do not read Plutarch, they do not read Homer, they do not read about great men like Alexander. They do not have such aspirations. They don't know the historical possibilities. And so you end up having one pussy event after another. I don't know. I have gone on this long tangent, so I don't mean to keep you, but do you have anything to say about this before we go? Sure, well I have sort of a point to make with that. You know, there's this video game that I like a lot. It's called Morrowind. And in it, it deals with the prophecy of this incarnation of an old ancient hero. And within the story, there are these things known as

false incarnates. And to most, they would assume when a prophesized return of this reincarnation fails that sort of disproves the prophecy, but it doesn't. It actually enforces it. It's told within it itself, and I think when you look at the failures of Trump and the failures of Bolsonaro and many others that could have been great, but for whatever reason, whether their own failings or circumstances or systemic, they don't achieve it. What I really see is this spirit of greatness, this avatar of Vishnu, or perhaps calculus, that wants to breakthrough into this age, and it's trying through various means and various men to do so. Yes. And none have quite been able to really birth this manifestation of a new god into the world, but I think it's there and it wants to be born. Yes.

And perhaps Nemesis is among us already. I believe so. I believe it is. I believe in a return of Napoleon the Comet. Very good so-so. On that note, let us go then. Until next time, Dab out, Napoleon, return!