I've said before, you put music down, if you don't like something, someone is saying. I've said this to you before, if you don't like somebody saying something to you, whatever, if they're in front of you talking nonsense, face to face, spouting, you just put your fingers in their mouth. Men or women, you take two index middle fingers and you put it in their mouth, does not matter. You can just stick a couple of fingers in their goddamn mouths. Just stick a finger in their goddamn mouths. That could be interpreted as erotic, however, be careful of context, or you might be in for a, welcome to the show, this is Caribbean Rhythms, episode 149, Variety Mix Calypso, and Milay, Javier Milay won in Argentina. I will not say I told you so, because I made no prediction as such, but I was happy to

see, and right before the election, someone told me, you have to understand how huge this win was. He won bigger than anyone since Juan Perón himself, since Perón, I believe. The official tally is something like 55 or 56 percent of win. Now no one denies there is massive vote theft in Argentina, and it was all on the opposing side, not on Milay's side, it was on the incumbent side. I'm talking about fake ballots, throwing out ballots and so on, that always happens. It was seen this time also, it is massive there. Furthermore, right before the election, I heard from Argentine friends that it was like David versus Goliath, in that the incumbent had almost 100 percent of the ads you saw on the street, the publicity on television, buses and so on.

State monies were being used, of course state money, to fund the incumbent parties. This win then is all the greater in the face of these obstacles. And furthermore, there is just legalized vote-buying in Argentina, or half legalized, the Peronist parties there, they pay people with washing machines. They literally give them a fridge or a washing machine on day of election, and many times these are the votes of foreigners. So yes, foreigners can vote. They are invited for this purpose into the country. I posted, it's funny, they had flags in this ad, the incumbent party had flags of other countries with the message, protect your right to free Argentine health care, come to vote. Don't let anyone ask you about citizenship status.

And I mean, same thing happens in America, of course, but in Argentina it's in the open, and belay victory isn't then 55 or 56 percent, okay? It must be at least 75 to 80 percent in reality, and more like 90 percent – I'm not exaggerating 90% or more of taxpayers, probably anyone with a decent job, voted for Millet. The left losing its shit, both Argentina and outside, in Argentina itself they are calling everyone who voted for Millet fascist, which you know they did this with Trump. And even if it were just the official 55%, Argentina I suppose is majority fascist country. I don't know. But to say you know the same thing with Trump in America, FBI, it comes out now, or DOJ, same manure, asked Twitter to send list of everyone who liked the Trump tweet, you know.

I mean this is not China, this is their line that tens of millions of voters are fascists and potential terrorists, and this has been their line since 2016. Now tonight we just learned that a small bit of good news, Ricky Vaughan was allowed to go home instead of spending his appeal time in jail, and he will hopefully win on appeal. But you see what happens to anyone on the far right. You see, I told you, I don't know, this is very odd. My understanding is that Ricky Vaughan refused to be a federal informant. I don't know if it's true or not, it's a rumor I heard. And you know, make your own judgments about certain other people who are promoted. I don't want to say any more about this, okay. Aside from the left abroad losing it over Millet because he has already announced massive

Millet, I mean in Argentina, ending the central bank and many such things. But it's quite amazing to see the reaction of so-called dissident right to all these. Some few are celebrating it, but a large chunk, the people I criticized in particular in my article on Millet, the article I wrote for Man World that got spread around so much, but a large chunk of so-called dissident right, let's say the Compact Magazine bunch, which Compact Magazine, speaking of dubious face fags, Compact Magazine appears to be funded by Soros and by Open Society Foundation. And if that's not true, I hear that from first-hand source, by the way. And if it's not true, they can openly deny it. Why not? But isn't that odd, by the way, a so-called post-liberal magazine of people who, what is a face fag?

A face fag is somebody who inserts himself When the online right, the frogs started to get attention in 2015-16, and then you get these people who insert themselves, say, I am the face of this so-called intellectual movement or what have you, and this so-called face fag post-liberal magazine that presents itself as the voice of the face of the dissident right, which seems mostly concerned with lying about me, lying about other anons, fixating on me, hiring Antifa from Sweden. My understanding is Antifa to focus on me and other frogs and anonymous friends, apparently spending time calling me a liberal by another path because I don't engage in the fairly sake religiosity that people on the right supposedly are to engage in now. And it's really people who have no ideas

but who use that for moral cover. So it is said at least, but these people are getting Soros money, right? To harass and dox anons, to call me a liberal and so on. I mean, how odd is that? And how many articles have there been from envious dwarves like this or another so-called post-liberal rags like unheard about me by now? In any case, this whole bunch, the compact adjacent people, the populist incorporated shysters who sprung up after Trump with a glint in their eye, seeking to make it as Talmud-vision talking heads on the internet or some type of pundit, and I suppose some anonymous accounts too, the type who specialize in impotent populist whining and Alex Jones-tier thing, they're all complaining about Millet. And why? Because he invokes rhetoric that sounds libertarian to them.

And you know it's already then a talking point among this group that libertarianism is bad because Paul Ryan and because it means open borders. You know it's a sign of how late these people are to coming to being, let's say, critic of regime because Ron Paul is a libertarian and he was horribly treated by the GOP and the way that Ron Paul was treated in 2012 convinced many people to turn in another direction. But if you are like these other people and you came much later, you see what I'm saying. But in any case, they may be unfamiliar with Rand Paul, who knows. So Millet uses rhetoric that sounds libertarian to them, and that's a bad word supposedly on the dissident right now. And it means open borders and lower wages, and Elysium slums, you know the movie Elysium.

And on the other hand, because Millet is pro-Israel, and these people seem for whatever reason to have adopted the winning David Duke strategy of identifying with the Palestinians. But Israel versus Palestine is not really a matter that interests the Argentine public at all at the moment. Regular people in Argentina and even irregular people just don't care about that conflict. And on the other hand, the libertarian thing, I have to gasp how imbecilic the alt-lite or this isn't right, call it what you want, at how imbecilic their talking points have gotten. It goes something like this, that Millet is a traitor to Argentina because he wants to dollarize the economy. He's also invoked libertarian rhetoric, which by my chart here, by the retarded telephone game that passes for thought,

now it must mean he wants open Argentina border to cheap labor, he wants to colonize Argentina, buy America, to rape it with international finance, and to lower the wages of industrious working-class Argentines to turn it into an appendage of America through the use of the dollar. And what you're not hearing in all this, the reason for a lot of this kind of stuck-pig squealing about Millay, because if they really weren't excited about it, or they could simply ignore it, but no, they are extreme offended by his win. And it's wise because what I said in the article, because the incumbent party, the establishment party that lost, Its rhetoric was basically indistinguishable from this wholesome, let's say conservative socialist is what they like to call themselves,

wholesome socialist left-populist nationalism that the so-called dissident right or outlived, they love to adopt this now, the face facts especially, right? So, you know, we must focus on working families and make conditions so that the good of wholesome families is protected from international finance and gay globalism. And we must protect our sovereignty against the IMF. And we condemn the outrages of Zionism and side with the noble Palestinian people against Zionist oppression. We are for regulating large businesses to favor the salt of the earth working class men. None of these things are necessarily bad if they were meant honestly, but as such they are merely self-righteous slogans. We are for the unions against the capitalists.

other such rhetoric, basically though the whole package that the geniuses at Dissident Right outlight brain trust that they want for America, it was implemented in Argentina 100% by people who use the same rhetoric. And here are the results. Again, if you want to talk open borders, Argentina is already flooded with foreigners. They are not there to work. They're there to get benefits. They are there to get health care, other benefits, even material goods. right, the ruling wholesome socialist chungus party imports them to buy their votes. That's why mass migration actually happens. It's not happening for economic benefits. Sorry, I love that ad that I posted on Twitter again. Don't let the evil capitalist globalists ask your citizenship status, comrade. Come and vote

yourself Argentine healthcare foreigner. That's your wholesome chaves chungus indeed. Did you hear the Chavista government by the way of Venezuela now wants to invade Guyana that's another genius move let's see how that goes Venezuela is not a threat to anybody by the way they import I believe something like 70% of their food from Colombia you know with a press of a button they can be cut off but but I think Colombia's government also went leftist so but let's see the Argentina yes it's it's already has open borders so and if you cut benefits they'll leave you see that's the Libertadian actually in this case it's not Tardian, it's the libertarian measure would actually work there to send migrants home.

You don't even need to engage in anti-migrant rhetoric that makes people uneasy, which by the way they would be in Argentina, that's a whole other thing. Maybe I discussed this some other time, but it really is a self-identified immigrant society in an unhealthy way, but that's how it is. You have to accept that over there. Half the country, over half maybe, have Italian ancestry, and if you have an Italian grandparent, which many do, or great-grandparents, they call themselves Italians. It's not even I'm Italian-Argentine. Third, fourth generation Argentine, they call themselves Italian. The happiest day in their life is to get an Italian passport. It's unfortunately a kind of failed identity, but it's what happens when you have that percentage

of population with immigrant background and let's say a failing government, failing economy, but that's a talk for another time. But if you cut the benefits, these other third world migrants, which are from Bolivia, Peru, et cetera, they will leave. They're not there to work, you dummies. They don't work in Europe either. As for dollarization, last time I lived in Argentina, I only dealt in dollars, as does everyone who lives there, by the way. It's already dollarized in a sense, unless you live in a slum and you get government handouts, you're living on dollars. Any Argentine who gets a wage will immediately go to a gray market that's between black market and legal, so it's half legal outlet there called Cuevas, or any such thing, it's kind of off the books.

used one such place was run by the Russian mafia. If you are going there and you want a tip, you ask me. They treated me well. That's why I used it. I have no connections, you know, but they were just nice. The Russian people are nice to me. The Russian people love me. But everyone immediately puts their wage, as soon as you get it, into dollars because otherwise it gets stolen by the government through inflation very fast, in a week even. Dummies, that's your wholesome socialist, anti-globalist, nationalist government for you. I don't think many, you know, forget the retards of the dissident right. Much of the establishment left. You see articles in major outlets, the New York's Beta Times and the Atlantic and many

such things saying inflation is bad because it helps the rich and kind of trying to flip the script, right? Or otherwise they say that inflation is good or that inflation is people's fault for spending money. that's the latest one or other such it's quite incredible the things that I said inflation is taxation by another means and a particularly brutal sort I've I've known people in East Bloc countries who experienced hyperinflation which is what Argentina has had for the last year or two and they said saved up cash their entire lives and it disappeared overnight thankfully most Argentines know by now not to do that I doubt any of them have done it in the because they had saved money before, and I think in 2000 or 2001, the government simply seized something

like 50 to 75% of bank accounts. They just passed a law that will seize half of what's in your account is ours now. It was called Corralito. It was a disaster for the country. So I think most people in Argentina by now save in dollars, they put their money in foreign accounts, they buy real estate or things of that type. But when people are not expecting and I'm saying in East Bloc countries after communism ended and people some had saved their entire lives and it went to nothing and that's slavery. That is a lifetime of sweat, labor and work represented in that cash savings for old age and then it disappears. Inflation wipes out middle and lower middle classes, working classes too who have saved in cash or older people or others who lived on fixed income and so on and rich people

People are actually generally protected because their money is in hard assets and the price goes up. In Argentina, you can't rely on your savings, again, even for that month or week. The government will just keep printing money, they pay benefits to their clients, the politicians get money. There is a clip by Milay explaining this effect, recently spread, I will retweet it so you can see it if you haven't. But whether these benefits by government are paid for from taxes, from expropriation of wealth, they seize your account, they seize your property, or through inflation is the same thing. You are still working for someone else. The money that's supposed to represent your reward for labor, your time and efforts, it disappears. And so, dollarization has already happened in Argentina.

The dollar itself is inflated away also, but not as much, so it's more stable. But by the way, there is also a large cryptocurrency component in Argentina as well for the last few years. I know people who pay their rent in Argentina in cryptocurrency. So it appears that I am told what Milay actually means by dollarization is something that will include cryptocurrency as a component. We will see. But all the objections you hear about him, especially from spiteful so-called right-wing accounts are absurd. These objections take place in ignorance or while obscuring essentially lying about what what the alternative to Malay was, but what was already taking place in Argentina which they want to sweep under the rug because the government of Argentina was them, okay, the same rhetoric.

I'm sorry you're obsessed with the Palestinians, by the way, for whatever reasons, Argentines voted this way because they need to eat, excuse me, and because young people, and especially the best young people that are tired of being promised only a life of slavery in the service of parasites that the government relies on for political support. But anyway, we'll see what Milay does. He will be inaugurated this coming weekend, December 10, but he's already promised huge cuts and essentially to get rid of the central bank, which again has been a real dissident right aim for a long time, a real aim of real dissidence like Rand Paul, okay? For some time, for decades actually. The central banks of these countries has been interpreted as the source of these rapacious governments.

So let's see, however, how much Millet actually carries out. I will add that in Argentina, the executive is much stronger than in America, both by the constitution as such and in traditional practice. So for example, in America, even a lowly federal judge could stop Trump or actually another president too could stay the policies of any president. By the way, I don't think that's even in the Constitution. That's just an accepted precedent practice. But even constitutionally, the Supreme Court and Congress have sovereign powers in America to stop the executive to check it strongly. But my understanding is that both by what is written in Constitution and by practice, the Argentine executive is much stronger. So we'll have to see what Millet does. He has less excuses.

The president there can essentially rule by decree. We'll see if he ends up being a disappointment like Meloni or not, Meloni in Italy. I think they had a meeting with her, they stuck a needle in her eyeball and injected a fluid into the stem of her brain. I don't want to talk about this, I'm not allowed. But ultimately why I like Millet is not even the policies, the disruption potential. I think maybe he's crazy and I hope he just destroys the government in that country, which Which has been a terrible thing to happen to Argentina. It is a talented population, an intelligent population, a literate one. Beautiful bookstores all over Buenos Aires and the whole talents of that people just going down the drain because of their government.

But I think maybe those become discouraged at inability of men like Trump or Bolsonaro to get their way or who are, you know, because they were frustrated by governments that were just unwilling to do what they want. And in response to this, some people became attracted to convoluted theories that these men too are part of a multi-layered plot, like Emanuel Goldstein in 1984 book, or in other words, they get fantasies that we're facing an all-powerful adversary who simultaneously runs all opposing factions. And the old left actually has the same paranoid tendencies. But anyways, I like these men for their disruption potential, the disruption of our present condition will be through gradual shocks I think and hoping for policy reforms is

a waste of time. I don't seek to reform or improve these states I mean maybe Millet can take an axe to it that's different but I want fire of revolutions that will explode this world and replace it with one based on very opposed spiritual principles. I want an end to all this imagine wanting this for another 30,000 years this can you okay very good I will be right back welcome back to show I posted sometime recently on Emperor Julian in this context the context of spiritual overturning or revolution I posted on Emperor Julian who was Emperor Julian he was Emperor of well Roman Empire in mid 300s ad he is called apostate because he left behind Christianity which was new at the time and he sought to bring back paganism but it was a kind of state paganism, a neo-platonic

paganism so you know actually a highly reformed different paganism in some ways similar to Christianity as well they're both forms of Platonism you can say and it's not my kind of paganism that he wanted to install it's not the vivid living paganism of let's say archaic or early classical age of the Greeks, the paganism you find in Pindar, or in Dionysian rites that were to become the Greek tragedies that Nietzsche describes so beautifully in Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music. I'm not myself a big fan of this kind late paganism, which itself takes maybe not as such for Julian, but yes, for some pagan apologists like Libanius and others, it takes this kind of whining tone, whines, it whines, like Jews and Christians also were whining before they

became supreme in the Roman Empire, you know, the apologetic tone, trying to make your case before the imperial authority. And my friend the bureaucrat has many profound insights on this phenomenon, what means the style of apologia in an imperial setting. I believe he does convincingly explain woke-like phenomena have always taken place within empires. It's mostly, I don't know if I'm describing it right, but minority groups lobby the central power which then carves out exceptions for them and justifications for those exceptions and it does so really just to be left alone, to maintain the peace or to stop chimp-outs. It's interesting theory. I am greatly simplifying it here. I think bureaucrats explain much

more interesting, but likely if Hitler had won, I'm afraid to say that the Nazi empire, there are signs that even early it was going to embrace a kind of woke cosmopolitanism eventually. But that's discussion for another time. The bureaucrat can explain this. You read his sub-stack, please. In any case, he also does not like this kind of late paganism. You know, for me it just does not have the kind of light-filled fervor you see in images and similes from Homer and such, it's ossified, intellectualized, it comes in Julian already in a kind of philosophized system. But why do I talk Julian? Because he has a book, a polemical book against the Galileans. You can find it online, it's not really a book, you can read it in one sitting.

And he attacks Christianity, and I want to talk this for a moment, because he does not seem to fully distinguish in this exhortation against the Galileans, he doesn't distinguish so much between the Christians and the Jews or the Judeans, call them what you will. In fact, ancient Romans didn't really make this distinction fully for quite a while. You can see in Tacitus and elsewhere they are easily interchangeable, and at this point it's appropriate then to speak maybe of a Judeo-Christianity, which was not going to be a thing for a while after. And I wanted to say a couple of words about this, because so much obfuscation happens now online when you bring up charged matters of this type. In his text against the Galileans, Julian makes various attacks on Christians, but they're

not the attacks you might expect based on what you see modern atheists or modern leftists, what they say. At times he sounds like a Wignat, like a modern neo-pagan white nationalist. Some of you may know from forums in such the language or from 4chan you may have seen the Jew on a stick, you worship the Jew on a stick and so on. And basically Julian uses the same language, he says you worship the Jewish corpse and he has the following interesting line, this probably is the core of his attack in favor of Greek or Roman civilization and against Christianity. I'm reading now, further as regards the constitution of the state and the fashion of the law courts, the administration of cities and the excellence of the laws, progress in learning and the

cultivation of the liberal arts, were not all these things in a miserable and barbarous state among the Hebrews? And yet the wretched Eusebius will have it that poems existing in hexameters are to be found even among the Hebrews, and he sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic. What kind of healing art has ever appeared among the Hebrews, like that of Hippocrates among the Hellenes, and of certain other schools that came after him? Is there a wisest man Solomon at all comparable with Phokilides or Theognis or Isocrates among the Hellenes? Certainly not. At least if one were to compare the exhortations of Isocrates with Solomon's Proverbs, you

would say I am very sure that the son of Theodorus is superior to their so-called wisest king. But Solomon was also proficient in the secret cult of God. What then? Did not Solomon serve our gods also, deluded by his wife, as they assert? What great virtue, what wealth of wisdom! He could not rise superior to pleasure, and the arguments of a woman led him astray. Then if he was deluded by a woman, do not call this man wise. But if you are convinced that he was wise, do not believe that he was deluded by a woman, but that trusting to his own judgment and intelligence, and the teaching that he received from the gods who had been revealed to him, he served the other gods also. For envy and jealousy do not come even near the most virtuous men. Much more are they remote from angels and gods.

But you concern yourselves with incomplete and partial powers, which if anyone called demonic he does not err. For in them are pride and vanity, but in the gods there is nothing of the sort. If the reading of your own scriptures is sufficient for you, why do you nibble at the learning of the Hellenes? And yet it were better to keep men away from that learning than from eating of sacrificial meat. For by that, even Paul says, he who eats thereof is not harmed, but the conscience of the brother who sees him might be offended according to you, O most wise and arrogant men. But this learning of ours has caused every noble being that nature has produced among you to abandon impiety. Accordingly, everyone who possessed even a small fraction of innate virtue has speedily abandoned your impiety.

If it were therefore better for you to keep men from learning rather than from sacrificial meats. But you yourselves know, it seems to me, the very different effect on the intelligence of your writings as compared with ours, and that from studying yours no man could attain to excellence or even to ordinary goodness, whereas from studying ours every man would become better than before, even though he were altogether without natural fitness. But when a man is naturally well endowed and moreover receives the education of our literature, he becomes actually a gift of the gods to mankind, either by kindling the light of knowledge or by founding some kind of political constitution, or by routing numbers of his country's foes, or even by traveling far over the earth and far by sea,

and thus proving himself a man of heroic mold. Now this would be a clear proof. Choose out children from among you all and train and educate them in your scriptures. And if when they come to manhood, they prove to have nobler qualities than slaves, then you may believe that I am talking nonsense and am suffering from spleen. Yet you are so misguided and foolish that you regard those chronicles of yours as divinely inspired, though by their help no man could ever become wiser or braver or better than he was before, while on the other hand, writings by whose aid man can acquire courage and wisdom and justice, these you ascribe to Satan and those who serve Satan. Okay, so I stopped reading now, but this last passage, very important, the words about slaves, right,

it should be read with Nietzsche in mind. It's very interesting, I think. It's also interesting that he does not distinguish here between Christianity and Judaism. He does elsewhere in the text a little bit, but not as much as you think. But this proper, what I read here, this proper text here is an attack on Judeo-Christianity you can say, and specifically even on the Old Testament. And the words he says about Eusebius are especially cutting in today's context, right, that the Hebrews had, he says that this guy Eusebius, a Christian apologist, claimed that the Hebrews had both hexameter verse, that's what, dectylic hexameter is what Homer writes in and other epic poetry. And the study of logic in their antiquity and such, you know, this is the kind of thing you hear now,

it's revealing for so many reasons, right? Same kind of we was reasoning, you hear from black or Arab or Chinese or other third world ethno-apologists, let's say ethno-apologists, who make up stories that in fact in their remote histories they had the mastery of flight, or they knew mathematics or other nonsense like this to assuage their hurt, pride, and group identity when they encountered superior Western civilization. And here you see Eusebius making the same type of arguments on behalf of the Hebrews. And it's very telling that Eusebius is a Christian polemicist, but he's engaging in these kinds of arguments. This is not a religious argument. He's not defending the Christian revelation or theology or religion specifically. He's specifically defending the honor,

the racial or ethnic honor of the Jews, right? I mean, even early Christians, for all you hear now, the continuity with the Jews was quite a thing in their minds in many ways, and they felt the civilizational continuity with the Jews and the Old Testament, the Judeans called them what you want and not with the Greek or Roman world that they sought to overturn. Conversely, the Romans also felt that the Jews and the Christians were the same thing and Julian is constantly saying throughout this, it's not a book, an exhortation or pamphlet, have what you willed, but he's saying something like, you guys went over to the other side, you know, you went for the teaching of others. He's saying they defected to Judaism, essentially, and you can see the specific ways Julian attacks them,

implying throughout that aside from the institution of the priesthood among the Jews, and even that institution of the priesthood he considers valuable only, not valuable, but let's say respectable only limited sense as oh it was a necessity of let's say the structure of their state for survival or for continuity and there's something respectable about that priesthood, the Judean priesthood. But aside from that very mild qualification, he interprets Judeo-Christianity, both Jews and Christians, essentially a technology for mobilization of slaves of various nations, which is also the way Tacitus understood it. And you read behind the lines in Tacitus feeling the assumptions of what he's saying, the facts of the time, it really feels like he's repeating in part

the source from Appion who is an Egyptian who they had problems with the Judeans too, of course. but you get a sense that you are seeing the so-called ethnogenesis or the formation of the nation of Israel or of the nation of this thing in the Bible, and it's not like a thing, it's not a people in the way that's normally understood. It's a collection of the refuse of other nations. That's how they understood it. That's what the Bible is from the Greco-Roman point of view, purely put, that's what these religions are, at least in their beginnings. And that doesn't mean that's what they need to be, by the way, or that what they are essentially or other such. I don't believe in textual or historical origin determinism.

So I'm not saying that this is a way of insulting Christians who are right now at the individual level, not the organizational level, but there are many Christians allied with the right against the international left and such. But I'm saying this because I'm tired of two things mainly or one thing with two or three phases. First of all, the effrontery of people like De Santis and other Christ cocks who go around saying that Western civilization comes from the Jews, which even on its own would be a stupid anachronism because rabbinic Judaism, which is what people mean by the word Jews today, that's something that developed even later than Christianity. But to trace Western civilization to the Bible is a lie, right?

Because there are other Nestorian Christians, Ethiopian Christians are not Western in any sense for example. And that claim of De Santis, it's actually widespread among a big swathe of the public, but especially the pundit opinion, even in part on the left, but especially among conservative or adjacent groups. For example, David Goldman of Asia Times has spread this view for many years. Hazony spreads this lie and many other, which I consider it's a kind of Jewish supremacism, a kind of we was. We was is what? You feel inferior in the face of a civilization that is more beautiful, more advanced scientifically, more aesthetic, better manners, and so on. We were, before you, while you were living in caves and you were homos, funding kids,

we had these books, and in these books actually you see there's actually mathematics, and we discover, you hear it all the time now. And I have no idea why a cucked man, I do know why, but it's a very annoying thing. I know exactly why a cock man like De Santis and similar would pick these ideas and second I'm annoyed at those sections of the dissident right or the outlight who spread Alex Jones style rage bait about how demons and we are fighting demons and it's all about the Godfulness versus godlessness and are you on the side of Christ against demons? Which of course includes the demons includes what includes the evil pedophile pagan civilization of the Greeks and Romans? Romans. This is how it's thought and did you know they were gay, you know. I have to tell

some of you fools something, the logical outcome of such a position is that you must import wholesome family values believing Christians from Latrino America and Africa in order to fight the evil globalist demon elites. And even if you personally or Alex Jones does not take this position out of some convoluted reasoning against migration that they hold separately proceeding from other premises they hold. But on the other hand, most people will draw this conclusion. It's the natural conclusion. If Christ is everything and you are locked in a mortal struggle with a globalist, gay-loving elite that's transhumanist and wants to do the trans thing, that demons or demon-Satan worshippers, then why wouldn't you import millions of Christian allies to give you demographic and voting weight?

Those people could be mobilized quite well with such arguments, by the way, better than most white people, most educated white people, so-called, so of course those are the people you are going to end up demonizing, by the way, the educated white people. Just like the wholesome chungas, so-called working class Peronist party in Argentina, ended up by calling educated white kids in Buenos Aires class enemies and globalists and such because they like avocado toast and they want to work in intellectual pursuits or cinema and such. And you know, but if that's the case, why not import wholesome family values, hard-working men and women, indios from Bolivia and Peru, you know, a midget with facial scarifications

from Peru who worships Pachamama, but they say they're Catholic and they'll vote for and you can stick it to the cosmopolitan evil white kids in a cafe in Buenos Aires, why wouldn't you do that? So that's the way that party evolved, it's just a natural progression, that's what happened in that country. And the biblical case for migration restriction is actually very weak, it's convoluted in any case. Please do not point to Hungary or Poland, somebody did this, they're not really successfully limiting migration by the way. Hungary mostly, Poland is not, and when they are, they are doing so by using identitarian, nationalist and pragmatic secular arguments and reasonings, not religious ones. On the other hand, the Ummah-based thinking, Ummah is what the community of believers in

Islam, the community believers type rhetoric, it necessarily leads to the opening of gates to fellow believers from other nations, because why not? I may have said on previous show, it even happens now in Turkey, where Erdogan has bust it open its borders and it bring in Arab and other kinds of migration on basis that they too are Muslim, why shouldn't you bring in believing poor Muslim family values people against the evil, gay, white, secular population of Istanbul? After all, the white devils need to be taken down a pegboard so you see what this language of godfulness versus godlessness is also very false in light of the fact that you take for For example, Pope Faggot, right? The Pope, Pope Faggot, is a religious leader, as far as I know, right?

He's not secular, he's a godful man, supposedly, but he's for mass migration and many other such things, as are all of the bishops, basically, of the Catholic Church, with very few exceptions. And so are almost all major denominations. If you go to the border, you will find mostly Catholic and Methodist organizations actually facilitating migration directly, also with legal aid and so on. And even in Japan, it is the Catholic organizations, okay, so we all know about the ASK, right? The fact that ASK-y orgs are doing this is uncontroversial and well-known. But in Japan, it's the Catholic organ, they don't have ASK organizations, the Catholic organizations exclusively, they're agitating for mass migration, and in Japan they do so

by stating naively and openly the reasons why that they want fellow believers and they They want more of them, you see. And in America, even evangelical churches, I don't know exactly if that, for mass migration per se, I don't think that they are against, in fact, but you go and it's all food drives for Africa, how do we increase the population of Africa, or about excusing, this is what I'm saying, they're not right wing in any sense, they are feminist on the other hand, there are many interesting articles written about evangelical churches and how they treat women. They worship women and it's about excusing adulterous women. It's woman worship, it's wife worship, it's man-blame, the wife can do no wrong, that is the

teaching of evangelical churches. So basically all major denominations now are cucked or are outright hostile, right? You take major branches of Islam or Judaism, they're hostile, while the major Christian denominations are hostile or at least, at best, they're heavily cucked, okay? And I guess that's what I'm saying is I know there are religious friends who are not represented by these organizations and hierarchies, but that's the point, you're not represented. But to a large majority, that is what is Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam are today. That's what it is. And so I wonder if, as in remote antiquity, it's appropriate once again to talk about the existence of something called Judeo-Christianity, unfortunately, a force for dissolution into

a human morass, a swamp, a promotion of what is low and slavish in man, and fundamentally a funnel for Africa and to Eurasia, or for South America and to North America, a funnel of the global south to the global north. And so while in the intervening centuries Christianity, for example, may have been something quite different, and probably was so as a result of its need to accommodate European aristocratic mores, later the needs of European kings and European states. But now it is again maybe reverting to what it was in Julian's time, or at least something like that, which is not, I should clarify, I'm not making statements here about the fundamental nature, the essential nature of Christianity, or actually any other religion,

because I don't believe something is determined necessarily by what it was in its origin, or to say that that's what it really is, what it was in the beginning, and I don't even believe actually that something is determined strictly by the text of its scriptures, because over time religion takes many forms in practice, there's wide latitude in how you interpret it. You see this with Zoroastrianism too, which is now a tiny and exclusive religion, very high IQ people by the way, I've seen a study, I have to find it, that actually Zoroastrians are the highest IQ group in the world. It's just they're very tiny, and for cultural reasons, I suppose, they put most of that mental energy into financial pursuits, and so you don't

see too many Zoroastrian scientists, artists, and so on, but they're a tiny, tiny group in huge India, and yet they make up a large percentage of Indian billionaires, but they're successful wherever they go. They may have the highest IQ on average, I mean as a group. But they're tiny now. They do not allow converts, but in ancient times they were aggressive proselytizers and imperialists. They did mass conversions and basically this is what happens with many religions. They take many forms and Christianity also takes many forms. And I think it's stupid, offensive, but mainly stupid when National Review stenographers and interns write yet another article against me trying to frame things as Christ versus

paganism, Christ versus Nietzsche, and they're doing this so they can continue the Pharisaism under which the American conservative failures have hidden and progressed for decades. I have no interest in such an opposition, and in my book I praised certain Christian heroes, the conquistadores, especially the conquistadores, also Conradin of the Haus Hohenstaufen and many others, I praise them in specific ways as Christian heroes that I don't think others have done this and I have no interest as such in theological disputes or simplistic oppositions of this type that doing that it's a form of PR again, you know, which team are you on and now that said I do think what Julian, I find what he says very interesting for the reasons I, you know, understanding the way Christianity and Judaism

were viewed at the time comparing to Nietzsche and so on and every time I should say you bring up Julian you're guaranteed idiotic PR attacks on him everyone now is doing PR all the time so for example immediately are told Julian lost a battle against the Persians and such and that this is somehow supposed to discredit his views he was a loser you see so you should disrespect any idea he had so it's interesting he died in a battle near Ctesiphon the Persian capital and that was near present-day Baghdad, few things changed and so we are told that he elsewhere praised the priests of Sibelen, they were trannies or eunuchs or such and again a statement that he liked them you see obviously that means he's a tranny chaser so you have to dismiss what he said in the

passage I read you just now or you have to dismiss what he said elsewhere. All PR Madison Avenue all the time you know such people should really look up to the first convert to Christianity was I think it was a gay black man I'm sorry to say or a black tranny or a black eunuch at best it was a eunuch by the way nobody really knows exactly there are disputes what is meant by the word but it's a black eunuch essentially something like weird like feel free to look this up I'm not making it up Ethiopian you know eunuch or something odd like that you know very telling I think about the beginnings of but okay But always PR all the time. You see ad hominem attack the character of whoever said it and so on Associated with taboo words associated with things that are seen as low status, you know

So you learn dwell from West Wing, but unfortunately for those of you who use such tactics You don't own the media and PR which is really a lie Fundamentally in the end only works when you own the media you see you don't do that So you should just tell the truth online as a minority voice Which we all are you're better off telling the truth speaking to the point But I bring up Julian not because I want people to be impressed by his title of Emperor or such But because it's interesting the time in which he says these things show you Important things about how Jews and Christians were perceived at that time I mean and that's very different from let's say the ire that a modern atheist or leftist would have and the parallels to a few things that Nietzsche says and

and between that and Julian is quite interesting. And the fact, you know, this whole thing, this whole thing, right, that was happening at the time, filthy and enraged bearded men and filthy black robes screaming, burning down temples, tearing down ancient statues, destroying texts, or jerking off as Tertullian does over visions of athletes burning in hell. What does that sound like to you? Does that sound familiar? Let me read. This is from Libanius. I mentioned it's a contemporary of Emperor Julian. He lived in Antioch, I think. He was from the Near East, but he visited Athens. He was a pagan, a rhetorician, an apologist, a pagan writer. He was complaining about the destruction of temples. I'm reading now. You, therefore, Emperor, have not ordered the temples

to be shut up, nor forbidden anyone to frequent them. Nor have you driven from the temples or the altars, fire or frankincense, or other honors of incense. But those black guard people who eat more than elephants and demand a large quantity of liquor from the people who send them drink for their chantings, but to hide their luxury by their pale artificial countenances, those black guard people, he's talking about monks, these men, oh emperor, even while your law is in force, run to the temples, bringing with them wood and stones and iron. And when they have not these hands and feet, then follows a Missian prey. The roofs are uncovered. Walls are pulled down, images are carried off, the altars are overturned. The priests all the while must be silent upon pain of death.

When they have destroyed one temple, they run to another and a third, and trophies are erected upon trophies, which are all contrary to your law. This is the practice in cities, but especially in the countryside. And there are many enemies everywhere. After innumerable mischiefs have been perpetrated, the scattered multitude unites and comes together, and they require of each other account of what they have done and he is ashamed who cannot tell of some great injury which he has been guilty of. They therefore spread themselves over the country like torrents wasting the countries together with the temples for whatever they demolish the temple of a country at the same time the country itself is blinded declines and dies. He's talking about the country sides. For O

Emperor the temples are the soul of the country. They have been the first original of the buildings in the country and they have subsisted for many ages to this time and in them are all the husband men's hopes concerning men and women and children and oxen and the seeds and the plants of the ground wherever any country has lost its temples that country is lost I end reading now from Libanius you see how they they keep they put a rasp there they send the little being to spray the back of my throat while I'm reading for you from ancient texts so that I cannot continue reading but I will continue I will not I will not let I know who's doing this I will not let I will continue reading and this is from Machiavelli discourses book 2 chapter 5 among the

causes which have a human origin are the changes in sects and tongues because when a new sect that is to say a new religion comes up its first endeavor in order to give itself reputation is to face to erase the old and should it It so happened that the founders of the new religion speak another tongue. This may be readily affected. This we know from observing the methods which Christianity has followed in dealing with the religion of the Gentiles, for we find that it has abolished all the rights and ordinances of that worship, and obliterated every trace of the ancient belief. True, it has not succeeded in utterly blotting out our knowledge of things done by the famous man who held that belief. And this is because the propagators of the new faith, retaining the Latin tongue, were

constrained to use it in writing the new law. For could they have written this in a new language, we may infer, having regard to their other persecutions, that no record, whatever we may infer, would have survived to us of past events? For anyone who reads of the methods followed by St. Gregory and the other heads of the Christian religion will perceive with what animosity they pursued all ancient memorials, burdening the works of poets and historians, breaking images, and destroying whatsoever else afforded any trace of antiquity. So that if to this persecution a new language had been joined, it must soon have been found that everything was forgotten. Do you like this? What does this sound like to you?

Now what I find interesting is that for all the contrived Christian versus Jewish opposition you're seeing online now and presumably at times in history, which again I think it's totally fantastical fake. Because right now in real life there is concordance and cooperation between all Christian institutions and Jewish ones. As well, by the way, between believers, well over 90%, they love each other. And it's in this concordance that allows for shysters like Hazone and others to build their schemes and their other lies, but this contrived discourse online in which you are supposed to believe that Christians somehow greatly opposed Jews, the fact is they don't really and they never did, not really. The Romans again saw them as the same, and as you can infer from the things I read, the

tactics that Christians used against pagans were never used against Jews, right? The evidence is paganism was extirpated and Judaism was not. That's it. You know, in fact Judaism prospered in Christian Europe, much more so than anywhere else in the world, in fact, because they're basically the same thing. There's so-called narcissism of small differences and actually sects of the same thing often hate each other, but even Protestants and Catholics fight and yet nobody would deny that they're quite close to each other and basically seen from outside that the same thing, but they're just two varieties. They can be murderers to each other, but that's what rival sects do. 30 years war, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, many such things, the things that Jews quench

about now, about not being allowed to own land in the past, while Protestant states, I think after Treaty of Westphalia, continued to disallow Catholics from owning land and vice versa in many cases. It's a question of scale, I'm saying it's a question of scale, the Christians were much more brutal against the pagans, in a way they never were against the Jews. What you see at the end of the Christianization of Europe is really the Judaeification of Europe. Later on when things like Catharism came about, the Albigensians, which my friend Macrobius, he is a very traditionalist Eastern Orthodox actually, he's an Englishman who converted to Russian Orthodoxy because he believes he sees certain theological similarities between the two churches.

He's a good friend of mine and very interesting, I may invite him on show at some point. But he interprets the Albigensians, the Cathars, as not really Christians, but just a Christian veneer for actually a survival of paganism that embarrassed the church. But whether it was that or whether it was a kind of Manichaeism, as Steven Runciman has in his book, Medieval Manichee, which I highly recommend, short, brief, extreme informative book you can find online. Don't try to look for it, hard copy. But in any case, it was something so different that it wasn't just a different sect. You know, it rejected the Old Testament, actually. It was completely de-Judaized Albigensianism, and there was a campaign of extermination

waged against it in a way that never happened to the Jews, who are really Christianity's cousins and so on. And in fact, it's just a matter of historical fact, plain truth, that the Church, despite the propaganda actually from leftists and now also from lying anti-Semites, but the fact is that the Church protected the Jews, especially during the Crusades, by the way. need any true account of what happened during the Crusades and during other pogroms or other happenings. The Church always stepped in to protect the Jews, Jewish lives, property and interests. And the man in Rome, the man in Rome wears a little hat on his head, after all, does he not? And he worships Jewish fishermen. I joke, I'm taking it too far I guess, but for whatever reason, for whatever reason the

The church preserved the Jews, perhaps for theological reasons or to have them as a mirror of itself. It's simply the case that Jews prospered in the new Christian Europe after Julian, but pagans were wiped out and persecuted with extreme brutality. But yes, this is by way of me mentioning some other stupid objection I read against Julian that happens every time now if you bring him up. This is from paranoid churchist anti-Semites to the effect that Julian was really a Jewish psi up because psychological operation right because you wanted to rebuild the temple but excuse if I mentioned already the reason Julian wanted to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem is not because he liked the Jews you may have noticed that the Jews who exist now who are quite different even from the Jews of Julian's

time they are not rebuilding the temple for whatever reason it you know it's quite odd why aren't they doing it but I mean there is a minority of there's a minority of Jews who do want that, the Karaites, but they are persecuted by the majority rabbinic Jews. Anyway, that's another story. But the reason Julian wanted to rebuild the temple isn't because he liked the Jews, or you can get his opinion of them and of the Old Testament from what I read before. Am I allowed to do that or is blasphemy against the Old Testament illegal now? But because he was trying to intensify contradictions in the Judeo-Christian camp, right, and maybe Maybe by rebuilding the temple, he was trying to lessen the appeal of the faction that was more threatening to Rome at the time, of the Galileans, what he calls.

I say more threatening to Rome, I note I did not call them the Universalist faction, because actually the Judeans of the times were themselves proselytizers, although this is something else that's not acknowledged today by almost anyone. But Judeans, Jews of the time, were trying to convert people en masse. That's right, Judaism was. It's very interesting, Josephus in his defense of Judaism against Apion, again you can find it online, you can read it in one sitting, he just mentions casually that, oh well everyone knows that the most generous peoples of our times, the only peoples that allow foreigners to join them are the Romans and the Jews. It was, they were proselytizers at the time. But anyway, such are the arguments, the idiotic spouting whenever he tried to discuss something

interesting like Emperor Julian and it's all psy up this and PR and but anyway for those who are interested in reading more about and entertaining things about Emperor Julian Gore Vidal has book called Julian and Libanius who I read from above that was from a narration for the temples it was called but Libanius is a major character in this Gore Vidal book I'd say it's worth reading for the historical maybe not historical accuracy but Vidal is a good and he's a vivid writer, but fundamentally he does not get Julian for the reasons my friend Blasius says, is that Gore Vidal agrees fundamentally with Christian morality, as many leftists do, and so he doesn't really get the alternative that Julian actually represented. So then what happens

is he focuses on extraneous, irrelevant differences, the same way that atheists do today when they criticize ancient Christianity, while actually embodying the morality of that faith themselves, in a way, since I bring up Gore Vidal, he is better when he writes about gay stuff. He has a book called The City and the Pillar. It's a gay story written, I think, in 1947 that's actually quite moving, and he was brave to write it at a time when it was still not socially allowed. Later gay writers can't say that about themselves. But anyway, regarding Julian, Alexander Kozhiev actually has a nice article on Julian and his art of writing. It's called Emperor Julian and His Art of Writing. You can find it in an edition of Essays in Honor of Leo Strauss.

There's this one Straussian book I can recommend it to be this one. It's called Ancients and Moderns, Essays on the Tradition of Political Philosophy in Honor of Leo Strauss, edited by Cropsy. And you can find this essay by Alexander Kożewinit, he's a very interesting Hegelian Marxist, and other interesting essays too on Gulliver, on Simply Chissimos by Grimmelshausen, and even pieces of visual art criticism, if I remember right. This book is good highbrow literary criticism, enjoyable to read. But anyway, Julian would make a good movie, but would have to be done by someone who is able to present a complete other view of morality, other basis of spirit, otherwise it just becomes restatement of leftism by other beings. I will be right back.

I see piece of shit movie Napoleon by the bald mannequin Ridley Scott, who made three good movies at the beginning of his career, Alien, Blade Runner and The Duelists. They're memorable movies with The Duelists being the best. I think The Duelists you can think of a kind of sequel to Barry Lyndon by Kubrick, which is also a perfect movie. But Kubrick had no bad movies, whereas Ridley Scott hasn't made memorable movie after those first three in my opinion. He's a talented man as such, but he should have stopped there. Arguably Some people like Gladiator, some good men like Gladiator, but I think they like it more for lack of anything better since the year 2000 or so. I mean, anything better in a sense, specifically something that shows manliness as uncompromisingly good and undamaged.

So you have some other movies like American Sniper and Hurt Locker, or even to some extent his other movie, Black Hawk Down, that are about war and about men at war, but I think all of them show manliness as something fundamentally damaged or self-frustrating. And I would say the same for a favorite of many friends, the movie Drive with Ryan Gosling, which shows a kind of, this actually makes me angry because the character Gosling plays what you'd call autistic, what I call dreamy, idealistic, Apollonian man of action, supreme sex Apollonian man. He plays in this movie, but, and I've known there is even 4chan Green Text and many of you may have heard stories from friends who copied the way he acts and got a girl, you know, but then you have to make sure the girl doesn't see the movie.

But he's shown in that movie in service to a single mom, and it's just so depressing. Why? Who is it? Refn is that who made the movie. Why can't you show him in devotion to a non-human and higher ideal? Whereas in Gladiator, you know, it's a nice revenge comeback story in style of Count of Monte Cristo. But I didn't like Gladiator because it's fake history, okay? There's so many cinematic events from history, Roman Empire. Why make up something about someone who never existed? When there are heroes like Scipio Africanus and Caesar, of course, and Manlius Torquatus, a consul and dictator of the Roman Republic, and then others that are still less known but amazing. What about the movie on Diogenes the Cynic, if you want to make about an ancient figure who is edgy and counter-cultural?

Why has nobody ever done that? You could then show him public masturbation. I told you, I need to repeat, I'm sorry, I've done this with a girl. We were at cafe and I went to bathroom and I masturbated into the sink there in the bathroom and then I came back to tell her about it. She started to cry. Is this okay? Don't be so sad, Mr. Brennan. I'm a romantic at heart. I'm a romantic at heart, but I mirror. You see, I can't help it. I will mirror whoever I'm with. I just take things to their logical conclusion, you see. But as for Ridley Scott, at least you can say at the time in which he made Gladiator, he was not possessed by a bitter desire to snipe at manliness as such. She wasn't filled with this petty bitterness that I think is evident from his recent movies that consumed him.

I talked about his previous movie, The Last Duel, on this show, and this is the same thing. Just bitterness, feminist sniping, desire to debunk toxic masculinity. you know, from anything from before our time, men were vain and oppressed women who are, in that case, it was to show that knights are vain brutes, delusional about women's love for themselves. Of course, women don't love people like those knights or Napoleon, they love Ridley Scott and his friends, you know, his herb friends, you know, but those knights are stupid and brutish and women are wise and moderate, you know, and they could run an estate whereas the knight forgot to. It's funny, the things that Ridley Scott let's sleep unintentionally. There's a funny scene in that movie, The Last Duel,

where at the end, the knight's wife realizes he has neglected to collect debts, or to collect rent, that were his due. And the audience is expected to say, what a fool, he's an idiot, of course he's broke. Whereas, of course, the pre-modern code of the Hidalgo, the gentleman, is you shouldn't be too strict about collecting rent, you should be clement and careless about such things. You know, you should leave it to the women and the Jews who run your estate while you go to Paris, like the Polish nobles did. I know, that's heartless too, right? But everyone now is instead supposed to empathise with the mentality of a penny-counting shopkeeper, Arminoid. Excuse to my Armenian friends, I love Lakhmajoun. But yes, a penny-counting Arminoid or Yid,

which is the same with the generic petty and avaricious woman, The generic, petty, avaricious woman. It's spiritually the same thing as an armenoid merchant shopkeeper or a jid shopkeeper. I think in 2000 is when Gladiators was made. And then he married Ridley Scott in 2015. Married this very... You can see her face. She's got a strong Latina woman face, Janina Faccio from Costa Rica, apparently, who has also had parts in his movies. And I assume they had been involved sometime from before 2015. But you can see from her face, there's a kind Latina woman, strong woman, really, from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego. Strong, strong, you know, bossy, kind of can talk for four hours straight and keep me up at night until I want to drop a pot of boiling water

on that bitch head, talking four hours under my window. What is possible to say in four hours? When I was a small boy in East Block, forgive if I repeat, I used to take a syringe, I filled it with sour cherry juice, which for anyone who's dealt with pure cherry juice, it just stains everything irretrievably. And I used to spray this out the window and I heard people below on the street. And one time they came to the door, this woman going to a party, she came to the door to complain to my mom that someone had sprayed her which she didn't know if it was blood or beet juice or what, but it was sour cherry juice. This is very funny to me. I miss my doggie. I loved her. I had this doggie. I had to give her away because it was difficult for a dog in a city apartment.

I was not used to it, but I still missed this doggy. I saw her in the countryside. Later on a trip, she had grown nice and big with very proud chest. I don't know what happened to her. But anyway, this kind of woman, you can see the kind of Markzoid pretensions on the face of Ridley Scott's wife. It doesn't matter. This type transcends class in that whole continent. Poor woman, rich woman, and actually the educated, and I don't mean all women in Latino America, this is a known type there, in the same way that the Jewish community produces Elena Kagan's by the dozens, let's say 10% Ashkenazi Jewish women are Elena Kagan, 10% or so, okay? And then 10% Latina women, and it transcends class, race, actually transcends race even,

And also the Spanish Portuguese thing, because they're in Brazil too, and it's this kind of woman who's bossy and just inexhaustible energy to talk for four or five hours straight under your window at night. You can't sleep. And I wonder if she cut this cut ball off, balls, if he was castrated by her ever since at least 2015. He had some bad movies from before, for example, self-defeating liberation feminist fantasies with Thelma and Louise. But ever since he's been with this woman, this impulse in him has taken over entirely. He's consumed by desire to reinterpret heroes of the past. It's clear now. In the last duel it was knights, so anyone that men respect for manliness and high achievement as paragons of that, he attacks. It's knights and in this one it's Napoleon.

And I wonder what it will be next. Will he have a movie about how the real life James Bond was actually a repressed gay oppressor of women and half the movie will be about money pennies, irritated, haughty endurance of James Bond's vain delusions about her admiration of him. That's what all his movies are about now. Men are vain broods, women are enduring angels, they can do no wrong, it's very ham-handed. It's really actually malicious, scot, spirit, and the malice in Napoleon is obvious to the viewer in the same way that it was in the last duel. Most of all, it's obvious in the effort, the money, the time that went into creating these historical sets just so he could then engage in trivial exercise of sniping at men of the

past that he obviously feels are given unfair esteem or attention by others. Otherwise, the movie has the same mistakes as Last Duel, except it's much worse made. The costumes are poorer. But again, imagine the humiliation, working on a set, designing a period piece with cannons, costumes for what would probably take a week or weeks to set up, and then Mr Ridley Scott takes a two second shot of it, and that's it. And I've seen that in other movies now, they don't know how to make the camera linger, but that's another story. But I don't understand this putting this much effort into making a movie about someone you hate. And reflected, many have pointed out in the color scheme of both movies, they're both ominously gray-blue, there's no color whatsoever.

And then Randy Scott is going to transition, I think, in a few years, is he, do you think, going to do? Is he going to transition? Has he been since Gladiator on hormone replacement therapy? Am I allowed to ask these questions? Joaquin Phoenix is Napoleon in this movie. And he's actually replaying his role as Commodus, the depraved emperor from Gladiator. And I'm sure he was chosen for this reason. Probably Ridley Scott told him, yeah, okay, you play the same character, play Commodus, but like with a twist, slightly more restraint or autism, which again, the triviality of it all, the ability to take a great man, maybe the greatest man, and great events, maybe the greatest of the last few hundred years, and make them trivial. That's not a talent.

It's just lame, it's for example in the scene where Napoleon coming back from exile in Elba and he bares his chest to his army and he dares them to shoot him. So you know he takes, he's taking his opponent's army that was sent to stop him without a shot fired. It's one of the most amazing moments in all known history. But by this time in the Ridley Scott movie it doesn't matter, all the energy and tension has gone out. It feels he's phoning it in. At best, the movie is a comedy, but not a completely self-conscious one. There are funny scenes of hemming and hawing between Napoleon and his woman Josephine. It's a libtarded, gelded man's ham-handed caricature of the toxic, masculinist, cuckold ogre Napoleon, who conquered Europe because he was an insult cuckold who his wife disdained.

Of course, the implication being always in such cases that Ridley Scott or his friends aren't Napoleon's because they're well-rounded, wholesome, self-actualized characters or whatever. That's always the thing. I was watching this lecture. Someone sent me, I can't believe I even watched 10 minutes of these, academics were talking at one point how the tech billionaires have a deformed or perverted drive to immortality, that they seek literal immortality or longevity instead of what heroic men of the past sought, which was a drive to eminence or distinction, a kind of unity with eternity through, they didn't put it quite this way, but through fame. And I might even agree with this in general, but the way it was put, the tone, who and

how it was said, the bitterness, the envy with which it was said, you could see the academic sting, it's always against men of business or industry. I am the virtuous one, I chose the realm of knowledge and I did the right thing, I went the right way while you chose this debased business or industry captainship which I too could have done just like that, but I don't because I'm too good for it, but I'm going to keep envying you for it and talking about it with bitterness, it's absurd especially because as far as I know men like Elon, men like him are not attempting to compete with Achilles or Alexander the Great as far as I know, he's literally a spur-like businessman and marketer with an industrialist who knows

what he is and desires to live longer, what's wrong with that, I don't think he's pretending to be, not that the tech billionaire class should not be criticised but I found this academic word repulsive because it had the air of a perpetually slighted man in search of importance. And if I may, I see it also now when academic toads and online pundit wannabes attack me for receiving attention that they as serious thinkers think they are due. Oh, how could this comedian with a book called Bronze Age Mindset, I deserve this same type of petty envy, is also what drives Ridley Scott when he looks at someone like Napoleon. The whole movie, where it is worth watching, is again an unintentional comedy, especially

when he shows marital spats between, you know, everything reduced to domestic scenes, right? But there's almost no other redeeming quality about this movie, Napoleon. The colours are dull, the costumes look like they were quickly made, they look silly, the Moralism is heavy-handed, caricature-ish, and it tries to tell also the whole story of a man's life through the incredible time of mankind, 1790 through 1815, which is much too long a period to cover for a movie. It should have focused on one event, one battle maybe, possibly with flashbacks or something like this. You know, the battle scenes themselves are very confused. Also it shows a lack of intelligence and a lack of study. Just you can say that Ridley Scott was simply uninterested in learning about battles.

If you may remember, I had so-so, small black cat poster on this show, some episodes back, I don't remember exactly which one, but you talk of Napoleon's battles. And you know he's one of the rare military leaders where genius actually shows his hand. Clausewitz from an opposing country could recognize this, what I'm about to say now, But Ridley Scott cannot, in fact, because it's so beyond his narrow horizon, his family domesticated interests. But the diplomatic and political situation of Europe at that time is mishandled in the movie so that you don't get to see Napoleon's true genius, how he married military action to political ends to achieve what he wanted. And how the lion's claw, recognisable, Napoleon's special touch, recognisable in his battles, You know, this is what I mean.

This is that rare military leader where you can see his character come out in his battles the way they, in the same way that if you hear a great composer, you hear Beethoven if you know him well, or if you hear someone I like a second or a fraction of a second of Rachmaninoff or Scriabin especially and you say, yeah, that's him. That's that guy. I know it's him. It has that characteristic touch in what they do. I mean, that's the mark, one of the marks of genius in an artist when you can tell yes, that's him. I mean to say if I presented the Battle of Napoleons to So-So, who's a connoisseur of such things, or to Clausewitz, let's say a battle they had not seen before, they'd say, yeah, that's Napoleon, I recognize, I can feel it, that's him.

You see in some chess players, a characteristic style, right, my favorite is Mikhail Tal, who died kidney failure from alcohol and cigarettes. Mega-artist, he could not even turn on the gas on his stove, He lived only for bohemian life and chess and he played this wild combinatorial style exciting sacrifices Complicated ruses that nobody could see and anyway, that's just one but to take a man like that And to make a movie about him But to show no interest whatsoever in the art in the thing that made him admired In the case of Talitz chess in the case of Napoleon He was admired by well by many by leaders in general since this his time to just to begin with and to reduce everything instead in his output to you know horses and men being needlessly killed and supposed melee senseless

battles because that's how some of these battles are shown that's what you see rendered in the Ridley Scott movie but the battles were not random melee you know so again this is the mind of a small man lack of curiosity oriental lack of curiosity even dull dumb lack of curiosity hidden under fashionable moralism. Second, you would not understand or even begin to take any hint at all from this movie why generations of artists, that's right, sensitive non-war like, sensitive romantic bohemian men of letters, a whole century of them took inspiration from Napoleon, why he was the image to them of higher life and all higher aspirations beyond the bourgeois banality of that whole century at least. You would not begin to understand why someone like Stendhal and Goethe, why

they looked up to Napoleon, why their spirit and creative powers arose in response to Napoleon. And not only them of course, let me take a break now for no other reason than to snack condensed milks for energy, to try to heal my throat. Brennan is indeed here and he will make, he will receive a vicious Brennan faggot. Where is my milks? Do you warm it to right temperature? I want condensed duroc. Yes welcome back and that's the thing you know I said this word bourgeois that's the thing the funny thing is artists directors right for some decades now they've promoted supposedly a cult of being anti-bourgeois or edgy or showing the bourgeois and corporate penny-counting world that's something constricting and to be disdained you know the it's confused now

for the 1960s spirit, the whole purpose of showing Nurse Ratched or the movie Pleasantville, Stepford Wives, too many such movies to count, and you know I actually agree with at least the strategy of the left on this point. I think it's a huge mistake for the right. Let conservatives do what they will, okay? I'm saying the right for people like me, the actual right wing, not conservatives. It's a huge mistake to embrace the nostalgia for social order in that sense, for bourgeois or working class wholesome lace curtain, no cuss words partner, this kind of stability and such because the left won the culture war by embracing the mantle of decadence and freedom that properly did not belong to it. It belonged to men like Celine or Mishima or many other artists, writers who were men

of the right or of the far right, not conservatives, but men of the far right. They are the ones who pioneered the artistic avant-garde, D'Annunzio and such, many others. I don't know if you'd consider, for example, well never mind, but because it was felt that modern society, in its materialism and comfort-seeking, whether it was bourgeois conservatism or on the other hand Marxism, they were both trying to achieve the same thing by different ends. The animalization of man, his reduction to an economic, which is to say a domesticated existence, the liberal and the socialist ultimately want the same thing, and the spirit in man rose up against this doltification of the possibilities of life. Nietzsche claims that Hegel and Schopenhauer both represented

different aspects of this spirit of man objecting to bourgeois English doltification. But it was Schopenhauer and Nietzsche who inspired this avant-garde I speak of, and the right, again, I don't mean the Conservatives, they mean nothing to me in the end. Those like me who listen to this show and so on, who would do well to reclaim the program of the avant-garde, I don't mean to be complete against conservatives. Many are good people and politically it's fine, but I mean in the realm of battle of spirit, must reclaim this program of avant-garde, which in some way I say to you is the spirit of Napoleon himself, as he is the first and greatest man, as Nietzsche says, in the midst of universal, aggressive, modern mediocrity, in the midst of banality of slave revolt

and the plebeian English ideas of comfort, that this man rose like an unexpected comet appeared, trampled all of this under his feet for his own aggrandizement. In other words, a classical man in an unclassical time, and it was he who awoke these spirits afresh in mankind. Now, I went on this tangent because Ridley Scott, you know, the left has been pretending to be the avant-garde and the anti-bourgeois for decades, right? But in fact, they're deeply conventional, comfort-loving, materialistic in a dull way, Conformist people as it's shown not only in the example I gave earlier from the movie the last duel with a night's failure to collect taxes and dues on time is presented as Unbelievable stupid faux pas right but in this movie Napoleon right Napoleon's he wet a wall so many times

He deserted he skipped class when he was a student. He came almost last in his class at military Academy his whole life He spit on established credential isms and authorities He lived, in many ways, the opposite of the life of a conventionally ambitious man. He lived a life of complete wild genius in the same way that Mozart did. Just no planning, living purely by his innate natural abilities. But in this movie, Ridley Scott sides very much with the system, with a capital S, man, in the hippie sense. He sides with the squares, with the stuffed shirts, stuffed shirts and he tries unsuccessfully because the HR you know siding with the HR lady is never exciting but that's what he does he tries to show oh look how awful Napoleon was he didn't have good manners let's

pearl clutch which of course in our time pearl clutching whatever aristocratic pretentious it comes under it's always lace curtain pearl clutching you know speaking of prim moralism for a movie about cuckoldry there was not nearly enough of it. I mean, if you want to go down that route, okay Mr. Scott, you can at least have a few hot adultery sexies, but no, everything is so prim in the movie in that sense too. And again Napoleon is this kind of smirky middle-aged lady, New Yorker thing, his wife. At least Scott's wife is who made this movie. And again Napoleon has shown this brute who disrespected members of Congress, disrespected conventional manners and so I mean, how tone-deaf do you have to be to think that this will be seen in the future

as anything but a self-parody of the director of this movie? But I think it shows, yes, that the left was never serious about avant-garde anything. Its liberation is provisional. It always ends in one banal paper-pushing class being replaced by another equivalent of slightly different gender in such composition. The end result of Stelma and Louise is not a glorious death, it's a dynamic HR department engaging in competitive synergies. The great counter-cultural Hollywood appears in this case, other cases to side European Ancien Regime of all things against this ambitious brute who never took any interest in the things normally actually ambitious strivers take interest in. The legitimate ambition they want you to go for is credentialism.

This is what contributes to a woman-centred economy such as we have now. Women cannot compete in an economy of freedom and innate merit, where you could go and just sign up to work in a factory one afternoon or advertise yourself as a swimming coach. I've given this example before, no you can't swim, you can't be a swimming coach, you have to take six months of accreditation. This is the 10,000 hours of Malcolm Gladwell drudgery. This is the kind of economy that feeds on the type of striver who takes notes neatly written, coloured in three or four colours, who respects teacher. It's Confucian striver Mandarin ambition, which Bob Denard and Napoleon and other fun-loving men of innate abilities always look down on this. I mention this in my book.

It's that kind they don't call ambition but the desire to break boundaries set by paper pushers and conformists to do things like trusting in your instincts, trusting in your genius as men like Napoleon and Trump do to conquer an entire continent and remake a political order of centuries or inspire generations of artists. This kind of ambition they call ambition and they fear and blame. This is what I mean. He's not siding with the Ancien Régime or the traditional aristocracy of Europe at the time because what could this dull, uncurious Ridley Scott even know about it? He doesn't give any evidence of having taken interest in the lives of the French aristocrats or any other aristocrats in their outlook or anything of the sort.

They are a stand-in for the establishment of our time, for the stuffed shirt, carrot-up-ass libtard establishment which huffed and puffed about freedom only to become a more sclerotic more intolerant version of what existed before them and what they claim to have hated and Napoleon is a stand-in for Trump I suppose for Trump like men other Trump like men arising in our time like Bolsonaro and Millet and in a different way they feared putler you know but I think Trump in particular rattled these comfortable complacent boomers so much you know just like like Putler with his shotless photos did, just shook them out of the delusions of their generation, that they were the end and pinnacle of history, that they represented liberation, that through, it's not even right to call it

collective action, but through moral posturing and declarations of moral sentiment, they had remade the world, when in fact, someone like Wellebeck has that number, you know, the mother character in his book, Atomized. I think Wellebeck maybe even doesn't go far enough in showing two-faced lying boomers for what they actually are. I saw another movie the other day that did show the boomer for what they are, an Italian movie by Paolo Sorrentino, the guy who made The Young Pope. It's called La Gran Belezza, The Great Beauty. I can recommend this movie, maybe, yes, I don't know, my friend Nick Sallow, you remember him from this show, you know his substack, he said in a recent piece where he attacked Ayan Hirsi Ali's fake conversion.

He said it's one of the only great movies after the year 2000. I don't know if I'd do that. But it left me with a bit of a bad taste, this movie. It's just so melancholic. And I say that as a melancholic myself, as a maybe nostalgia-loving comedian myself. But you know, the movie is too many old people, is what I mean. And it's about a writer, a journalist living the party life in Rome's high society. So you can think Fellini's La Dolce Vita, it's been called a kind of sequel or response to that, a temporary to outdo Fellini. It's an aging high society and art critic journalist, starts on his 65th birthday at his party. Unlike the Napoleon movie, it doesn't try to chronologically and stupidly tell the life

of a whole, the whole life of a man, it's just centered around this party and the time around this 65th birthday party and he looks back on his life of partying and so on and finds it empty and almost all the people is known he finds them to be empty in vain and really though the case the movie is about a case of writer's block because in his youth the main character wrote a kind of fiery romantic novel it appears but he never wrote any book after that and the novel actually The evocation of that novel in this movie, The Great Beauty, is very effective. It shows just flashes, scenes of his youthful life in Naples, girls on a rock by the sea in the sun, and he is in water, and you get a sense of the thrill and excitement of youth.

Maybe it was a novel intended to be similar to things Mishima wrote, or similar to what Mishima's friend Ishihara wrote, this novel of Japan's wild youth called Season of the Sun. and Ishihara who wrote this was Mishima's friend, he later became mayor of Tokyo for a long time. He was called a far-right politician although he was really just slightly more conservative normie right-wing, not far-right. But I think Mishima disapproved of his getting involved in normie politics and electoral politics. But anyway, when I picked up Season of the Sun some years ago, I was quite depressed at the time, I was not feeling well and the book was, the beginning at least, was so vitalistic, so full of spirit of longing and energy, I couldn't read it, it's too painful.

Sorry if I repeat myself here, I've said this before, but the contrast of that exciting life described in that book with my own at the time, too much for me, so I had to put it away for a while. But I imagine that the main character in this movie, although he didn't become a politician, but a journalist, he is shown as having written that kind of a 1950s, 60s book. I see many similarities with Shintaro Ishihara, and also with the old writer that Mishima describes in the book Forbidden Colors in a way. I wonder if Sorrentino read that book. Maybe there's no relationship, but in any case the party life of high society Mishima describes in Tokyo was somewhat similar to the one Roman high society depicted in this movie. It must have been fun to be a writer in the 1950s and 1960s and so on.

But anyway, this man, the journalist in La Gran Beleza, The Great Beauty by Sorrentino, he's bored, jaded, witty, he plays this well, and he goes through this movie reflecting on the emptiness, but also the excitement and beauty of this party life. And at one point he's asked, why didn't you write, why didn't you write the second book? And he says, I partied too much, I stayed up every night and I, look this crowd of beasts dancing, this is my life and it's nothing. And he then says this nice line that Balzac, I think... The French writer Balzac is said to have wanted to write a novel about nothing, but he couldn't do it. How can you write a novel about nothing? And yet, Sorrentino, following Fellini, that's what he does in this movie, it's about nothing, okay?

But that's the difference with piece of shit movie like Ridley Scott Napoleon. This is a grand and beautiful and touching movie about nothing at all, Whereas Ridley Scott manages to take probably the most important, one of the most glamorous men of the last few hundred years, in the most important and momentous time and to make it boring and trivial. And not like in an interesting, existentialist, funny way or something, but just like something lame that he was uninterested in, reduced to this man's petty horizon of family and moralistic and political concerns, Ridley Scott's I mean. But yes, La Granbelezzo, I guess, I can recommend it, although a quite sad movie because it has too many old people, more than half the people depicted are older, I think, and that

just gives depressing aspects to the whole movie. I understand it might be accurate portrayal of that society of Rome, which is aging now, and it combines the old European nobility, what's left of it, the high society of nouveau riche and modernist art and so on, but it's still unpleasant to see a movie with so many many olds and there are techno parties. It's interesting actually, the Spanish too, they live an adolescent nightlife into their 40s, 50s and 60s too. You can go to a Spanish nightclub, there will be 60-year-old ladies dancing there, which if it's not just olds, that just a small group of them there can be charming and fun, I think, to see. But it's better than staying home and dying or whatever. I don't know, it's better. In this movie, the main characters

say he tells a nun who is a saint basically and she liked his book from long ago and she asks him why he never wrote another. She asks him this too. It's a recurring question in the movie and he said, I was looking for the great beauty but I never found it. And anyway, yes, along the way of his looking in this there are some scenes where he lampoons because he goes through the different cliques and scenes of Roman high society as he lives He interviews a performance artist who talks nonsense and he just shows her that she doesn't know what she's talking about. But one of the most cruel take-downs of the movie is when at some get-together there's a champagne Marxist woman, a fake novelist. She's written 11 irrelevant novels, you know, who's part of their friend group.

A kind of frivolous, enormously rich woman who's into Marxist politics and pretends to be a novelist. And she's vaunting yet again in this scene about her life, her commitment to her ideals, her family, waxing self-righteous, and in response to her provocations and her hectoring, the main character, the journalist, shows her what a devastation her life is in fact, and how behind the high-flown words and commitment to Marxist ideals and this self-righteous self-boosterism, the Hillary Clinton, you go girl, she's just this callous, delusional, It's just a great takedown of the boomers you see, that one scene, and the boomers this woman exemplifies, which is reflected also in Ridley Scott's movie Napoleon, but without any self-consciousness and his other trash, the last duel.

The smug, self-righteous attitude that has led, in large part has led to the prison world, the universal rule of HR, the paper-pushing half-man. To them, somebody like Trump must seem like a demon. It's like life, the source of life, is calling back to them. It's telling them, idiots, you have lived a lie. You have lived the wrong way and you've made the world into a prison and you are blind to it now too. And ultimately it is the men who move the world, individual men. This is unfortunately something that even so-called post-liberals or the dissident right people forget, sometimes the online right people forget, they want to talk about historical systems, historical forces adopting Marxism or its varieties by another name.

The milieu theory where events you see around you are the product of unnamed invisible historical processes or rooted in ideologies, rooted in texts where you know it's actually a pseudo-religious paranoid point of view where you are cynically scouring the world to uncover the sources of your powerlessness, to reveal to others that they are playthings of invisible and capricious gods that are called historical forces. And ultimately, that's what all economic systems explanations are, historical forces or processes explanations, that's what it is, a kind of religion of history. What disappears in all this of course is the action of individuals, of the great or at least the significant men who actually move history and make it happen, because at some

point of time a decision has to be made and what matters then is if you have the men to make it, as you did for example in Napoleon, or if you don't. And this is why I wrote my book, by the way, because I wanted to remind some of this fact it's impossible to make it obvious to the majority or even to a great number of people who always, they always feel like the plain things of unknown forces. But yes, I wanted to truly remind some few of this fact of what actually moves history and what life actually is, what it was at few peak times of the past. At some point, a decision is made and it counts what the people with the responsibility for the decision believe, what they feel, you see, who they are, it counts how they see the world.

If they care for their pensions, if they care even more so for the regard of their wives, almost all men today are living under the rule of their wives, you know. I believe this is what actually all religions of the Bible, despite their apparent patriarchal character, these religions are actually that they lead in the end, they produce this type of man, the conservative by temperament, regardless of his politics, who's the wife man. He does what his wife says. In quite a few countries recently, I'm not talking about America, but let's take like Brazil or some others at crucial moments. It was up to the military what happens. By that, I mean a few men at the top and the reason nothing ever happens is because you have

comfortable wife-man, men who could break through the modern state, but instead they have narrow horizons, they have no true ambition in those posts, they had just the striver ambition that is praised by men like Ridley Scott, the ambition to rise up like an apparatchik, and that's ultimately what it comes down to. Not to any unseen force, but to that, the weakness of men. And I've always thought that if I can inspire one or a few men in a medium-sized country, when the opportunity presents itself, whether they're in the military or some equivalent of military that has the ability to break through the modern state, to seize the moment and make a great wager, to make a great risk and not act as infantilized, coddled wife-men. The wife-man. This is the absurd thing, you see.

many always try to say about people like Napoleon or Alcibiades, how absurd is it that they need to grow up? That's what they're saying. They need to come to terms with real life. But actually, Caesar, Alexander, and yes, even Alcibiades, Napoleon, but many other such men, I mentioned Bob Dinard before, they knew what true life was. They didn't need to grow up into these, the supposed grown-up responsible man is actually the infantilized tunnel vision, a wife man, you see. He lives, that's why nothing ever happens today, because men return to the comfortable bosom of infantilization, they call it responsible life, but it's really ruled by their wives, and they take the greatest efforts to wipe out this other path from their consciousness that I pointed to in the book,

and that actually used to be a well-known path. It's not like some secret hippie invented alternative. This is why Europe colonized the world, because there were men who said, yes, I will get on a ship on ocean with 10 meter waves on this leaking carcass of wood where only a fourth of the men will survive. I will take this great risk. And that's why such men colonized the world and created great things, including great scientific things. That's why artists felt within them the fire to devote themselves to a great vision completely and absolutely. when say for example a Parisian artist of the 1840s or 50s and later too when they set out to work, it was to reform the spirit in men, they didn't think oh to grow up.

Without that overwhelming belief and enthusiasm, yes you can fail, most will fail and actually most have no ability to do any such thing, but without that overwhelming belief in your mission it's impossible for anything great to take place ever again, which is why this This I believe, as basic and old as this problem is, it sounds like an obvious thing, but I believe this is the crucial fight you see and why they are so desperate to attack men like Napoleon and Die Boonk and others. The fight is over whether you let the wife men, the mannequins, the bug men like Ridley Scott, whether you let them make it so that no one ever aspires to be a Napoleon in the way that Caesar sought to be Alexander and such. why nothing ever happens in Asiatic societies for millennia.

Actually, you can take an Asiatic, put him in Western society. I know some racist friends who are more racist than I am maybe will not like me saying this, but you can take many high-ability individuals from Asiatic societies. You can put them in a different one than they do well, but when they are in Asiatic societies, it stifles the human spirit for millennia. actually entire world in danger now of becoming a universal Asia but because they know in this instincts people like Ridley Scott know that this is where the ultimate fight is it's not over ideology of policies or policies but it's over this what is life over whether truth can shine out in the act of one man's trampling over his entire age and maybe we do not have Napoleon we will not have

one maybe we don't deserve one but can we at least have a Pedro de Alvarado maybe you look him up I talk him in book in a chapter that a thousand Alvarado's bloom in the coming years this why I wrote the book because the ultimate fight is on this front until next time thank you type out