Welcome, Caribbean Rhythms, episode 138. I am losing idea of shibun force. Tonton Makut America, shibun force. Paramilitary Kamala America is becoming ever more of a possibility now with Trump indicted and Bernou Scone assassinated by Macron with Congolese uranium. Macron, a fan of the Congolese. Will there be a Jacobin or Tonton Makut moment in America? This is men's great value. the man's great value, Trump. Imagine someone saying years ago that government would indict number one candidate for president. In fact, people were denying this would happen even weeks ago. But now, he forced regime to go mask off once again. There is great value in that, getting them to be ham-handed and forceful, far beyond any policy moves that, policy moves are reversible anyway.

I mean, imagine just quadrants of, Just like Sharia police in Saudi Arabia, you have Shibuun virtue ethics police enforcing communitarian traditional church Marxism. After all, the church tradition is very strong among that community. They're a trad people. If it weren't for the old church ladies in the nice Sunday getup with the freely hats, who do you think would vote in that community? They reject, they reject the depredations of Western liberalism and never even conform to it. They're never part of it. So they're your natural allies, right? Just like the Chinese and the Muslims. Alain Sorrel, a dissident Marxist from France, ran a campaign on these principles. It was not a hit with the French people. Look it up, what happened with the Sorrel campaign.

It was not a hit with the French bourgeoisie, but it was also not a hit with the migrants that he was hoping to have as allies against, well, you know who, but maybe I write something longer about this. The delusions of these types of national Bolshevists and third-worldists to believe you can win by making third-world communitarian coalition. But the delusions of these other also a collection of less intense but similar-based anti-liberals, so-called, who they hope to form alliance either with POC groups or with leftists, which of course There is no problem using blacks and other POCs as tools in a political war because that's what the Libtards also do. You shouldn't let them monopolize that. For all this talk of Negroletry, it's actually the Libtard leadership and the centrist pompous

moderates who are using black people merely as a symbol to usurp powers and privileges for themselves and in particular to attack their enemies. So in principle, there shouldn't be a reason that the right wing can't do the same, except so far it can't, because it hasn't mastered art of provocation and humor, instead it does things like promote actual minorities to political power, which doesn't impress anyone, it's a weak cock move, not even the Cuban communists do that, and it's completely ineffective because for example, once you do that, not only do you not get thanks from these communities, But the left has no problem calling people like Clarence Thomas and Uncle Tom, or otherwise the Conservatives.

Another ineffective move that you all laugh at is they call the Libtards the real racists, which doesn't go nearly far enough. Whereas what Steve Saylor does to point out that the liberal moderate establishments, to point out their betrayals of liberal universalism in the name of lies and petty self-serving, this can be somewhat more effective. The bureaucrat does this as well in a different way. And the target of these arguments wouldn't be minorities themselves, but normies in general. I think some of them can be persuaded. I mean, they are being persuaded by the libtards now in the other direction, again using minorities and minority rights as proxies. But I mean, if you can't persuade people to uphold honest liberal meritocracy, even

in the name of race blindness, and to be consistent about that, which by the way, I have no doubt doubt that would translate into de facto white supremacy, which is why the left are very much aware of that and why, well, look, if you can't get, that's one of the cases where the woke more correct in the mainstream, but if you can't get people even to do that, which is a moderate aim that has cover of being actually the stated belief of American society, race blind meritocracy, it's supposed to be one of its principal foundations, but you You can't get even Republican senators and such to support that, so how then do you plan to introduce entirely alien and much more extreme notions, whether they be of a racial or religious kind?

And the problem of Reaganite and neo-Reaganite normie conservatives isn't their principled race blindness or their consistent adherence to liberal norms of meritocracy, to freedoms and such, which they mostly don't have this adherence at all. Their problems and the means by which they have inflicted damage on America is through, for example, foreign policy mistakes. I'm talking about normicons, the neo-Reaganites, so-called. And their foreign policy mistakes, they hide these under the label of Jacksonian self-assertion and hawkishness. But this, for whatever reason, has led to one losing engagement after another, one failed intervention after another for 30 years. reputation of America weakened it, squandered its treasure. Second, they make

mistakes and damage country through their pilfering of economy, which they justify by free market rhetoric, but not actually by that practice. And mostly this is done through favors to preferred actors. You know, industry offshored, China strengthened under absurd doctrine of free trade, which isn't necessarily the same as free markets, by the way, and in fact can even be opposed to free markets in some cases, but anyway, these three legs of the Reaganite doctrine, hawkish foreign policy, free market, and open religiosity mixed with, let's say, I think cynical, but maybe they don't, virtue ethics of some kind. But these have walked the nation, and actually West in general, to manifest failure on foreign policy and economic mistakes.

And then what I mean to say is that the third leg of the Reaganite and conservative program is religion, public religion, religion as utility for public virtue. And this has never worked either and was always interpreted by genuine religious people as Pharisaism, which is why the evangelicals revolted against it in 2016. They still hate it. They didn't want in 2016 any more of this demagoguery, the religious demagoguery of people like Ted Cruz and Pence and Paul Ryan. constant cynical covering up of catastrophic failure on other fronts by appearing to talk tough on abortion, I mean, or on gay marriage, and now the tranny thing, though they never actually did anything about any of these things either. And I think because Trump so utterly exposed these plodding Norwood serious business pile

drivers in 2016, they've done the only thing they know how to do, which is to become ever more strident on the religious angle, because right, they think that's what they have on him. This is why you're seeing all this religious barking online now for the last year, and especially from the dissent is the Negro camp, although it's being filtered through various buffers very often, but it's a completely useless thing to focus on competence of supposed DeSantis when somebody's owned by the same GOP donors as ever before and will inevitably sacrifice whatever good domestic agenda he has to get a Democrat or other support for yet another war. This was also Bush 2, George W. Bush problem as well, by the way. He had some quite good idea coming in, but he had to give it all up because he needed

or thought he had to argue for Democrat support for his war. And because of that, they are willing to throw away all of their domestic agenda. So it doesn't really matter what they say or even what they think they intend they want to do. The scientist, for example, was asked on some show, television show, TV show, what he thinks about Ukraine and what he would do about it. And he started to talk about transsexuals in the military, which just about demonstrates So what I'm saying here, the GOP method is just this for decades, you see, this demagoguing on very petty matters that ultimately they don't act on anyway. It took Trump to act on abortion, for example. But get Paul Ryan to talk about abortion during debates, which he did with Biden in a debate

with Obama, and Paul Ryan did very poorly in that debate, by the way. But yes, get someone like him to talk about abortion in order to obscure facts that are Ryan Romney economic plan, different from Obama's, I think, study at the time said different on order of 3%. And probably, let's give Obama some credit, he did start stupid war, for example, in Libya and arguably Ukraine. But McCain or Romney would have done that also, and they would have undoubtedly started another war in Syria, a loser war in Syria or Iran. Now imagine the virtue, shibun police patrol with batons, portly hippopotamus, self-serious heirs. Would you like this? Imagine this instead. Being eerily penetrated in a public bathroom by these very strong-arm shibun wielding specially for the rubber nightstick.

It's just pathetic, you know, these so-called dissident thinkers spreading idea of mandatory national service. Have you seen this? You realize, maybe, that you're not a dictator, those of you who make such suggestions. I've seen these suggestions made increasing, repeated, very many, oftentimes, recent. We have to get national service, some type of AmeriCorps, to teach the SWPL kids, the Libtard kids, a lesson. But it's not them or only them who would be learning your supposed lessons. Maybe you realize when you propose and support things like this that you're not the one in charge of how it will be done. It's not going to be a spartan criptea aristocratic handsome Thursday secret society of white youths having a free hand to keep their neighborhoods

clean. It's going to be slavery service and whether it's done by forcing smart, sensitive young men to waste time building screws in rural Mississippi or West Texas for disadvantaged minorities, and this was the whole of the Obama thing, right? The whole AmeriCorps thing. abandoned space flights, to force smart young people to do service in Mississippi building schools. Only at the time, their preferred method was to force it through putting young people into debt and giving them the option of a national service for getting out of debt, and it never really took off. But even if it had, you know, this isn't just, is not ostentatiously punitive and tyrannical enough. So I think they'll just force it on people.

Redirect by law, young smart people away again from important things like technology, research, space travel or, let's say, raiding Venezuela or raiding the Comoros Islands, but certainly turn them away from space travel. After all, isn't space fake? Isn't space just empty? It's also populated by demons. It's empty and it's full of demons. Stay away from that. to reproduce more, let's say, engage in Ubuntu maximization. But yes, redirect them away from space travel or being in movies or whatever, you know, these are obviously elite spoiled demon avocado toast. Just redirect them away. You don't want them writing movies or such. And just again, stick it to these avocado toast Shake Shack contingent. Why not insert them to making POC life slightly more comfortable?

why not teach them a good lesson to wash the feet or at least improve the signing of a shack for abuelitas in New Mexico or West Texas. So you see, the Normicons in a cottage guise now, they promote this idea for some time of mandatory national service. And I think they say we have a lot to learn from Oaxacan babushka, you know, with a scarf on there. We have to let go over urbanite decadence, and learn a thing or two from that babushka from Oaxaca with her two scars on her head. So now proposals are being made to take your son or daughter at age 18 or maybe even younger and really in the end to do what? To insert them to a shibun war camp operator because that's what it will be. A shibun who will abuse them in every which way. This will be called national service.

If you complain about it, you will be called a liberal who believes in outdated things like individual autonomy. And so you have dissident so-called people, the same who are saying the good of the herd takes precedence and so COVID lockdowns, you must do your duty. The same people who are saying this at that time are calling for this now, cheating this on national service. I really think all they would have to do, I mean the Libtard companies in charge, all they would have to do to get half of religious conservatives on board with this lunacy is is to frame it in a virtue ethics. We are countering the deleterious effects of atomizing Lockean individualism and so on. So you have to then send your, to do that, you have to send your son to build a better school

for middle-school Yoruba bonobo yelling. They need more state-of-the-art arenas for bonobo screech parties with LED screens to blast it, lighting to propagate it to the world. Has any avant-garde artist taken me up and my suggestion of presenting completely without irony, the achievements, the innovations in the art of cannibalism on the part of the homie, so-called empire, and I don't mean like homie, but D-H-O-M-E-Y, look it up, where they paved streets with corpses, where they kept people in these ponds submerged up to the neck to tenderize their flesh, tenderize their, would you eat that? I said to myself a while ago, you know, I was going to turn vegetarian, and the only way I convinced myself to keep eating meat, because I felt very weak after a while

of being vegetarian a few months, so I started to eat meat again for medical reasons, and I convinced myself morally by saying, okay, but it's morally the same thing as eating human flesh. But then it's okay to do that as well. I would eat people. But most people are unpleasant and unhealthy. When you, would you eat, you are driving by side of road in Florida or such state, Georgia. By side of highway, you see a fat woman. Her skin sort of look white, but not quite. There's some kind of melungeon in the face. She's got capri pants on, she's got rolls of fat extruding from under mini size tank top. up she's got one mulatto kid in tow or something and it's a picture so depressing would you eat that that's disgusting but you know I would not eat

no bees sickly cello land here for human so but by that reasoning why don't you pay attention also to where your animal meat comes from and so this is what I just did for you now is a variation on old Greek argument that if you care about horses and dogs to the level where you are very careful on their reading and treatment and grooming and training and such, but you don't train your sons in the same way as you train your horse. What does that mean, neglectful? I think maybe Socratic's made this argument, whereas an earlier thinker like Theognis would make the same argument about breeding. I think I mentioned this on last episode. You take care to breed your rams and horses to improve their stock, but you don't take care for yourself and your son to wed a good wife

a good husband, of good genetic stock, of good blood stock I mean, instead he say money confounds the, well he doesn't use the word purity, but the quality let's say, the quality of race, am I allowed to say that, I don't know, but I make the same argument that these people do about horses in these two ways, about training and breeding, but I make it about cannibalism, you know, this is the difference you see, I'm just a retired peasant from the the edge of the great earth sea, from the steppe, the edge of the steppe. I'm just a peasant from there. What can I tell you? I like cannibalism. I like the city Kyoto. It has wonderful feel emanates from land, whereas Tokyo doesn't, even though the people in Kyoto are according to friend, they're well known to be malicious and black-hearted.

This happens daily in Kyoto taxi drive or many other will just snap at you and just treat you with complete disdain. I'd like to go to Imperial Palace grounds, walk in the gardens there. And to imagine while I look at the closed wall grounds, a Japanese Asia, a greater co-prosperity sphere as they call it. If Japan had been allowed to do this, it would have taken mankind to solar colonisation along with Europe, then together they would have done. Imagine Japanese-Indian-Buddhist-Hindu friendship. I am trying to get entry into Shingon headquarters. This is a Buddhist sect, it's Tibetan Buddhism outside Tibet, a few hours away. It's the only Tibetan branch of Buddhism outside Tibet, are you interested to learn this?

Would you accept this as your state religion if I, or if there could be a kind of syncretism, you know, would you, you know, they could say that Jesus was the Buddha but he was reborn many times to re-bring his message through various ages when the teaching was lost. There is an old taxi driver here who showed me very violent manga collection. He showed me neon red panties manga girl. This is what happens to people like this when they're not allowed to conquer other countries and to be militarist in a healthy way and to do a non-king and to do a greater co-prosperity sphere. Just look at the Germans. It's the same. They cannot invade Ukraine and they cannot do a general plan East so they wrap themselves in latex and leather and they piss on each other mouth, okay? I don't make the rules.

The Romans became the same way. That's why in Marshall I think, I think it's in Marshall, there are verbs for the rippling of buttocks when you thrust in and it's a different verb for a man and for a woman. This is the kind of thing Romans specialized in by the end. I mean, it's not that the Romans became that way. They always were, but they put it, I mean, it has eventually, that has to go somewhere, that energy. I'm not sure my psychology theory on this is solid. It's just something people say. I don't know. Have you ever been severely beaten by a girl with beautiful legs? Okay, anyway, this is the left-hand path, is it? Is this the left-hand path? I mean, I don't want to claim that. I don't know what to do anymore in this country. I can't read the people.

They have a completely blank look on the face, sometimes when you talk they pretend not to understand even very simple things, it's a feeling with brain damage being here. There's one particular restaurant I enjoy much to eat, they have izakaya drinks, squid guts, fermented style and such, but also roast fish and skewers and such. I think I overstayed my welcome because these people's faces began friendly, but now there's the quality. I go there about once a week and in the beginning they were very nice and super hospitable. In the Orient people are, you can get used to exceeding hospitality. In the West people seem completely cold and peasant-like after this. But lately even these people have a quality. I've never done anything bad in their restaurant. I'm always super

polite myself. So they bring me these snacks. The fish is cooked well, I can't complain, the owner no longer make eye contact with me. I cannot understand him. I asked the waitress. She speaks some English. Why doesn't he look me in the eye anymore? I told you a story. You can put people on the defensive with such tactic. Why do you look at me this time this way? You know, I told you a story. I was meeting in a previous time when I had to half pretend I was an army. And I don't mean to cause him any embarrassment, but I can say it. I met sometimes with Harvey Mansfield. He's a good man and, you know, he has a secret finishing school for fascists. No, I'm not allowed to say that, but we would meet at the pub bar

and such. I like his manner. If Waitress got Guinness, if he got his Guinness size wrong, he would snap at her just like I do. I mean, I'm super polite, but if they get the order wrong, I, but I'm actually super polite with staff, you know, I feel comfortable saying this. It's odd. I've said in the past about my friendship with Don Kagan, who liked me quite a bit, but for some reason, conservatives who hate me and who come with various sock puppets to attack me, you know, they choose to avoid that. They choose to talk about people and things, so I had very little to do with. But Don Cagan is ignored, it's very interesting to me. But so it's, you know, I can say anything on this show in full knowledge that I will get lied about anyway, so all of this could be just me making it up, right?

But it's the dirtiest and pettiest people, by the way, who I know who's doing it, who's attacking me. It's the old GOP apparatchiks type and the other young strivers who seek to be GOP apparatchiks, the aspiring intellectual movement conservatives from DC, the Neo-Reignites and other strivers to the label of moderation. And they slander me under their real names in one way and scheme and then they have sock puppet anonymous accounts to slander me anonymously from a different direction. It's always been this way, by the way, the right in general. Not just the dissident right, but even what you think of as the mainstream conservative movement, which are people that the left considers freaks, by the way. But from what people, I don't know if it's true, but from people have told me before,

it's always been like this, that this whole right in the United States is a bunch of backstabbers and narcissists that are always looking for the next grant, the next scam, and so on. They have no ideas at all. Look at little Ben Shapiro, too. It's not that he doesn't believe in anything he says, I'm sure he does think he believes in it now, but just that, as a matter of public record, he decided some time ago, and he didn't know what he believed, but he decided to go in this kiss-ass direction because there was, you know, a market share in it and whatnot, and donors and whatnot, and pretty much all of them are like this. He at least is successful in getting an audience, I think, to pay for his output, but the rest Most of them, they all have this story.

Look around and pick the kiss-ass theory. But look, let's not talk worms and snakes. At least snakes have a spine, and these are cylindrids, as Michael Savage calls them. But anyway, Mansfield isn't like this at all, by the way. He has his own ideas and insights and such, and like Don Kagan, he has some good books. But because of these good books, and because he has his own ideas, and because of the prestige of his name, he's surrounded by all kinds of such conservative movement prima donnas and parasites on the make, who have no ideas of their own and who seek to suck off what they don't have, they seek to suck off the aura of another man like this. And I think he knows that, but you know, I know some of such things too about myself,

but there's a vanity and it's flattering to have sycophants and flatterers, even if you know they're so-called using you for the perceived glint or whatever, but anyway. So he's a good and funny man and he'd snap at the waitress and occasionally I would say something too outrageous and he would look around, he would take stock and indeed there were normgroids around us, thankfully they did not hear, it's not my intention to embarrass anyone but yes, there were normgroids sitting around us, that is a neologism by the way, it stands for normal fag groids, you know, you put that together, normgroids sitting around us. I didn't mean to alarm, okay, but you have to be discreet and he told me once, you have

to be careful because there is natural right, which you speak right on, but then there is what's possible in our time. So yes, I know this, of course, this is their line, you know, that the normal conservatives, even at their best, but that's their line. But the difference is he lives in awareness of what is, of what the actual right by nature is, and he has a willingness to acknowledge it, even if privately. But his hangers-on, they have no clue what any of that means. It's all social climbing for them. I mean, do you know how many have aped, for example, Mansfield's manners of talking and such and his verbal ethics? Again, these strivers to the brand of normalcy and moderation. It's funny to see because it fits them about as well as a tuxedo and a chimpanzee at a cocktail party.

Oh, I'm a philosopher. But yes, he's a good man, but very discreet and shy, and often I think he get into a catatonic shy state, which I say is a compliment. But look, there's a reason I'm telling you this. One time I meet him, and we talk, but in middle I get dreamy and quiet, and he gets dreamy and he look blankly out the window and that's okay. But I register that that happened, and then some months later we meet again and we talk, but we both get in this condition, we get quiet, we look out the window, but I get burst of energy I want to talk to him I get this and you get this look in the eye when I'm trying to talk to him about certain things so I asked him have you ever seen the interview with Mannerheim the leader of Finland in World War two

Mannerheim and Hitler okay have you ever seen this you can find this on YouTube even a lot of Hitler content has been taken off YouTube it's been clipped out in documentary form it's harder to find now I think they only allow this British historical documentary, I think it's a company called Pathé, I don't know how you pronounce it, excuse me, but they let them cover Hitler content now, they have exclusive rights to that on YouTube or something like this, but you can still maybe find short excerpts of this famous meeting, it was filmed, between Mannerheim leader of Finland and Hitler, and it's very funny actually because Mannerheim was much taller than Hitler, but Hitler told his filmmaker to use myspace angles to hide this fact so it's creatively filmed so that Hitler

doesn't seem that much shorter than Mannerheim and the two of them are talking but you see in Mannerheim's eyes and he was an aristocrat think you know like a Junker that type an aristocrat of the old type and they didn't like Hitler or his his guys too much okay so and what they thought of them I can't get into you but but they're meeting and at times the camera captures this look in the eye of Mannerheim. If you look carefully, it's that look, and this is what I wanted to tell Mansfield. I noticed that you were looking out the window last time we met, too. And now you're looking at me the way Mannerheim looked at Hitler in that interview. Is this kind of thing okay to tell people? You know, I was not dishonest to say this out in the

open. I thought about saying it. Maybe I did say it. I don't want to tell you. But now Now I don't care anymore, so I say this to you now, and I say to Isakaya owner, his own oriental blank stare, incomprehensible, but I shouldn't blame him. As a vain man myself, I always assume it's about me, but it may not have been. He's an alcoholic, I know that. He goes back to kitchen to drink, guests are enjoying themselves, he's roasting the fish, but he goes back, every now and then I see him sneak back into the kitchen, and he admitted to be in a conversation once. He speaks some English. I speak not a word of their language, but he speaks some English. He admitted to me that he just drinks soju in, or whatever liquor in the, I don't know if I pronounced that right,

but some liquor he drink in the kitchen nonstop. But how he roasts fish is an amazing thing. I am addict, this is just nondescript place in the basement of a building. It's fine, it's okay decorated inside, it's not hole in wall, but it's inside this box building. you go down these stairs, there's almost nothing there that's, it's completely non-descript, but the food is as good as any Michelin two-star restaurant in Europe, and that's normal for Japan. In Tokyo, all of Japan really, but in Tokyo especially, the competition between restaurants is so intense that quality and taste and flavor are developed so much, I feel comfortable in saying, as somebody who loves good food, it's by far the most amazing city for food in the world. It beats any of the European capitals,

or San Sebastian in Basque Country, and those are the only places that could compete with it, let's say, Madrid or Paris, but it beats them by far. And even a local noodle place in Tokyo for $8 set meal can be amazing and better than what you find in most cities in the world in fancy restaurant. I mean, imagine getting $8 set meal high-class soba noodle in New York, where you have $30 famous sandwich at, I think, organic so-called convenience store. I keep telling you America's sheep shearing operation. You can still find a hotel, a business hotel in center of Tokyo for 60, $70. This is true. Imagine doing that in New York. So, but anyway, this is a light show. I'm between cities. I'm on the move. Maybe you hear, I'm recording this in a car. I don't want to get into it.

It's not a pleasant talk. I can't tell you why I'm doing this now, But I didn't want to wait too long between shows so I tell you the truth I made the recording with a friend that I wanted as a guest on here And I've talked to you about him before if you listen to the show and I was really looking forward to it But they betray me by he come on air in a lobotomized condition so I can't put his show up I recorded it last week. I had to scrap it Unfortunately, don't tell him this, you know, but what can I do? So here I you see me tell you why there was another delay when I said if I didn't go back to regular Programming you could punish me with a coconut lingam And so now you may you may find Sri Lanka woman grown fat on coconut curries and such to beat me violently on the head

With a lingam let this be my punishment. But look really that this isn't my taste at all You'll have to trust me on that that wouldn't and I'm not being coy that particular thing wouldn't excite me at all I've deranged tastes, but not that particular thing since I brought up the deranged tastes of the Japanese the Romans and the Germans I will introduce you on this show to another people that is a favorite the ancient Greek of which there are Many controversies on this matter, but I will be right back in a minute This first of a two or three part show an ancient Greek classical man Romantic a marital sexual relations and tastes. It's something interest to so many people people heavy with controversy. The controversy is escalated in our time, even now on social

media, on TV, chimp outs on the matter of what ancient Greeks were like, what this has to do with politics of our own time. And on the gay front and the gay marriage debate front, this has been ongoing for some decades. I may have mentioned Martha Nussbaum, a spiritual donkey peasant who should be drinking water out of the impressions left on mud by the hooves of mules, but she testified in Congress during gay marriage debates, supposedly as an expert on classical morality, with the intent to show that the condemnation of homosexuality was exclusively a biblical matter and therefore somehow infringing on the separation of church and state. But she lied about what classical sources said on this. She perjured herself.

And the matter of ancient Greek proclivities has generally been very important to this movement, but also to academic critique, sniping really at what they say traditional Western morality and family structure. So in the case of Foucault, much of his thought on history of sexuality and gender and such depend on his reading of ancient classical, post-classical sources in which, however, he was very ignorant, very warped, and ultimate takedown of him as well as many, many academic monkey followers of his. You will find in Camille Paglia a classic essay junk bonds and corporate readers, Academy in Hour of the Wolf, sorry if I repeat myself, but social media blow-ups, you may have seen a YouTube circulating, which I haven't watched by the way so I can't criticize it, but it

sounded like this man in this YouTube went in opposite direction and has convinced many people that no sir, the ancient Greeks didn't do anything gay or that Pederasty among them It was merely a condemned side phenomenon of no great importance or only of slightly greater importance than today, and everything about ancient Greeks doing things that today would be considered gay and such, that this is made up by Marxist academics. And if this was his point, or something like it, I don't know, but if he was saying this, which I see many people repeating now, that this is also wrong. You know, you shouldn't lie to people. It's not a good propaganda to lie. Our only value is telling the truth. Maybe some of you don't realize how weak we are politically and that we can't actually

go around doing propaganda in this sense, or PR, or such things. Once it gets out that we lie, if you do lie and this becomes known, your only source of power as a frog is over. Our power is the truth. And I've said myself that ancient friendship was misunderstood by porn-brained and sex-brained and their poverty of spirit and this is true and especially so for example in the case of Achilles and Patroclus and such but on the other hand to deny the erotic element between youths in ancient Greek life and education is also a lie and I see many now going in that direction so I want to correct it even though I wanted to avoid this topic for a while because it's so easy to distort and the political concerns of our time make any objection discussion of it almost impossible.

But anyway, I'll try to introduce on this episode and to discuss more related matters on the following ones. But the other day, not on this but again somewhat related topic, you have a so-called classics professor who in our time, they're the most dull, among the dullest and stupidest academics by the way. Just, if you read their plodding academic articles, they're all on whether they're not objective, excuse me, when they're not objectively political, like for example, they try some of them to make case that Plato was a secret lesbian or Euripides criticized closed citizenship of roles of Greek cities and therefore supported immigration for sure, mass immigration and other such patent distortions. But then usually, if not boringly political vulgar like this, then they're on some plodding

detail of grammar, and even there they make mistakes, because actually if you meet them, almost none of them speak Greek. Whereas every professor of Worth who I've met, who has half liked me, including Mansfield who I mentioned, has greatly praised my Greek. Is this okay? And I don't even practice it as much as I should, but this is the standard now. Every one of these academics, including the classics full professors, hardly have any Greek or Latin or they don't read the original books, but only commentaries by other academics. So, and this is why they know how stupid classics professors are, but anyway, this one of them goes off about ancient Greek doesn't actually, you know, have wonderful ripped physiques.

But he claims that they had instead workmen-like dead bods or whatever he say, you know. And of course he uses no evidence to say this because actually Greek texts are full of wonder and admiration and beautiful physiques. But he likely doesn't even know these references, and he can dismiss, for example, the obvious, the statues, and would probably dismiss the textual evidence too if he knew of it. But he can dismiss all of this by saying it was idealization or lies. You may have heard this before, you know, and they will do the same, by the way, to people with normal bodies in 50 futures, yeah, in 50 futures, in 50 years. In 50 years, when let's say 98% of world is obese, they will say that there is no

such thing as a thin person, that a person who's not obese is surely a creation of photoshopping and of scammers who sell supplements. So their belief would be that the natural state of mankind is to be this obese human worm, lard-ass. But anyway, they talk this way about ancient Greeks too now. So of course, to make his own case, this professor has nothing but conjecture and assertion. But they do this also in the case of Pindar, by the way, and of Greek aristocratic manners and tastes in general. They try, again, always, always without evidence of their own, but simply out of communist rancor against aristocracy and excellence, they try to say, well, obviously it didn't reflect the lived experience of Greeks of day to day.

The average Greek has lived experience not reflected in men like Pindar or Theognis. And so this thinker then, Pindar, can therefore be dismissed without further argument, you know, so not discussed further. And so behind all these self-important constipated assertions, what you have is really a democratic and demotic prejudice, ultimately actually a new left and communist prejudice that hides under democratic working men's type moralisms. And in this case, for example, saying that such physiques were seen as effete or requiring special diets and such, whereas a more workman-like and plain physique was instead appreciated. But again, there's no evidence to say that, there's much to the opposite. In fact, physique, there's no conflict between aesthetics and functionality.

The distinction between these is a construct of fat leftists who lift sometimes, you know, and they call themselves, some of them call themselves power lifters. But anyway, in this debate, I have actually quite a revealing, first of all, reflection of how communism and ethnic resentment actually has infected academia, where they try to replace traditional history with streets of political events and wars and great men, important events and such things, and tries to replace this with so-called social history. Let's write a study about what the lived experience of a daily washerwoman might have been like. Let's talk about a Rastafarian salesman in Kingston, Jamaica. Let's look into the practices and life of a slave accountant, a slave accountant, excuse me, in ancient Athens, right?

Because Greek aristocrats looked down on commerce, so the day-to-day nickel and diming was left to slaves and such. But anyway, this kind of thing, which is sometimes interesting and I think has its place, but the attempt to privilege it at the expense of actual history history is obviously politically motivated because ultimately who cares about that. The intent is to obscure political history and as they see it to obscure a narrative of supremacy and hegemony not only of white men but supreme gentlemen, sensitive white men of the aristocratic kind. To obscure this in favor of a competing narrative that privileges the poor in spirit and the last shall be the first and so on. That's the gist of it. I mean, this is their moral intent and how they see things even when they don't acknowledge

it. And second, and in this they are joined by a large number of traditional conservatives. The second intent of the chimp out, I tell you, regarding, for example, ancient Greek physiques, right? There is an attempt to obscure from you the meaning of a classical man. What is a classical man and why important? There is an intention among communists of this kind, but also conservatives, to obscure what this is and to replace it with a story about morality and austerity. And in this they can, I think, with some plausibility and success, distort ancient sources to make their point. So what do I mean? Okay, look what means classical men. If you asked anyone of that time, what means their great man or their true man, or if you

asked any European until basically 19th, 20th century, more or less, any of them, they would say, well, classical men, that's Julius Caesar, right? That's Alexander. That's Achilles who inspired them both. It's these kind of larger-than-life, world-conquering men who are just voracious for fame, for distinction over others, for dominion over the world, in some cases for self-deification. How does the Book of Maccabees start about how Alexander subdued the entire world? Where that kind of godlike man with godlike excellence, that's who someone of the time might say, yes, this is our man. So those who looked into it more would have others of Plutarch's heroes they could mention. I've mentioned some on this show, Timoleo on Solon, Alcibiades is very important to

me and in my book, and there are other more exotic examples. Maybe I do show on them soon, you know, what does Julian the Apostate say? He say, look at our great generals and our great heroes and you'll find nothing of the kind in the Bible. Even the greatest founders and generals that you find in the Bible are far inferior to those of the Greeks and the Romans. He's trying to persuade people. But anyway, there is Lysander, the Spartan general, who was the first Greek to be worshipped as a god during his own life. These are lesser known, but so-called classical men, men of great power. There is Brasidas, another Spartan general gone wrong. And one of my favorite examples I give in book, the criminal Clearchus, another Spartan

who goes haywire, takes over cities, becomes like Colonel Kurtz. There's a pattern here, you see, because if you were to choose a Greek state that is the most, let's say, austere in terms of virtue, morality, what it demanded of its citizens in terms of conformism and discipline and lack of luxury and so on, it's Sparta. But as you can see, it was also the engine of production, some of the flashiest, most criminal, self-aggrandizing classical geniuses in history. And there is a lesson there. But I mean to say, this is classical man. Okay, this is why Nietzsche, when he refers to Napoleon appearing as a comet, an unexpected comet in the general plebeian democratic revolutionary tumult of his mediocre time. And he refers to him, to Napoleon, as the unexpected and out of place return

of the classical man. He uses these words in parallel to the classical philosopher type, returning at the same time in Schopenhauer, who exemplified in his life, his way of life, His manner, his self-sufficient independence and greatness of mind and spirit exemplified the classical philosopher again. If you look Nietzsche's essay, Schopenhauer as Educator, it is in this aspect of Schopenhauer that he's most interested in, less so in content of his actual moral thought and so on. But this is what is meant by classical men and this kind of, let's say exciting, call it flashy specimen. This is what is best tonic, the counter tonic to our very small soul time that encourages men to be dullards and ants and workhorses for others. But on the other hand, this is what I'm saying,

there's a counter-narrative that insists the classical man, right, if he hears a word today, you don't really tend to imagine anything like what I've said so far, if you just hear those words, classical men. The image promoted now, and I tell you it's promoted for different but analogous reasons by both communists and conservatives, it's that the classical man was some kind of austere specimen of virtue morality, very sober, very restrained. There is this one virtue that, so prosune, you know, you could say self-restraint or moderation or sobriety. Very plain, very committed, maybe committed to nation, committed to family, religion, to a group or community, if you want to use such words. And some communitarians do. That he's in some ways the classical man

is maybe even the opposite of the type I've been talking about so far. He's this kind of small-R, Republican, austere moralist and vase against vice, excess, luxury, hubris, and many such things, and in some cases, on the conservative side of this case, they wouldn't maybe deny the aspects of greatness that are appealing to me, but they'd say they're a product of this morality and this focus on moral excellence and moral sobriety and such. And that may even be true in a way, but not in the way they imagine it, not as a direct and intended consequence anyway, but which is it? To make this case about classical men and classical morality, you can invoke the names of Socratic philosophers and those who followed them, such as Plutarch, who was a Platonist

himself and the source of the lives of the great Greeks and Roman heroes. You read about them, then you must read Plutarch. And Livy, also a Roman historian, he also a Socratic moralist. And then there are rival moralist schools coming out of Isocrates. They're also moralistic in a slight different direction. And you may remember on a recent episode, I read for you a very striking passage from Gobineau who points out the focus on morality you see in ancient authors, the attempt to interpret history, to show the good effects of moral behavior and the bad effects of vice and crime. This was the principal aim of this ancient type of history. And it may have been in the case of someone like Thucydides, who by the way was not a

a Socratic at all, but he comes out of, let's say, a Sophistic or a Gorgianic school of ancient Greek thought, and the Sophists were the mainstream, the true Greek impulse of thought at that time, not the Socratics. But in the case of someone like Thucydides, this attempt to be morally instructive leads to a kind of conservatism. He wants to preserve social order, and so he lies perhaps about what causes social decline. He wants to paint the story that it is moral vice and criminality and such. But then in the hands of left-wing radicals of the French Revolution, the Enlightenment and of those radicals of Gobineau's own day, and in our day too, by the way, in these cases the same assumptions about morality lead to a kind of cynical nihilism that seeks to destroy

and reform all aspects of traditional society by calling it similarly corrupt, criminal, vicious, and so on. wrong in both cases, and it can, I mean, this focus on morality in this way, it can lead to both directions, conservatism and radicalism, and it's a mistake in both kinds. Because remember, in our own time, the left is not amoralist or hedonist. They are moral fanatics, or rather, immoral fanatics. But immoralism is not the same thing as amoral. The left isn't amoral or relativist, it's not hedonist. It believes strongly in a false morality, you could call it immoral, maybe, but it believes in reforming society according to this false morality, because it thinks traditional morality is wicked and corrupt and such, and criminal and so on.

So it is reflected also in their sexual morality, by the way. In that case, mother today does not castrate her son in the name of transgenderism because she gets off on it sexually, but instead because she has powerful belief in this libtard and morality and wants to show to others that she is a good person. In the same way, a feminist girl will sleep around, not because she enjoys it, but instead she will be a dead fish in the bed of many men who then they need power tools to satisfy her. Not because she likes it or does it out of pleasure, but because she believes she has to do it out of feminist moral principle. If you find one who actually enjoys it, I don't think many men would object to that, actually.

So anyway, ancient authors for various reasons, but in the case of Isocrates and of the play Platonists and Aristotelians the ones who follow Socrates at least initially they Pursued this line of argument out of a self-protective. Well Self-protective you could call it cocking because I as I may have mentioned There was an analog to Hitler in the ancient world who goes by the name of Critias and his friends who killed Wasted in a genocide that let's say many Athenians and as they believed in an amoral aristocratic philosophy of blood and of antinomians spitting on the morality and the religion of the many and because maybe other students of Socrates then because of his actions they ran the risk of being associated with this and that

expelled from cities or executed as some of them actually continued to be even years after the death of Socrates but maybe to protect themselves against this they wanted to promote a very moralized image of what they said and how you know No, actually philosophy teaches you to be a good boy. And then later, as this, even if this were true, it can't fully explain why later writers like Plutarch or Livy or others of these schools continued the extreme focus on morality and moralism. It's possible this was in part just done out of tradition, the traditions of these schools of thought, so just, you know, so-called past dependence and such. It's also possible that the genuine belief that in being edifying to potential political

statesmen, kings and such that they were doing their people and they were doing the world and mankind in general a great service because they believed in the power of moral instruction and example. They actually believed it could change a king. And as Nietzsche says, the aristocrats of post-classical times, so let's say 330 BC or so after that, these were not only aristocrats, but the great men of this time mostly did not have the sure instincts of earlier ages. They did not live in a rising culture, they lived in a declining culture, and maybe they did need, let's say, Reason, the power of Reason with a capital R, to handhold them so as not to descend into self-defeating types of vice. But even so, even so right, the assumption of the ancient moral focus, all of it, is

that you have deeply covetous men of overwhelming desires, of great ambition to be tyrants, to take over states, to found states, and to be remembered throughout history, to have absolute dominion, who are geniuses and capable of doing such things and want to do them. And that's the focus of all this insistence on morality that you see even in the most strict moralists of the ancient world. Their assumption is that dealing with that kind of man, that this is the human or manly material that they're so-called doing their education on. And material, in other words, was not the timid rodents and beasts of burden and freed serfs of our own age who at most seek clout on TV or seek to be thought of as a moderate above all statesman.

I mean, think of John Kerry as needing this kind of Socratic education and morality or Anthony Wiener or Rahm Emanuel, right? Think of these types. Think of Biden as needing moral education of Plutarch, to not want to be a tyrant. I mean, look at a guy like Hawley, the Republican senator, or take, of course, I will not mention any Eurocrat, Ursula von der Leyen. Take even DeSantis. Their great aim is ultimately, all their great aim is to have a TV show. And this is about the extent of everyone's ambition. That was very depressing. I can't tell you how many times I've been driven by great outlets. It's not autistic, but would have been seen as such by Norm Groys for sure, but I was driven by great enthusiasms with friends to tell them, let's look at 9-11, I mean, think

of the things we could do. Let's plan to take over this or that country. Let's plan these things, and always they look at me like I'm insane, but where's the profit in that? You're crazy. And many such things, I think. But look, I think they will see different one day. But anyway, where was I? Look, it's time for a break. I must take a bath. I have a Neo Geisha to wash me with fine oils. Oils of, they're not pine, they have an herb here that smell like pine. It's called Kuromoji, you look this up. You can find it in the United States now. It has great health benefits. You see, I am supplement show now. I am exotic supplement show. I'll be right back, thank you. One moment. Focus on morality, which has very definite, let's say, programmatic educational bent.

is not a really accurate reflection of what ancient classical men were like. It's not even a wish of, let's say, Plutarch or Thucydides wishing what they would be like. It's not an image of that. It's much worse. It's something much plainer than that. It's just an image they presented to counter maybe the worst vices or crimes common at that time. And so it appears to modern readers as sometimes boring, sometimes very sparse, sometimes very bare. But it's not accurate reflection. You have to read between the lines or you have to look at examples like Alcibiades or like the Spartan generals gone rogue, like I mentioned, and many such things. And to remember again that the great specimens admired at that time were Achilles, Alexander Julius Caesar and such

and they were not admired because of their sobriety. They were admired because they were world conquerors and philosophers were worshipped in some way, but they weren't worshipped for their moral sobriety But because they were seen as wise geniuses and oracles and flashy and so on and ancient Greeks Uniquely had seven sages where other nations had saints or holy men but most of all ancient philosophers were admired for their independence and Self-sufficiency for their freedom from all things normal humans were bound to so, you know The famous story about Diogenes telling Alexander to move out of his sunlight because he's sunning his balls and he lived as a homeless man Masturbating in public which I I don't tell you if I've done or not but have you ever taken a girl to a cafe and

Then gone into the bathroom to masturbate and then told her about this heavy. Is this a game tactic? Is this game? Excuse me, if I'm repeating myself, I'm on three days sleep deprivation deprivation. But if you just read even Plutarch, there are casual references, not only there, well many other authors, casual references to, oh, and as Alcibiades was walking through this city, followed by a throng of people, there comes Timon the misanthrope. He came up to him and blessed him and said, bless you, you lion, you will be the destruction of all this rabble, do you like this? And this type of guy was just, you know, every Greek city, I mean, had a local philosopher misanthrope like this, who was admired in in this way for being just outside it all,

being not above it all, but just being completely free of all, but of course you had to earn that position by your genius and wit and such, and it's a different way of doing things, different strokes for different folks. But look why I say this, because the discussion in this case over physique on Twitter, the recent blowup and someone saying that ancient Greeks didn't prize the ripped athletes' physique at least physique but that they actually prize the workmen like dad bod that says there was no evidence but this in fact the species of this bigger debate right was the classical physique this godlike perfect form alluring and that I say sexy to women and such and divine or was it as not only this leftist professor now insists but many conservatives already have who have attacked me for

some time over precisely these because there are conservative commentators who were saying the same, that no, the ancient physique must have surely been functional, like workman-like, and that they likely saw perfect bodies, as I celebrate, they likely saw them as a kind of aristocratic gay fauperie and whatever, whereas of course the real men of the time must have been austere and utilitarian and republican and not flashy, I was going to say fashy. But then they contrived the same distinction that I think didn't really exist at the time. It's a contrivance. You see the way ancient things are misused and distorted as part of modern battle, not even a modern battle of political and social factions, but of psychological and biological types in our time.

And then similar in regard to what I will talk about on subsequent episodes on this matter, it's the same thing, right, the same debate, because was ancient Greek man in his romantic relations, in his relations with his waifu, in his love and sexual affairs, Was he an image of a sober, restrained family man, monogamous, sexually restrained and so on? You see maybe an idealized image of this in Xenophon's Economicus. Or was he closer to image you might have of an alpha philanderer ladies man or 1940s gangster? I mean you know the holy weird image you have of classical men with English accents. This has done a lot to affect people's perceptions of what classical men was like. If you didn't see Lord Ashtonbury Obi-Wan Kenobi with high class Brit accent but instead

you knew it was Giulio the Don and so Syracuse here on as a Sicilian Don you might have a more accurate picture okay but again the distinction isn't correct and wouldn't have been recognized in ancient times and yet much like medieval Euro aristocrats who also had let's say concubines again to the extent where well Schopenhauer points out Catholic text de concubinato that makes case in Middle Ages the church had to look the other way or even bless concubines okay because in fact it's always been recognized powerful men desire multiple and variety of women and many such and so that yes the reality of the classical man and his behavior was closer to that whereas the moralisms you see around it are more like again wishes or correctives

to his excuse me to his worst instincts and such so but one advantage such men had over us was the ability to be hypocrites men today generally can't live with themselves as hypocrites Incidentally, this is why I laugh at all these theories of supposed Machiavellian cynicism of the elite, when if you know any of this so-called elite, amoral cynicism, hypocrisy is well beyond them. They're all true believers in their own moral bullshit. But anyway, friends, I can't continue episode in full right now as I am on the road and I wanted this to be a teaser, an introduction to rather big matters of sexual and marital and other morality in ancient Greek man's. And why is this important? But as to the details, I will continue this episode in a few days, but I will give you

now, however, a rough outline of the matter. The wife was to be a virgin in the possession of the man, sequestered in house, except for public and ritual religious functions, and it was seen as a dishonor for other men to even talk of your wife's name, let alone to ever go about town talking to other men. Please, dear conservatives, if you wish to re-establish sexual morality, marital fidelity and such, can you go some direction into having women be like this? But of course, they will never do that, you know. But this was in Athens, by the way. In Sparta, it was slightly different, that you did have female Nordic virago liberated and running the men's estates and such, as the men were often on campaign. But even at Athens, the wife had considerable powers within the household.

She did run the household, again running the estate, the household estate as a business, managing the slaves, the slave accountants and such. And then the image of the ultimate wife is Penelope, a woman who weaves fine cloths like that, and sings, was seen as the ultimate in faithful wife and also sexy wife. And she's hardly, in Homer's tale, Penelope is hardly a characterless non-entity. She's a great personality in her own right. But it's true that the wife was seen as center of the household and as continuity of the man's bloodline and therefore, okay, there was a premium on her own lineage, on her virginity and on her discretion. But from all this, you can tell the woman wife was not the romantic or social focus of an aristocratic man's life.

And no, it wasn't necessarily boys either, although I'll get to that in detail on next episode or the one after. But they had hetairas, they had courtesans, and these were women who were analogous to geishas in Japanese. They were highly adept, socially trained in art conversation, in pleasure of conversation. They were not just prostitutes, okay, but like the geishas, they also knew many social fine graces to play instruments, to sing and dance, to play the harp, above all, again, to converse on any number of matters including intellectual and philosophical and so on. Think maybe of hostess clubs but high class and available only to the kinds of men who could plot coups in their own cities. And think if you were a man at the time would you prefer for your paramour a woman like

this or your wife at home with all the social pressures and expectations and constraints and such around that. I think actually most of the romantic and love affairs such men had, most of the love affairs from what I can tell were with hetairas, with courtesans, women like these. Some of whom became consorts and muses to great philosophers. So for example, Aristippus the Hedonist philosopher famously had such a woman as his consort leading to many funny quips. There was one half-famous quip when she told him she was pregnant by him and he say, you could no more know that you are pregnant by me than if you had run through a thicket of bushes. Could you point to which particular branch had scarred you? Do you like this? You should say this to a woman. But really I think their focus

was on such women's, their romantic and erotic focus. And some of them, again, some of the most famous men of antiquity had such concubines. For example, the famous statesman Pericles had Aspasia, a famous courtesaness. His number one, who I I will talk about her and also him on other episode, okay? So it's similar maybe you see in Dune, Duke Atreides, Paul's mother, Duke Atreides, his wife, Paul's mother, I think is similar, concubine, but not quite, but you understand. You know, this is alternative family arrangements. I don't think it's quite that, you see, but anyway, this is what it is. A lot of their social life took place in symposia, aristocratic parties that were, you know, They drank diluted wine and yes, they only had small snacks and this was done so they could converse

and have a pleasant time and not pig out. But it wasn't, on the other hand, either ladies' tea time. The pleasures of these parties got quite riotous and you can see from when some conservative playwrights of the time like Aristophanes and others talk about them, you can see through a negative prism or sometimes in other literatures it's just mentioned casually. You can see just what went on at these parties. There's a, excuse me, there's a book, Deepnose Sophists, which covers some of this, and it's, but it's not that different from modern, what you think of Hollywood parties and such. I have no idea if that's accurate, but it was quite, quite riotous. The only such parties I've been to, I stay away from parties, but the only beautiful

parties I've been to were organized by one lady of the lake in Buenos Aires, who was on this show previously, and I hope she'll come again, and she's the prime impresario of our time. She puts on parties more glamorous than you have ever seen in movies and such. But so anyway, then aside from such women, there is a sensitive matter, yes, of Pederasty or whatever, it was not practiced under that name, but under a different name in ancient Greece. And although there is much misunderstanding on this, I think maybe it's time, not on this episode but on the next or the one after, to clear up some of these things and talk about it, even though it's likely to make many people on all sides angry, you know, but I don't care. Maybe you don't let children listen to the next two episodes and such.

It's funny, I have people writing me, telling me their babies are half-mind because they've been listening to me since in the womb, and now as they listen to me as infants and toddlers, they start laughing at some of my phrases and repeating them. It's an honor to hear this, but look, it's up to you anyway, because although let's say modern gay relations, as they are practiced and identified now, I mean, they would have been seen as absurd and just something maybe to laugh at in ancient Greece. For the most part, at least, yes. But on the other hand, a certain kind of erotic relationships between men at certain ages were seen as absolutely central to Greek life, I mean, specifically to the aristocratic parts

that mattered, that after all were the ones who created the history and the great things and the art and such that seduced the world. But this is much misunderstood, maybe, so why don't I talk it in some detail, and here only in short I will tell you, it was neither, let's say, adult-adult, in other words, two bearded men being homos together or doing sexual things together would have been seen as maybe somewhat absurd and to laugh at. And depending on what they did, it could even have cost them citizenship rights or landed them very severe punishments. Conversely, it's not true that the relations practiced were like an older man with an eight or nine-year-old boy, as you've been led to believe, and that boys that age were – and

this is Foucault's arguments – that boys at that age were seen as sexually and politically inert and therefore were semen receptacles and semen spittoons along with the women. This is the warped, twisted Foucault and later actually feminist line about ancient Greek sexuality which is totally false on numerous counts in which I'll... well I think I've attacked it in the past but it bears to repeat the truth so I'll talk it more on next episode why it's wrong. No, the central institution in these cities and among the aristocracy as a relic or in the case of Sparta and Dorian states not a relic but a continuing presence uninterrupted of its warrior mannerbund past it would have been not fully sexual in modern sense

But let's say erotic relations between let's say 22 or 23 or 24 year old and a 16 or 17 year old And you can think of it as maybe analogous to Knight's Choir Dynamics, although they admittedly would have practiced some things that are odd or unacceptable to modern people But it had a social and ritual and above all an educational function in these cities that you can condemn it morally all you want And it's not my purpose to say here that such things should or could be reproduced in our time In fact, if they were they would be doubtless subject to corruption and abuse and many such things But as these things were practiced in ancient classical times It is in fact I do think it is part of the source of the great spiritual and genius energy of the ancient Greeks and I'll quote the

Philosopher do I need to say his name? I'll quote again Nietzsche in closing to make this point But if you want a modern restatement to understand what means you can read in this magazine the asylum There is essay called on the gay question by one citizen of Geneva. No, it's not me. It's a European friend You know, why does Geneva have such a repository of men like Rousseau and Calvin and this kind of well protestant Factional energy leading to men of great mental spiritual energy who in this case Well, he comments on many things, but he gets turned to antiquity. And I can't say that I endorse everything in this essay or that you should or that it's a guide for practice in any sense. It's more a criticism of what means gay or straight today.

But in terms of distinguishing between the ancient attitude to this and the modern distorted type, I mean, it's very useful. On the gay question by citizen of Geneva, again, you can find on asylum website. I'll relink it. And I think his central point, regardless of whether you agree with him on other things, is that the rhetoric about gay this and gay that and the fear of being seen as gay, of seeing yourself as gay and so on, that it had a large hand in the elimination of all male groups and spaces in the European world. And this in turn is why you don't see great things planned anymore, either in political or spiritual or philosophical life. If you don't have all-male, let's say, mafias or mannerbunds and spaces and such, there's no plotting for coups or similar things.

You don't get anything done in any dimension of life, which is in part also mostly contempt for Western conservatives. They talk a great deal about abstract atomization, but it's not through amorphous ethnic or familial communities that you get anything done in history, but through small groups of men. And these men are just, I mean, the conservatives who talk about these and the dangers of individualistic atomization and they fret and wring their hands about this. But fundamentally, they're ciphers under the thumbs of their wives. They're afraid of being called gay and many such things. So in the end, nothing will come of it, of all their fretting. It's all a giant, yes, a giant cope. It will be sterile and fruitless because the only thing that could undo the so-called atomization

they're afraid of and unwilling to allow. They live under their wives, and feel free to call me a homo if you want, but the fruits of the spirit and the fruits of grand politics only come out of small groups of men. And while erotic or sexual contact isn't required in such things, and in fact it's probably destructive of them, the exceeding fear of that on the other hand is on the prime weapons of gynocracy in turning men into housebound ciphers. And I end this episode with quotation from Nietzsche, his hard-hitting quotation I hope you do not mind. I am reading now, a male culture. Greek culture of the classical era is a male culture. As for women, Pericles, in his funeral oration, says everything with the words, they are best when men speak about them as little as possible.

The erotic relationship of men to youths was on a level which we cannot grasp the necessary sole prerequisite of all male education, more or less in the way love affairs and marriage were for a long time the only way to bring about the higher education of women. The whole idealism of strength of the Greek character was thrown into that relationship, and the treatment of young people has probably never again been so aware, loving, so thoroughly geared to their excellence as it was in the 6th and 5th centuries, the classical era, in accordance with Hölderlin's beautiful line, For loving the mortal gives of his best. The more important this relationship was considered, the lower sank interaction with women. the perspective of procreation and lust, nothing further came into consideration.

There was no spiritual intercourse with them, not even a real romance. If one considers further that woman herself was excluded from all kinds of competitions and spectacles, then the sole higher entertainment remaining to her was religious worship. To be sure, when Electra and Antigone were portrayed in tragedies, the Greeks tolerated it in art, although they did not like it in life. Just as we now do not tolerate anything with pathos in life but like to see it in art. Women had no task other than to produce beautiful, powerful bodies in which the character of the father lived on as intact as possible, and thus to counteract the increasing overstimulation of nerves in such a highly developed culture.

This kept Greek culture young for such a relatively long time, for in Greek mothers the Greek genius returned again and again to nature. Isn't that beautiful? And, uh, there are some, uh, well, does this upset you? Yes, maybe. Now they can call me a pederest. More fuel for slander. Well, I hope to give you more details on this soon, and, uh, until next time, I talk this more, uh, bat out!