took a shot return it uh trump party inauguration uh not yet inauguration convention nomination trump party hulk hogan uh to lead uh trump maniacs into next phase which uh curb stomp or not curb stomp excuse me no violence it will all be done in gentle means but operation wetback 3.0, send back 30 million squatty melons, welcome, this is Caribbean rhythms episode 168. In summer 1281, in August 15, year 1281, a large invasion fleet, joint Mongol-Chinese-Korean, was stationed off island of Kyushu, getting ready to invade, to conquer Japan for the Yuan dynasty, then the Mongol dynasty of united China, and the great wind, great typhoon came destroyed, utterly destroyed their fleet at anchor. Marco Polo described this, the ships

colliding, the great chaos, survivors floating, some to island take refuge, but later they were captured by Japanese and all killed, with the exception of Cantonese type people who, you know, Hong Kongers, not Hong Kong at the time, but you know, South Chinese of that, who Japanese believe just made them into rape-love slaves. But then others were floating on debris, all immediately killed by Japanese. That was the land of Yamato saved by Kamikaze divine wind. And if you read stories later, Mishima explained that if Japan had been free from blemish and free from, how you say, offense against the gods. He didn't say it, one of his characters in a book was saying this in the 1930s, but that if Japan had not made offense against its gods, it could have been saved in World War II

or rather even before by similar powers. But this is what I tell you, that at height of summer, so long ago, great civilization saved by a divine wind. And similar, we saw Summer Weekend, Trump, Donald Trump, the most Japanese loved American man, they worship Trump in Japan. In India, in Uganda, you can watch Ugandan children reanimate, they have a ritual now to replay as a religious ritual the Trump assassination. This man is saved also by a divine gale, and it is said by onlookers that, onlookers at this event, I mean, I believe it was the 13th on Saturday assassination attempt, during this rally the onlookers were saying that Shinzo Abe, who has himself had been assassinated, you may remember recently Japanese premier assassinate, but it is said by onlookers at

this event that the spirit of Shinzo appeared and interceded on Trump San behalf. I believe I see interview with this American politician, Fox on Fix News Network. She just said, I saw this video, Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think she used to be a dance hall girl in Cowboy Western Saloon in Tucson, Tucson, Arizona. And she has statement in this interview that the spirit of Shinzo Abe appeared in the American flag, it folded and Shinzo Abe appeared with wings and blew away with a divine force the bullet that was meant for Trump. Or maybe it's bullets, you know, some people say that speculation, but I don't want to engage so much speculation on episode because many conspiracy, this all too recent, not enough information. Was this allowed to happen?

Did it just happen because extreme incompetence? I will address a little bit these rumors in a moment, but is enough to say that had this assassination taken place I don't think that there would have been civil war. There might have been sporadic, ineffectual violence by some angry Trump supporters or people pretending to be such. And this then would be used to crack down brutally on all MAGA, certainly on all Trump supporters who are prominent in an illegitimate and disingenuous way. It would have been used as a pretext. But I don't think there would be any kind organized mass violence or mass, you know, resistance because, you know, what organization? Let's say if you're thinking a reaction when similar prominent figures were assassinated

during Spanish Civil War or right before Spanish Civil War started. The left killed the prominent rightist politician, I think, in 1936. That is why Spanish Civil War started. I think it was maybe done on exact day, July 13. And there was immediate, then, almost immediate reprisal, but reprisal in the form of armies moving, actually formal armies. I don't think that would happen in this case because the right is completely disorganized. The Joint Chief of Staff, if you remember during first Trump term, they were not going to even defend the White House from an Antifa mob in May 2020, more on that in a moment, but right otherwise, even for all its numbers, are not, in my opinion, a real power in American politics. They are a base, you can say, constituency that's restive,

but they don't have actual power. They are really some type of voting bloc only. So I think a situation not comparable to something like Russia Revolution or Spanish Civil War, no right-wing army for such major conflict but instead situation may be similar to the brothers from late roman republic the gracchi brothers so i will discuss in the second part of this episode many powerful parallels to trump in many ways trump as a kind of populist leader actually i wouldn't maybe even call him that what people mean by populist or even the brothers because gracie, I guess they are in one sense populist, but not exact the way people think. They are against an entrenched, incompetent, corrupt oligarchy. In the American case, I call it occupational class. In the Roman case of the gracie,

it's a senatorial class, a genuine elite, but still had made significant mistakes prior to the rise of these so-called populist leaders who opposed them, the Grachy brothers. And they were assassinated. And in the wake of that ancient assassination, they were assassinated at different times, one in 133 BC, his brother some years later. But there was no immediate political response from let's say, again it's a misnomer to call it the plebeians or the lower classes, because then you get images of stereotypical medieval Europe like from a movie or modern India with its huge underclasses. And a lot of the supporters of the Trump-like brothers who wanted to make reforms in later Roman Republic were equestrian class. They were essentially, in other words, middle class,

you know, and today might be even called privileged, in the same way that a lot of MAGA people are called privileged by the left. But let me address all of this on second part of show. now enough to say we would all be very bad situation if assassination had succeeded because the Republicans would be able during this convention that you see this week to go back business usual and select whatever cucks they wanted. And now Trump made very good choice. He select Vance. I don't think the GOP would have selected JD Vance. JD, some say JD Vance, The acronym JD stands for Juris Doctor Vance. Some say that, but I know it stands for Justicia Knight Commander Dominus Vance. They would, but the GOP wouldn't do that. They would go back to some kind of Jeb Bush, Jebly figures.

It would be like Rubio Nimrata ticket, something like that. Maybe Tim Scott, you know, so Rubio Tim Scott is the special foam parks at 10 p.m. after closing ticket, Karl Rove would adore that. There is no one at moment to take up Trump position is the point. If Trump was gone, it would really be worst of all worlds. It shows how much everything political, United States, that is new, everything that is new and progressive, potentially different today, depends so much on this one man Trump, which is many of us were aware of his flaws, and this is why, nevertheless, we stand by him. If you listen to any of my shows since beginning, you know that I've enumerated many of Trump's flaws, especially in the wake of the 2020 election. I think he had failure of nerve back then,

but going back even before that, he could have anticipated that. He acted in an improvidential manner at the time, but regardless of his flaws, if it was not for him, there would be nothing at all. So it really is all down to this larger-than-life man. The purity of your ideas, their correctness, their internal consistency, their logical, what you consider their logical weight, none of that would matter. None of your policy papers or preferred actions, no political theory essays, none of this would make any difference at all. It did not in the decades before Trump came. Everything is dependent for better or worse, everything political, but not just political, as I will tell you in a moment. It's more an aesthetic revival of spirit for me

that he means, but it's all dependent on this one man who has managed to present a complete package of certain policies, a certain kind of rhetoric, going with a kind of personality, a media showman background, that is his specialty. But aside from him, it's so clear that there would be nothing but obscure dullness. which this isn't just a praise of Trump but a blame of our sub-mediocre time that it would really be no progress made even let's say just a matter of mass migration if you take a political thing mass migration is quite unpopular at moment in United States and Europe but I remind you it has been actually quite a bad thing since the 1990s. Since the early 1990s immigration both USA and Europe quite bad, and there were politicians in America like Tom Tancredo.

Who's that? Most of you don't remember, but he had made this his number one issue for many years, and yet he made no progress at all, neither did others. So it doesn't matter the ideas, the stated policies, everything seems, for whatever reason, dependent on Trump. He has been touched by something. He is protagonist, main character now on world stage, this is undeniable, and on the most elevated world stage, which is still United States. Yes, still, whatever naysayers say about the rise of bricks. Yeah, I'm sure Bangalore and Shenzhen have nice subways. I'm sure I know this. I live myself in third world. There are nice subways in some places, but culturally economic. Yes, even unless you really care about where your fridges and textiles are made

or again are overly impressed by just one nice airport terminal while outside their slums. But yes, economically, intellectually, in every other way, America is still elevated world stage where, for example, nations that formerly had their own cultures, and I've complained about this, I don't think this is a good thing, but they've erased actually very nice local cultures in favor of now Brooklyn hipster style, which is horrible, or garbage hip-hops that has spread everywhere. And the low nature of this universal pop culture coming out of United States, I think isn't to be attributed to America as such, as in, oh, America's low, some reactionaries want to say that, because I think it would be low culture even if China or Russia or Zaire, you know, imagine if Zaire was number one.

But maybe Japan different. You know, Japan is unique country, I think, that has managed to have a vibrant local pop culture that's better, it's more elevated than other countries. Don't talk about Europe, please. I love European past, but European pop culture TV is not any less vulgar than American TV now, by the way. But Japan managed something, you know, maybe America should pick Japan as its Greece, as the Greece, it's Rome. American elites then should learn Japanese, just like Roman elites learned Greek, in order to spread, instead of Hellenic civilization, to spread anime gospel culture around the world. This would be a better pop culture than what exists now. But otherwise, it is all America. You go Norway, Denmark, despite their higher standard

of living, greater per capita wealth than United States. If their nation is mentioned in American newspapers, this become a national story there. It is actually quite embarrassing. And Trump is the most American protagonist on this lighted world stage. But yes, now as to regard the conspiracy theories floating around, I wait to comment on this more in detail, or maybe I invite someone, because it's only been a few days. Wild rumors are spreading, some appear to be wrong. You may have read about some financial institution that shorted Trump Media, or was it Trump Social the day before the assassination, supposedly. I have close friend who is 100% on our side. He's not, you know, he's not lying to me. I have no experience looking at financial records. He does.

He tells me that this bullshit rumor, that there's nothing, it's not what people are saying about this financial institution. There were no such unusual shorts the day before. But let's wait and see. I'm not even sure about that yet. It's not even a week as I record this since the assassination attempt. and so many theories, impossible to know exactly what happened, we might never know, but I will read in a moment condensation of what fundamental problem can be seen already. It's certain, at very least, extreme incompetence and same avalanche of lies told again by authorities, which I mean days later, you don't know what motive was. How it's possible, because whatever this was, it was obviously a politically attempt murder. And in such political cases there's always,

if not a manifesto at least, the assassin always says something he tell other people, even if he's mentally ill. And he's trying to impress a girl like, who was it, the attempted shooter of Reagan, unless I'm confusing them, or was it someone else trying to impress Jodie Foster. But in this case, the shooter is a complete blank, stonewalled, it doesn't make any sense me because he's supposedly 20 years old and yes he would not have necessarily posted online under his own name but to be told that he has quote unquote no social media presence okay but uh even private messages nothing ever posted anonymously you are told as he is a loner and bullied and this is what they're going with releasing drip drip some videos that are very vague but precisely

such a bullied loner today at his age he would have grown up his whole life on the internet and unless he had been planning years and years ahead to commit this crime and erase his to make sure he has no record at the time of the crime in other words if he had practiced perfect perfect trade craft right trade craft in his teens you know intelligence uh agent behavior at 13, 14, 15 years old, imagine that, to cover up his tracks ahead of time. Now think about how that obviously can't be the case. So things are being hidden, authorities hid similar things before when there was a leftist or similar shooter. The transsexual shooter attack a school of children and they hid his manifesto. And many other cases, anti-white shootings, they hide the motives. And this is the most significant

political assassination attempt, at least since JFK, I think more so. The one of Reagan is not really as significant because if the assassin had succeeded in killing Reagan, situation at time for Republicans wouldn't have been as dire as it is now. The contrast between Reagan and GOP wasn't as great. The condition of country was not as critical anyway. But if this had succeeded against Trump, MAGA and the right in the United States would be temporarily dissipated, you know? So I don't think I'm giving away the game, by the way. They know that, the opponents know that. It all depends only on Trump. But so you take the most significant political assassination attempt in many decades, and then you take the biggest also mass shooting in American history, the one done in Las Vegas,

you know, the comped sushi one. But there it is in what I just said, that's all you remember, yes? A comped sushi. years later, they are still somehow hiding the motive, outright lying. You hear nothing about why that man did it. And I am glad politicians are confronting the bitch HR head of the SS, their secret service so-called. This grim apparatchik, did you see a photo for this bitch? Looks exactly like type of woman that's been terrible pain to me my whole life. Life of many other sensitive men like myself, we have been repeated sabotaged by such HR constipated heredians. But yes, it's very nice to see politicians confronting her in hallways, the way journalists sometimes confront officials, asking for statement, how could these lapses have happened?

But really, they are politicians, not journalists. They should use their political power to do something and not just complain. I see now that they subpoenaed her for answers. Let's see what happened. Watch her take the fifth or stone wall, or then maybe they should start impeachment against Biden and Gamal Harris, who's planning to lead a bull dyke paratrooper extermination squadrons into Europe if she should ever be given the American imperium, right? The American imperium, Gamal Harris, the commander in chief, incarnation in our time of George Washington crossing the Potomac. But look, I don't know, I'm not political expert, but as I may have mentioned, Let me read you a condensation of what's going on strange with this attempt assassination. I read now a tweet by Sean Davis,

who is not a weird internet anonymous frog. He's not crazy. He is the founder of Federalist Magazine, which is entirely in the conservative mainstream. Is that what different about all of this? This stuff like what I'm about to read you now come from people in mainstream. So let me read. Nobody wants to hear this because of the implication, but oh well. Joe Biden's security regime deliberately and with maddest forethought created the conditions that led to an assassin shooting Donald Trump in the head. It is by the grace of God that he lived and our nation is not currently in the midst of a violent civil war. I interject, I don't think that would happen, Mr. Davis. You are too both optimistic and pessimistic in some sense. I continue. They deliberately starved Trump's security team

of the resources it needed. and they did it repeatedly over many weeks and months. With Trump's security detail understaffed, under resourced and stretched to its limits, Biden's security regime diverted even more resources to a hastily planned Jill Biden event that just happened to be in the area. Biden's security regime then ordered the most obvious assassination perch in the entire area to remain outside the main security perimeter. Furthermore, Biden's secret service director ordered law enforcement and counter snipers off the roof that the assassin used. If that weren't enough, Biden's security regime also refused to block the line of sight from the assassin's perch to trump location. When law enforcement radioed in a suspicious person using a laser rangefinder at the building

and even took photos of him, nothing was done to detain the assassin. The assassin was so obviously a threat that bystanders at the event begged law enforcement to stop him, but nothing happened i interject that he was spotted 30 minutes at least before the attempt assassination i continue read and even as snipers on the roof near trump saw a gunman on the roof biden's security regime refused to have agents immediately surround trump and remove him from the stage to protect him from being shot given the lies and nonsense from both biden's dhs secretary and a secret service director the haridun i mentioned it's increasingly difficult to believe this was just a series of independent mistakes. In contrast, when you look at the entire picture,

what you see better, excuse me, what you see better resembles a deliberate plan to make Trump vulnerable, but to appear at first glance to be just a couple of innocent mistakes. And when you add in how little information we've been given about the shooter, apparently the only person on earth, not on the internet, you begin to wonder if maybe a group of people at a different three-letter agency might have been working on a parallel track to find and encourage people to take action against Trump at the very same time he was kept vulnerable by Biden's regime. We know this happens because the FBI did it with Gretchen Whitmer. It recruited and urged disturbed individuals to buy weapons and put together a plan to kidnap her.

In that case, the FBI wanted a story it could use to slime right wingers, so it created the story itself. What happens when an agency like that, or maybe even another three-letter agency, decides instead that it's had enough of Trump. Some former FBI employees might even call it an insurance policy. So who was the shooter talking to in the hours, days and weeks ahead of the event? Who was he meeting with? Did anyone suggest or nudge or urge him to go to the Trump rally in Butler? Did anyone suggest or point out to him the building he eventually used? Was he told at any time to not worry about security? The FBI told us almost immediately that while it couldn't open the assassin's phone it knew he had acted alone. That's kind of strange

when you think about it. They told us almost immediately that they identified him by DNA despite him having no criminal record. They also said they found explosives in his car. Why didn't they just identify him by his plates or registration or next of kin identification? That's pretty weird too. At some point you have to say enough with the lies. We saw what they did with the Russia hoax. We saw the Kavanaugh hoax. We saw the Covid origin hoax. We saw the Ukraine hoax, the stolen election, the January 6 op, and then the armed Mar-a-Lago raid with the myriad illegal cases against Trump. They called him Hitler. They said he was an existential threat. They said he would destroy democracy. They said he was the most dangerous person on earth.

Then they denied him security. They kept the rooftop open. They watched the shooter and did nothing. They kept Trump on that stage and they didn't do a damn thing until after he had been shot in the head and were all supposed to believe it was just an innocent oopsie. Yes, well, when you put it that way, you know, even if it's incompetence, that case that Sean Davis makes should be made so that the incompetence then can be addressed. Speaking of South Korea, and I say Speaking of South Korea, because Max Boot being one of the worst spreaders of the Russian hoax conspiracy about Trump, his wife was just indicted for being a foreign agent of South Korea in the United States. Undeclared foreign agent, indicted, arrested, I think, actually. And they co-wrote

articles together, by the way, for Washington Post, for which Max Boot has been hired as the token conservatard to give them a pretense that someone on the right is attacking Trump. But they wrote, co-wrote articles for this Washington Post defending South Korea's foreign policy objectives and interests in America. And those articles are still up without a disclaimer. But yes, by the way, this is neocon excellence. But in South Korea, I say, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories about their relationship some years back, and yet because they have a, please excuse, when I say relationship, I have in mind a back story. There was a leader of South Korea who had a certain tie to cult members, to an occult organization. It was very odd, and there was a cult leader giving directions

to the then-woman premier of South Korea. And this naturally led to conspiracy theories about her and about the whole government. But because South Korea has compared to United States a mostly functioning society where it's accepted that the government is supposed to work in interest of the people, the media concluded, yes, these occult conspiracy theories and other such are bad, but it's the government's fault because you can't blame people spreading this. They lose trust in government institutions that are not being transparent, that are acting in patently wacky ways. So, you know, regardless, Sean Davis makes, when you put it the way he does, a convincing case. My own instinct is to always assume CIA and other three-letter agency incipit incompetence

despite their claims to Machiavellian evil genius. But it's too soon to tell now. We will see or not, I guess, what come of all these theories. Certainly, a solution either way must be what Edward Luttwak said in an interview long time ago, not with me, but it's on YouTube, maybe I'll repost. The solution must be to fumigate the building of the CIA and actually every other typical federal law enforcement, the ATF, the FBI, I fire everyone, clear it out, fumigate the building, and hire precisely the kind of people that they would not hire now. But closing this segment, I want to make a historical comparison to something, I want to talk something else. This detail about who did it, when, and where to assign blame, I don't know. But the Graque brothers in ancient Rome

is a more interesting historical perspective on this. They were both of them at different times assassinated by the senatorial faction. And I want to remind audience that the example of Trump goes beyond any mere temporary political position. You may have, to me is not even necessary political. It's an artistic, aesthetic phenomenon that represents what I really care about, the power of one man to make the world come in a magnetic kind of an orbit around him, to pull his age, to form his age much more than it has formed him, much more than any mere economic force or supposed historical trend. It is all history dependent on human action, and one man in this case, and it is also only because of Trump that the commotions in Europe now are happening there, and recently it is

from the energy of Trump and his example that others in France and the rest of Europe have taken their wind and their energy to act this year also. He is mover of history. And so Trump will stay forever now as inspiration to all men who still have hope for heights of human achievement regardless of political opinions up to this point, which is why so many lifelong liberals now, now it's become acceptable after this event to openly say, You admire Trump, but even before this, I think some were starting to admire him. But lifelong liberals, Democrats from Silicon Valley and elsewhere, industrialists, not only them, but men who, in other words, understand the primacy of human or rather manly agency to move events, because they've managed to move events, they are now attracted to him also.

It's also, frankly, why apolitical people, I suspect many pleasure-loving, aloof artists and surfers and such, and I've met many expats recently who want to filter out all political things as low and boring, but even they, the lushes and leches and pleasure lovers are inspired by this titanic, very funny, buffoonish showman. We celebrate you, Trump, live long and prosper. I will be right back. The momentous thing happened, the case against Trump apparently also dismissed, the appointment of the special prosecutor, was said by the judge, was illegal appointment, many things seem to be changing. Xi Jinping, leader of China, had a stroke. Was this retracted? I don't know. He had the stir-fried hyena penis in a mala-flavored hot pot, has finally gotten

to the Chinese leader. I joke, I love Chinese food. I would like very much for energy before next episode to have cumin fried lamb. Do you like this dish? A very satisfying spice dish with rice. And then of course JD Vance, who was just named vice presidential candidate, I think he's one of best picks. Whatever you may want to quibble, if you're a purist, you have to concede there is no other at moment who is plausibly as good. I want actually maybe Stephen Miller, I want maybe Wiratu, the monk from Burma, but I think these could never come about, maybe after a role in next administration. And in the case of Vance, of all plausible candidates, he was the only one now who can explain in a reasonable, convincing way, Trump policies that he shares on immigration, saving America's industry,

and abstention from losing foreign interventions, these being the three planks, you can say, of general Trump program. I don't know anyone else who is as solid on all of these matters who was in the running for vice president. And furthermore, he's young. His office is full, apparently, of young men who can form a core of such program for future. And you know, the problem now is that he follows me and quite a few other so-called dissident right people on Twitter. Many of them I disagree with actually and have nothing to do with. Some I actually dislike among the other people he follows. But I suspect among the other ones he could explain it away but following Bronze Age pervert, this he will be attacked for. Despite fact my name is designed to make you look crazy

when you pronounce it in any normal society. But by now there have been articles on me so they may think they have ways around that as president. And it's actually already people like Chris Hayes and many such are attacking him and me but attacking him for this, for trying to imply that, they're trying to imply J.D. Vance is convinced of monstrous and bizarre and sexually fixated ideas and his brain has been brainwashed and corrupted by the Bronze Age pervert, you know. So yes, I will use White House backdoor entry to host gargantuan orgies featuring Pietro Bozzelli and many other such, but clearly then Chris Hayes, who is a goblin at MSNBC, if you don't know him, a regular communist fixture of television and such, he explicitly referred to me in this series of attacks on Vance.

I just want to tell you, and I'm not saying this out of desire to protect J.D. Vance from these attacks only, but sincerely to tell you, I don't think there's a lot of common ground between me and Vance at all, and certainly maybe almost nothing in the ultimate things of what we believe in. I don't know that he agrees at all with the spirit of what I said in my book. I have no idea if he read it. But even in day-to-day practical politics in the United States where I have no special expertise in politics, but I don't know that we agree on many things or that he has even the same priorities and that I don't know that he's ever taken such any special interest in me in that way or anything more than an entertainment interest, which is what I am to most people who look at my account

or even read my book. I mean, and you know, despite the difference in things, I ultimately want, I should say, because I'm not crazy. I actually am quite moderate, a moderate centrist when it comes to practice, because I don't think much can be expected of modern countries and modern people. Not much should be demanded of them, actually. I had a recent tweet that if I was ever asked the stupid question, what's your ideal form of government? What would you do if you were a dictator? stupid question because I don't have political power, I never will, but I answer that in a tweet that, you know, it's different strokes for different folks. Where are you saying I would be dictator or president? In the United States, I would try to restore the liberties of Americans

as they existed before the year 1900. Where I have in mind things like the income tax, which is a great injustice and many other such liberties that the Americans enjoyed in the 19th century that have been taken away. Freedom of association, for example. Many local rights, which all of these I think could be returned. And this is actually old cry of Republican, who's a capital R, Republican Greece and Rome. This was the cry of state reformers, restore the liberties of the citizens. I don't think much more could be reasonably expected of modern audiences, especially in America or Europe. Other parts of the world don't even have ancient liberties to restore but if you want to extend this a little bit you can say

restore the liberties of north europeans as existed in the 9th century which sounds funny but i assure you it's not code for anything you know me if i wouldn't say these things in code it's actually plausible the icelandic free state is now still a model for anarcho capitalists and libertarians of the more extreme kind, maybe people like Hans Hermann Hoppe think or James Bowery if I'm pronouncing his name right. Millet, Javier Millet from Argentina is probably in his inner beliefs maybe not so far from that wish I'm not sure, but restoring Saxon and Viking Saxon liberties which was the initial justification by the way for the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson has this in mind. We are trying only to restore the liberties that Anglo-Saxons enjoyed

before the imposition of Norman autocratic kingship or Viking liberties in Iceland. Same thing, you look at Icelandic, which is quite close to Old Norse. It's a language maybe mutually intelligible to Saxon in England, let's say, the year, I don't know, 800 or something. But look up up Icelandic Free State, it was quite anarchic. You were on your own responsibility. The executive didn't even have power to enforce the law. It was, like when you go to Icelandic Waterfall or Geysir National Park now, same is said in United States National Parks, I hear that you are on your own responsibility. But surely with the influx of less free peoples, newcomers from the global south with their HR mammy mentality and fear of nature, these signs will be replaced. The national parks permanently closed,

maybe as a threat to the stupid and the weak. But anyway, this aside, I don't know that I agree with Mr. Vance on much at all. And the word follower on social media is very misleading because, yeah, it's a follow on Twitter, follower. You're supposed to have followers. But it's like it sounds like, oh, you're a Bedouin clan leader and this you're following, you're taking them into the wilderness, it's not quite like that, right? A lot of Libtards, leftists and socialists even, follow me too. Some hate follow me, some just want to be entertained, because I present unusual ideas. I am one of only people who present unusual ideas in the world today, I am happy to say. And also they think maybe I'm funny and for same reason maybe some few subscribe to this show even, not just listen

to free portion but subscribe because I'm told I'm told to toot own horn, I'm told that you know I don't know if this particular episode especially funny but I am told that often there are belly laughs on my shows which stand-up comedians they practice for months a new routine and then they get maybe one chuckle or something and I give people belly laughs often so you know I think it's reason I just because he has interest in me maybe it's just that you know everybody's reading my book since I published it in 2018 it's just general interest it doesn't mean he's in agreement with me but surely they will try to make this case and if they do the response that Chris Hayes got, this is the MSNBC old trune, right, the kind of pre-transsexual MSNBC anchor,

Chris Hayes, transsexual lesbian, but the response he got was the one that should be given to all such future queries in the case of Vance or any other politician or mainstream person who is, whatever, was seen reading my book. Have you read Days of Rage, Retard? Have you read Days of Rage, this book? Do you have something to say about Maoist Christmas decorations at Obama White House? Are you aware that Obama mentor Bill Ayers was a communist terrorist who killed people? That Obama pardoned others like this? That a Kamala-Gamal Harris with her engorged steel clitoris has given funding, set up bail funds to people who are essentially BLM terrorists who burned cities, hurt people? Many other such arguments can be brought up when this kind of

concerned trolling come because he and I mean JD Vance maybe likes, it should be reasonably viewed, I a comedian on the right broadly speaking that's all you know so I I appear on shows like Red Scare which is an arts in New York comedy show and such and that's all I am you know it's I'm just light satire don't worry about me and because he might occasionally find some tweets funny or whatever I don't think maybe also maybe he doesn't think I should be censored, but I don't think in what way is this equivalent to the left politicians who are in power pardoning open terrorists, giving open terrorists academic position. And in more recent times, actually, let me make a suggestion. Let me change subject a little. I don't know if J.D.

Vance can do this directly, but maybe somebody who is in his office should do the following once Trump wins, somebody on JD Vann's staff. There should be an office in the White House, at the very least, to expose and scrutinize, to catalog the enormous ties that exist between violent Antifa and the left liberal media government establishment. There is a pipeline to get Antifa into journalists, academic, government positions. There's a whole biome of It was based around New York. I can maybe get, I know some information about this. I can maybe get friend with Voice Changer. I know what bars they used to go to in New York. I know there are certain NGOs and magazines. I'd be happy to give Mr. Vance or others this info. They are funneled and whitewashed and laundered

through these means, violent antifa, people who burn and riot, vicious, bloodthirsty, communist murderer potentially, are laundered into positions in the left liberal establishment. Anything equivalent, Mr Hayes or anyone else concerned trolling about someone liking one of my tweets, anything equivalent to this does not exist on the right or on the Republican side and actually the effort from the Republicans has been the opposite. It's been to dox us, to dox frogs of which there are very few overall. I would estimate there are as as many of us frogs as there are antifa, let's say United States and maybe even worldwide, which is few numbers as such on both sides. Thousands active to maybe tens of thousands semi-active to close sympathizers.

And these extremes make a splash because they are energetic, but again only run into tens of thousands possibly worldwide. And the difference is the left, again, has various mechanisms to get these people into journalist academic media government positions and so on, which given the small numbers is the only place where, let's say, an extreme faction can make a real difference. On the right, the effort is entirely, again, the opposite. The GOP works with Antifa or SPLC-type Antifa-oid organizations and with leftist publications. Yes, they do work together for a long time, as you've seen many times where national review people were published in the Daily Beast, which is an Antifa publication, specifically to try to attack me and others. But let me just talk about me now.

compact magazine, funded by George Soros, pretends to be dissident right, has attacked me and others numerous times, other frogs, other anons. They coordinate with Hope Not Hate in England, an Antifa organization. And as they keep trying to do to me now and to various others who they deem prominent, to try to dox and isolate anons and frogs. But leave me aside for a moment. You see on the right something else, something you don't see on the left, where on the left even the existence of Antifa as a thing is often disputed. If you ask New York City, let's say, finance executive, of which at the high levels there were many who were, especially during first Trump term, quite sympathetic to Antifa, but

but they deny that it exists, and Antifa themselves deny it, whereas on the right, you have these showy performative, what I've called on this show, corralling efforts, where you have a retarded, the old David Duke playbook, right, where he gets idiots to come out, do a march, do a conference, get their photo taken, and he takes a computerized list of his membership, And David Duke has sold his membership lists to the SPLC, this is known, and the SPLC then sends it to the FBI, but it doesn't even matter if they do. But you have these retired David Duke 2.0, narcissistic types like Richard Spencer or Fuentes, or now the whole network of influencers around that, the retarded rappers, you may have seen them on Twitter.

or spent MMA losers like Jake Shields who actually worked with the IDF in Israel, strange enough. Or Candace Owens, you may have seen her, who got her start on an escort agency owned by an Israeli, by the way. Okay, whatever. But, nefarious or not, and I'm not saying any of these people are deep infiltrators, infiltrators, nobody today is able to do such a thing, but they are at the very least idiots, narcissistic idiots, and they are used by others to corral and to get to self-expose whatever is left or whatever can be plausibly branded as the remainders of the alt-right or the far-right, and to ghettoize them in a way that they are no longer a threat to the GOP establishment, who is frightened by one thing, by infiltration, infiltration by small groups. They have this

nightmare that frogs, who are now almost all the young people, the zoomers who are not on the left, are all convinced, maybe not by me personally, but by people like me. And the GOP obviously doesn't want that. It doesn't want those people to come in. So what it does, it undertakes these efforts I'm talking about to get them to self-marginalize and self-expose. They're afraid of infiltration, but they're not afraid of marches, of these performative conferences and this buffoonery where you're role-playing, oh I'm founding a party, it's just like 1920 Germany and I'm Rudolf Hess. Or there are other tactics this year, which is to get people on the right to associate with kefir-sporting, marxoid, screeching campus activists for Palestinian rights. Which, you know,

if there's one sure way that you can get this good example, because if they can get alt-right, emotional cretinoids to associate with this, it solves a few problems for them at the same time. On one hand, see these people want continued American involvement in the Middle East, which is a loser thing. That's what largely the United States failures in Middle East has a large part of why Trump did so well in 2016. People were tired of that. But these people confirm most center-right, even, red-blooded Americans, certainly, not to speak of evangelicals. It confirmed such people in Zionism or in at least casual support for Israel and for associated American interventions in the Middle East, simply because this image of the kefir, Palestinian,

adulating campus activist is so loathsome to all such types. So it associates the desire for disengagement, which I think someone like Vance made such a reasonable eloquent case for at the RNC, and which can and should be justified on general common sense grounds, you know, disengagement from this loser area of Middle East, just withdraw eventually support from all sides. But if you can associate that instead to crazy, hackneyed, this kind of hoary replay of yeah down with white colonialism this campus protest of lesbians whining about colonialism and uh you've discredited you know the whole disengagement position if you can smear it with that second second again if they can get the analog of antifa on the right i'm not saying the

equivalent but the analog if they see they think they can get the frogs they're not successful at this effort i think so much but what they think they're doing is they're going to get the frogs to embrace this, but then the frogs would be safely self-ghettoized, isolated from the right, forever made unattractive to what the GOP views as its constituents and its donors, you see. So this is the big difference, you see. The GOP, excuse me, seeks to dox, to isolate, to marginalize its young extreme, or to get it to self-ghettoize, as I say. And I and others have been trying to stop this for some years. They've been trying to do this in one way or another since 2017, because then it's no longer a threat, et cetera. The left is the opposite.

It grooms its extremists for positions in establishment, tells them, we'll protect your real identities, wear a mask, burn whatever you want, but we'll set up a bail fund, wear a mask, do this activism, and then you get a job through this NGO or magazine, we meet at such and such bars, we socialize. And so much then for the inevitable absurd accusations that Trump or now Vance is in some way a conduit for extremist ideas, whereas the left libtards are the adults in the room. And yes, let me just clarify, I'm not saying Trump or Vance are in any way part of the aforementioned efforts of the GOP, but they are also not extremists. I don't know what Trump's personal interests are, I have no reason to think he has ever heard of me, but if, you know, I think Vance just is,

one's entertainment is like maybe interesting book, but on a related matter of the imbalance between how the left and the right act when they enjoy some security of position. There is another controversy that erupted in last couple of days on Twitter, because this woman, an account called Libs of TikTok, a very aggressive woman who has done some good work exposing the insanity of libtards to normies, but she's nevertheless a normal fag conservative, But she has done good work on her account, TikTok, showing ridiculous, it's a Twitter account, excuse me, documenting TikTok liberals, documenting their liar buffoonish behavior. But now after the Trump assassination, she has targeted certain individuals who wished that the shooter had not missed and other such things.

And some of the people who she targeted are just firefighters or worker at Home Depot or other such. And the controversy comes because a certain people on the right and let's say on our side in general, and now, however, it looks like even Elon is coming, calling this a step too far, that it's not okay to target a Home Depot employee, nobody. And I think this is a mistake. If I can make not what Lives of TikTok is doing, what Elon and these other people complain about what she's doing, I think is a mistake. If I can make an argument for these hand ringers, at best it is that this isn't driven, their arguments, in other words, are not driven necessarily by just compassion or mercy, but that they're saying it makes you look pathetic to attack some nobody, some nobody employee

because they are in glee over Trump attempted assassination. I understand that, but I do think it's kind of absurd moral fagging to wring your hands over what's happening with all this. The same thing happened for a long time, Maybe not everyone in the center knows, it happened many times and much worse to anyone on the right or even a centrist who dared again for laughs or something to like a tweet, to laugh at a wrong time during some diversity meeting, to make a slightly racy TikTok saying one word for laughs. For very small things, people lost their jobs, students went through health tribunals, Even some, yes, employees of small businesses were targeted by online mobs and lost not just a job, but almost any ability to have a job or a normal life at all.

I remind you, in East Bloc, that was not what was done. If you were a so-called minor dissident, not if you were in the media a major thing like Andrei Sakharov, but if you just said bad things about the government by the late 1970s and early 1980s, First of all, you'd have to do a lot of it and make yourself a little bit of a nuisance, and then you would lose your job, but you would not lose the ability to find some other job as what has been happening for some year in the United States today at the height of cancellation. That's what cancellation means. It's not Bill Maher losing a contract with ABC and finding another job with HBO. Cancellation means you lose ability to make a living in normal society. I know now people, artists and so forth, movie makers,

they are unable to go to their festivals and such because of one small joke and everything get canceled, they get blacklisted and so forth. That's happened to a large number of people on the right or even center, even people not on the right and for very small things, jokes that aren't serious, that have no violent connotations. Always on my mind is a friend, Ricky Vaughan, who is hopefully now going to win his case on appeal, but he was convicted and is facing 10 years in prison for some joke he made on Twitter, you know, and okay, you can say he was a prominent anonymous troll, top 50, according to MIT, top 50 election influencers in 2016. They went after him, but this happened to many people, I tell you, for far less than who are unknown

and far less than what is being talked about now. If you want to talk about, Well, let's take public or semi-public figures. Tom Roussel, who I've had on this show, Roussel, Survived the Jive, was, as far as I know, doesn't even talk about anything political. He talks about ancient Anglo-Saxon paganism, English history, mostly stays away from explicit political statements. Whenever he does make political statement, he's very polite, quite moderate. He was not allowed to enter America this summer. James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, kicked out of Cold Springs laboratory that he built because of an offhand comment about African IQ that's indisputable. I can find examples of both prominent and unknown individuals and talk for many hours giving you endless examples of lives ruined

over the slightest and most absurd infractions against libtard morality. In related matter, I should comment this last summer, quite a few people were stopped from coming into the United States. They were coming from countries like England where entry is normally permitted without a problem. Others are also regularly stopped at borders of Canada, borders of England. It's the Anglosphere in particular prevented from entering Anglosphere countries for very small, absurd reasons, having to do with political or even just politically perceived historical statements. I myself am American citizen, but I have not dared to try come United States since 2020. And aside from all this, there is the intense feminist tyranny

related in which again I've had friends recently be let go from good jobs or positions for less majesté against the sensitivity of our current irascible lower nobles. The roasties, the hysterical thin-skinned roasties, the professional roastie. If you look at them wrong, there is a kind of regime now in America similar to Saudi Arabia how it is for women, but it's the same for men in America where they have ability to destroy the real lives, over there say so, over the slightest perceived affront to their holy dignity. You look wrong way at women, you make slightly off-color jokes about their stinky pussies. No, I'm joking, you can't go that far. But I don't want to tell you detail because it's identifiable, but what some people recently

did was so small, this one, even I was shocked, knowing everything I know about America, I was shocked they would be let go over such things. So I'm not going to cry crocodile tears about what's happening to Home Depot employees. I think maybe I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't suggest for you to do it, but it's a perfect job for a nosy Yenta woman like the one who runs Libs of TikTok, you know, let her and people like her do it. They can get libtards fired from anything in between baking their briskets. What do I care? Don't wring your hands about it. Don't moral flag. And consider that it could maybe lead to a deterrent on the left. This reciprocal engagement in mob cancellation tactics on the right could maybe have that effect.

At least I don't see another way to get to where you have deterrent. I understand Elon, he's a lover of liberty, I understand he's an other's point, I actually do believe in free speech, but how do you get to where it is widely seen unacceptable to fire someone for legal speech outside their job, and that doesn't have anything to do with their job, which is something many people could agree with. But how can you get to that through laws? So what is the proposal here if you're attacking the methods of people like libs of TikTok who are bringing libtards their own medicine? Because laws will not work. Elon and others forget it's already illegal in California, Washington, DC, and quite a few other states. It's illegal to fire people for their political beliefs.

Nevertheless, it keeps happening because employers give themselves some plausible deniability, also because they can even just do it openly now and then be confident that judges and juries will back them up, even if the law says otherwise. The problem is not one of law, it's one of general culture, or what you call it, widely embraced spirit of liberty, which is not there. It has to come to pass when it's seen as shameful to fire someone over what they say outside of work. But that can't be done just with the law. It has to be social, cultural consensus around this. And I don't see how you get to that without the left feeling some pain also and saying, and then maybe an outcry, even from their own leftist underlings and proles, hey, look what's happening to us.

Maybe this could lead to an implicit realization of deterrence, a consensus where, hey, this is crazy and unjust, let's fix this. Otherwise, I don't know, maybe, maybe it can be that. I can also see, you can see what Libs, TikTok, and others are doing to these Home Depot and other pro-employees. I can also see arguments about that leading to some kind of escalation. That's usually what happens in such so-called wars, but what kind of escalation? See, we live in a gay time. It sounds so stupid to talk of escalation in what? Online attacks? If we had lived in 1970s Argentina, that's different. That was a low-grade civil war. Escalation, meaning that context, the American Consul in Buenos Aires, I think, 72, 1974, sometime around that, before one of the military coups that brought,

in that case, I think after the Perón daughter, it brought the military into power. Her own administration was chaos. But before that, there was assassination, car bombing by the left, and then the responses by the right. The violence had actually been started by the left in the 1960s and even before, horrible violence, killing policemen, killing professors, killing at one point CEOs, attaches of American companies and so forth. And then eventually the right responded. It took them years. This seems to be a pattern. Took them a long time, and then the right responded very strong and in the same way. And then there was just series of escalations, tit for tat, assassinations, explosions. That's what an energetic, violent people do, like that in Buenos Aires and Beirut in the 1970s.

Not that you should want to wish that on anyone. It left Beirut, the Paris of the Middle East, in ruins. But what would that mean in this gay online discourse? I don't know, but it could lead, some say, to so-called escalation. But even if it does, how much worse could it be, Escalation, given some of the examples I gave you, barely scratched the surface I've started, by the way. For the right, how much worse could it be? The right lives in fear. You can be assured of assault. If you wore a Trump hat in New York or Boston during end of Trump first term, physical assault. Many normal people who attended Trump rally, I think San Jose, in the 2016 election campaign, you can see the video, I not make it up. they are running because they're being physically attacked.

Nobody has ever addressed that. The police stood down and let mob rioters physically attack normal people attending a rally. And so what means escalation in this case? The right has tried, I don't know, it's called turning the other cheek, but it's tried being principled, and it's tried not using the same tactics as the left, or maybe it couldn't, but obviously that doesn't work. And it will not get fixed through laws, And it will not even get fixed through personnel replacement either, by the way. If I may argue with my friend Mollbug, he's a censure, I argue with where he says, well, he knows that it's not just replacing a law or such, but he thinks it's about replacing the people in government, bureaucrats, you know, but it's not even about that. I'll give you a quick example.

ICE, the immigration control authorities in America, and maybe border patrol and these types, they are actually for Trump. Overall, I think maybe they are quite conservative men, and they appeared in Washington, DC, during the attempt on Trump in 2020, when Bill Barr, the Attorney General, put these men as the only law enforcement that could be relied on to protect the White House from an Antifa mob. This is another episode that has been swept under the rug. They were going to storm White House in May 2020 and kill Trump, probably. And the Joint Chiefs of Staff made statements before these riots that they stood with the protesters. This is during the Floyd insanity. And there was going to be a stand down among the secret service. But these men were called by Bill Barr,

who I otherwise don't like, but he probably did save the United States from a color revolution type coup in May, 2020. And these, again, this is preamble to what I'm about to tell you. They're conservative men in other words, but I've personally been mistreated many times but by what I'm sure was a conservative ICE official at the airport, while they let women in burkas and shady Gabonese walk by unimpeded, but they search my bags carefully and give me scrutiny and attitude about all the countries I've visited and why and so forth, and others have had same experience. And this is, it's not because they were Arctic, this is well before there were articles about me, by the way, or so many articles, well, no articles, this is before 2018 even, this has happened

many times to me, but Trump himself complained about what I'm telling you now, he married foreign wives. So he has old tweets, I should find it, he point out that white Europeans are treated very roughly by the immigration system. See, it's not a question of laws, America has plenty of immigration laws, they're just not enforced, it's not even personnel, it's something else. And I'm not talking about TSA, it's ICE officials. Why they do this? Why they target me, many others like me? Why are Trump's wives treated badly when they try to come to United States or other American men who try to marry European women? Same problem. Because these officials feel entitled to be tough with someone who is white European. It allows them to be tough or pretend to be tough without cost.

And let's face it, many of them enter this line of work to feel tough, you know? But it lets them play this without cost in the same way there are many cops who are much tougher with white suspects now than with black, because they know, again, no cost in being tough with a white suspect. There are studies done on this that per capita actually wrongful shootings, you are more likely to be a white victim of wrongful shooting at hands of police than a black for many years now, far more likely. So there appears to be, I'm sure, in this connection, come up with a new Floyd thing for the election, something like that. They need that or war with Russia to try to stop Trump. But the point is, it's a culture of how and against who laws should be

enforced. And that cannot be fixed by passing new laws or by appeals to toughness or principles or such. How to result this cultural consensus that in free society, you do not take people's ability to make a living away because of their stated opinions. And by the way, regarding which opinions are expressed, the people I've mentioned on the right got canceled for something as small as saying white lives matter too. A student on campus saying that could get into terrible trouble, or donating $20 to Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund, a policeman or firefighter gets let go for that, or laughing at the wrong time during diversity meeting, liking a wrong tweet that include joke about woman vagina, making joke about porn to woman at work. They were not going around calling

for the violent assassination of Obama or anybody else, or wishing to see their brains splattered with a bullet or expressing glee at possibility of such things. And I wonder, to all the people who are hand-wringing on our side now, maybe to Elon, who seems to be, again, he seems to be coming out for the Home Depot queen and her ancient liberties. I wonder, would you defend someone on the right who had wished for the assassination of Biden or Obama or something like that who would have celebrated whatever? I don't know that you would dare to do that. And so I think this is all a bit hypocritical. You're picking an easy thing to moral fag about. Please, in this, since we're on the subject of free speech, Elon unbanned the many accounts of Kalos Kagatos

or other frogs like my friend Biden rape Groyper Elon. So now otherwise on this point the only downside I see in this getting even minor pro libtards fired is that this rush to cancellation on the left has actually worked in the same way that censorship has. It's gone a large way to discredit the left and also you know the lies that leftist media tell and such these things discredit the left and in general it's not good for the right especially the frogs to copy that do not try to copy leftist journalist tactics that's what made the left hated tell the truth i mean use humor but tell the truth it's the only thing we have lies and these other things are things that made the left look tyrannical and unjust because they are so i could see from practical point of view

i could see danger that if this takes off too much on the right it could make the right look bad too which of course that is the message from this disingenuous people like James Lindsay or Banania and others who have been making this same point for a while. They want to be centrist commentators, they want to be on TV, but they are internet pundits instead. This has been their claim that the right is as big a danger to liberty as the left. It's false. You can hardly point to any examples of this, but I don't think that for now that is a danger of things coming to look this way. First of all, the person leading this is Libs of TikTok. She is hardly a frog. She's more conservative angry yenta. I say let her do it. Let these people do it and let's see where things

stand a few months from now. Maybe it could lead to moment of reflection. If not on the left, then maybe on broad center it could lead to reflection. It time to stop this. Time to make amends also to those whose lives were hurt by leftist tyranny the last 20-30 years in America. I'll be right back to talk more interesting ancient Rome and other things. Yes, welcome back to the show. I am somewhat demoralized this moment because there are flies in place where I am recording and I don't know what's going on. Infestation of flies in this, the most annoying animal with the mosquito in the world. And I'm using combination tactics. I left windows open, so they come of course, windows open, but you can leave them open again

hoping they will leave. Sometimes this happens, but it does not happen now. I put high air conditions, so I close windows now. I put high air conditions in the hope that very cold air slows down their blood, their cold blood, so I can kill them with newspaper. I don't see other if I can freeze them this way. I don't see other way. The reaction time is unbelievable. They're so fast. They see me coming from far away and I even try drop book on them. They're faster than the way the heavy book drops. And I don't know what to do. I don't know other than to freeze them and kill or I'm also burning sandalwood incense as I talk. Which insectoids hate sandalwood by the way. I don't know. But these ones don't seem to care. I put high-grade sandalwood, it's like, fuck off, motherfuck!

They come at my face as I record this. They fuck off. And I don't know if they care about the scents I'm using, the perfumes, the tobacco smoke, and I put sandalwood. They are supposed to hate both these tobacco... Actually, usually if you're on outside porch tropical location, You are smoke cigar, not cigarette, cigar can somewhat ward off mosquito, but flies don't care, they still keep coming. And by the way, I only use premium sandalwood, kung-yokudo, Japanese brand. I hate all other incense, the clawing hippie extremely strong kind, but Japanese incense is elegant and subtle. I strongly recommend kung-yokudo, oldest company in Japan. You look, they have online store. No, I don't work with them. But yes, I travel various places East Asia, I'll have special travel shows soon

to tell you my reflections of various locations. But one thing that gets to me is the music, because I'm very sensitive to tunes, maybe oversensitive, so I've commented before, excuse if you repeat, but you go to gym and they play the same negrified tunes over and over again, and it's not even hip-hop, which at least has a rhythm and is not extremely depressing that you can work out to. I dislike that also, okay, but it's not, but this is much worse. It's this supposed love ballads that this wailing and this hootie and blowfish also style meandering, is it R&B? Is that what this style is called? If general audiences around the world knew what crap the black community actually listens to, which isn't even, it's not rap and it's not hootie and blowfish. It's retard, unlistenable music.

People would stop thinking blacks are cool if they knew what they really listen to. It's as demented as Oaxacan mariachi band music. You know, barbershop-type black music. Alas, the Bureaucrat, he knows all about this, you know, but this kind of negative feeling, this meandering, slow love dirge, very depressing, it's gone into all music and it makes me sad, especially with endocrine disruptors, sweat of Asians and other minorities, beige minorities. I have terrible anxiety. This is what I mean to tell you, in East Asia I get terrible anxiety. This and the live music, quite aside from this, that they play in many public places, because you go to some of these bar lounges in all of East Asia. Tokyo has... as, okay, I have not gone recently and I don't plan to go,

but no, I don't want to tell it. I don't want to tell precise location, but some of the nice hotels in Tokyo that have high floors and beautiful view, you think, okay, I'll have a drink there, I'll look at Tokyo skyline, but they put live music in almost any so-called elegant lounge, the type of place that you would go from, let's say, after dinner or whatever, 9 p.m. to midnight that time, and they want that live music experience lounge feel. And often they hire a gay westerner, a gay white who starts to wail and screech. He sings Phil Collins covers, or maybe that would even be better than what they do. It doesn't need to be this way, you know, you could do many things with that time. You could do wonderful things, even just if you have piano and singer,

you could play bossa nova classics, that's inoffensive, and thankfully the Japanese have a liking for that. Why not just do that? At least it's neutral background music. You could do experimental things too, if you want to be artistic. The young Nietzsche wrote some songs inspired by Schumann. I don't like those songs very much, I don't dislike them, they're not bad, but I do like one thing. He developed one new song style called the melodrama, in which a singer speaks in dramatic poem over a kind piano music, and it leads to moody, you know, associated maybe with, you can think Weimar-type, European decadent noir feel, and that can be very nice for lounge style. They could do many creative things like that. They could design with friends own various atonal musics,

and maybe the singers who come even do have those kinds of talents. I don't know if this is just what they do for money, but in this case, they cater to boomers or a boomer coded audience and they want the classics and the classics always something like depressing like Celine Dion type covers at its best it's much worse than some of these are so slow and mockish i don't i wish it was at least lady in red you know lady in red it reminded me of uh old third world prostitute strip clubs song lady in red they play that and this make me But now this makes me extremely anxious, this typical life music like Celine Dion. I can't go out to such a place anymore, there's something wrong with popular music in general that crushes your spirit, gives anxiety, endocrine syndrome.

I've never taken clonopin, but should I take this night after night, I either do that or I can't go out. I try to see people though, I want to talk to them about the condition of their countries. I'm here to meet your women, I want to tell them this. And then it's psychological assault music. And then to compound the problem of anxiety-induced, inducing musics, then there are all these soccer tournaments this summer, these championships. And I don't watch them, but you go in many public place, even casual restaurant, they put sometimes TV, sports, soccer championship, and it has music component that induces stress in the form of tedious national anthems. And there are very few exceptions. Maybe actually Japanese anthem and then the famous Russian anthem is played in movies, you know...

I will play it at the end of this segment. But most national anthems, like most politicians' speeches, are tedious And it's amazing to see people, okay, the players understand, they think they have to sing along because there's a camera on them, but you see regular people mousing along to the tormenting, boring national anthems. And what is this? I'm supposed to hear us, oh, because I'm on the right, I'm supposed to clap like Seal. Oh, it's nationalism, yes. Oh, yes, these rousing songs in the traditional national costume, such humanity. But this to me is perfect condensation of modern men. whether in a group or by himself, I don't care, he's never an individual even by himself, insipid, spiritless, generic, and yet this MIDI computer music, the national anthems,

is enough to mobilize the spirits of masses of various cattle, the cattle that in their varying vices make up the national communities. Yes, I said that, and that's the truth, that salvation will not come from the people in any nation. Modernity is the big snood quantity filter everywhere. You and your friends must conspire. I believe in this. But look, now I just wanted to tell you this quick aside before I talk more interesting historical matters. I will come back. I need foot massage. I come back. Among so many historical example to choose parallel to Trump, everyone has some idea. Is it Nixon or I think most appropriate is Gracchi brothers from ancient Rome. And I'm usually skeptical of making comparison between modern situation and very ancient ones.

But this quite uncanny, I think these are men of the late republic, the Gracchi brothers, both of them political reformers. One was assassinated in 133 BC, the other his brother a few years later. And according to most historians before our time, This episode of attempted reforms of the Gracchi and what happened to them especially is end of the Roman Republic, properly speaking, and beginning of a time of troubles that eventually led to empire. The beginning of what, according to Machiavelli, ended Roman liberty, started around this time with the Gracchi brothers. What came after them was chaos, civil war eventually. But before this, Machiavelli claims actually the conflict between the parties in Rome was the cause of its greatness, this competition between the two factions

of the rich and the poor, or the patrician and plebeian. But all of this broke down during and after this time that I briefly describe now. But the word again about what means poor, because ancient Rome was a lot like modern third world or modern India in some way. You can think of where you had incredibly rich, colorful, luxurious buildings and people next to extreme slum-like poverty and the people who correspond to that, slaves and such. And certainly Rome had much this feel, I think. And in the case of Greece, extreme beautiful people who bred themselves to be beautiful over many generations. A lot of historians, not only Nietzsche, but others, Burckhardt and quite some others of 19th and early 20th century point out the magnificent focus in ancient Greek cities on citizen quality.

But it's clear from Greek sources that this was so, and yet, just as Gobineau points out about French culture in his own time, the rabble and the great mass of inhabitants of those lands, of those cities, they didn't partake in that. You know, it was that next to quite some slum creature. So what we have come down to us now as Greek culture, also Roman culture, come from the upper class or classes But that being said, it's a bit misleading in this case to say the brothers Graki are simply the champions of the poor or of the rabble, if you think of it in this way. They were painted as such, yes, by their opponents at the time and some years after, because the attempt was made to show them as tyrannical and demagogic, the platonic, not just the platonic,

but yes, especially Plato's image of the tyrant as the champion of the rabble and the poor against the stable aristocratic or upper classes. This had also become part of Roman lore by this time. So it could be weaponized against these men in much same way that absurd rhetoric has been weaponized against Trump. Academic conservative intellectuals tried this during his 2015, 2016 campaign. faggots who read a page of Plato but don't know anything else or how it relates to our own time or how to relate a political philosophy idea as Plato or Aristotle expresses it to make comparison to later times they cannot draw the line in a practical sense and so it's always a polemical invidious reading especially when it comes to our own you know and assigning this or that symbolic

word value to their political opponents, you know, as if a small business owner from Georgia or Detroit even, or people in parts of blue states in the Northeast United States, but all the hinterlands of these blue states voted for Trump. So you take a small business owner, Springfield, Massachusetts or something, and you try to draw a relationship between that and what was meant by the mob or rabble in, let's say, Plato, you are complete, there's a complete falsehood to draw that relationship. So then this image, the tyrant as demagogic rabble-rouser of the unwashed masses, was resurrected now and inappropriately, I think also in the time of the gracke. Both of them could rather be more accurately understood as champions. In some small part of the poor, they represented,

you can say, the plebs, the plebeian class, but again, this word didn't mean plebeian then, it didn't mean what it does now. There are actually wealthy plebeians, and more to the point, they represented the equestrian class as well, and the equestrian class in Rome, as the title suggests, they were horse riders, horse owners, similar class in ancient Greek cities called the hippes, meaning exactly same thing, the horsemen in Athens, in the constitution of Solon, they were the kind of second ranked property class, but above the common people maybe, but below what you would call the aristocrats or the patricians. But in Rome, they were quite early in the Republic, recruited by property qualifications, I think from the plebeians. So, you know, these were obviously not the poor

in this movie way that I described to you. You could not afford the horse, You know, you think of a horse about as expensive as a car, similar with a armor suit in ancient Greek cities. That corresponded roughly to someone middle class to upper middle class. So it was not a toothless, slum-like, stereotypical, poor people you might see in ancient movie, Hollywood ancient movie. It's not like beautiful Indian Brahmin woman, woman with jewelry and veil and beautiful face with color of butter next to a middle and, you know, next to a toothless Das Udallit, it's not quite like that. That's not what the equestrian class was. They were the middle and upper middle classes. And the issues in contention, the crisis to which the Grachy brothers were responding on behalf of the equestrians

and the kind of middle class, lower middle class plebeians was the impoverishment, in part also the so-called depopulation of the Roman countryside because of the opacity of the rich or the patrician senatorial class. So I will just read to you from Plutarch. I am relying on this show much on a Plutarch biography of the Gracchi brothers, in his Lives of the Famous Greeks and Romans. I read now, of the territory which the Romans won in war from their neighbors, a part they sold, and a part they made common land, and assigned it for occupation to the poor and indigent among the citizens, on payment of a small rent into the public treasury. And when the rich began to offer larger rents and drove out the poor, a law was enacted forbidding the holding

by one person of more than 500 acres of land. For a short time, this enactment gave a check to the capacity of the rich and was of assistance to the poor who remained in their places on the land which they had rented and occupied the allotment which each had held from the outset. But later on, the neighboring rich men, by means of fictitious personages, shell companies, transferred these rentals to themselves, and finally held most of the land openly in their own names. Then the poor who had been ejected from the land no longer showed themselves eager for military service and neglected the bringing up of children, so that soon all Italy was conscious of a dearth of free men and was filled with gangs of foreign slaves, I repeat to you, filled with gangs of foreign slaves,

by whose aid the rich cultivated their estates, from which they had driven out the free citizens. An attempt was therefore made to rectify this evil, and by Caius Leleus, the comrade of Scipio. But the men of influence opposed his measures, and he, fearing the disturbance which might ensue, desisted, and received the surname of wise or prudent, for the Latin word sapiens would seem to have either meaning. Tiberius Gracchus, however, on being elected tribune of the people took the matter directly in hand and was incited to this step, as most writers say, by Diophanes the Rhetorician and Blosius the Philosopher. Diophanes was an exile from Mytilene, but Blosius was a native Italian from Cumae who had been an intimate friend of Antipater of Tarsus at Rome and had been honored by him

with the dedication of philosophical treatises. And yes, what this sound like to you is good time, I think for me, I have gyokuro, nice tea, and smoked things, slunk, kokiba, cigarillo. I know this segment was not very long, but you enjoy musics. Gyokuro tea, very nice. I made cold brew. It tastes like broth because of concentration of amino acids. I will be right back. Yes, I take dramatic break because I read significant passage. What that sound like? it sounds familiar. I wonder if my friend Blosius from online Twitter, there's a friend Blosius who did a translation of Dominique Venner's book that come, I assume he named itself after the Blosius who inspired Tiderius Gracchus in his program of reform. And then Plutarch continued to say that Gracchus

and later his brother attempted to recover a redistribute for the poor, or rather what would be called the middle class today, these public lands, this was their part of their program. They had other measures also to lessen the power of the senatorial class. But by the way, the fact that it is Plutarch saying these things should settle completely the matter of whether the Gracchi were tyrannical rabble-rousing demagogues and such as they had been painted by some. They are counted, after all, among Plutarch's heroes. Plutarch was an inspiration for so many great writers of the last few hundred years, especially for large part of the education of American colonial class that led to American Revolution. So all of the men you hear, John Adams, Washington, and so forth,

they grew up reading Plutarch, and these men were no friends of the rabble or the mob or democracy understood as mob rule, and Plutarch doesn't ever call the Gracchi brothers any of this in his account. Plutarch, by the way, also extreme inspire for Rousseau and for Nietzsche, who exhorts Rieder to be taken and inhabited by the examples of these great men. And I, yes, I am giving advice to parents. I don't have children myself, or at least that I take care of, or no. It is said in some, some say, some people say that I may have up to 40 children on various continents. I may have repeatedly knocked up as a fetish women of various backgrounds and races and so that being said, although I don't raise children myself, but I do have

a quite good idea from observation and from remembering my own childhood and from reading of what makes good education, that if you have young-ish children that are reading comprehensible age, I could read when I was a very small boy. The first book I read, Pinocchio, when I was four years old. I don't mean that age. You can wait seven or eight years if you raise children such on Plutarch, on Homer, and the Bible. I think that would be enough. I have to add the Bible. I don't like so much this book, but I know many people like that kind of thing, and it does have rousing stories in it. But I would say if you do start with Homer that you don't use one of the real translation, you use children edition of Homer at that age.

But if you read children on these and maybe Xenophon, the Anabasis, and Caesar, Conquest of Gaul, I think you can't go wrong with that, and it's much better than education given to children even up to age 15 or 18. I don't remember almost anything from garbage they gave me in high school even. It was just a total waste of time for me, you know, just raise them on this and before that when they are six or under I remember what I liked. Give them the stories of the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen stories and the tale of Pinocchio. I think this good memorable education and things. Other things they'll find out on their own on the internet is impossible to control maybe. But yes, the passage I read from Plutarch does it sound familiar?

The alliance of the very rich with their armies of poor slaves or serfs or temp workers, H1Bs, call it what you want, crop laborers and many other such variations, destroying nations and livelihoods, depopulating countries by making life impossible for all the middle classes, having families and children very economically difficult. Modern historians, as always, they are eager to debunk these claims about depopulation of Roman countryside and about the project of the Gracchi brothers. The debunking is not always merely malicious. Often it's just a way to make a name for themselves. But many modern historians claim that in fact, archeology shows there was no depopulation of Roman countryside and so forth. But this to me, so disingenuous, do you actually hear what is being said by Plutarch?

It was being depopulated of the right people and being repopulated by a slave army of labor, gangs of slaves. So you know abstract questions, this points to how abstract questions about natalism as about every other isms is all so useless. Each case changes. So problem now is that some in our time, some have actually too much high of a birth rate, others too low. Meanwhile, olds are multiplying, which is a parallel problem. So if you can't address distinctions under your isms, It's pointless. You can't then even offer solutions that indirectly target the right demographics. But in same way, all discussions about nationalism, liberalism, globalism, every other, it's pointless. But that's for another time. So anyway, there was a problem. This in Republican Rome, quite analogous

to a problem is now in Europe, in the United States, minus the fact that in ancient times, the senatorial elite for all of its flaws, They were still a hereditary ancient elite with many virtues that carried somewhat the culture on its backs, as well as the art and instinct for rule and command, whereas what exists now is simply a bunch of other peasants who have been shafted into, promoted to, positions of responsibility they were never ready for. But the dynamics, the economic dynamics, seem to have been similar. So it is this that the brothers' gracchi attempted to fix. The gracchi were actually grandsons on their mother's side of Scipio, the great general who would defeat Hannibal, and they come on both sides of family, very distinguished Roman background.

Their father had been consul twice, and both of them in their youth highly admired in Rome, military service exemplary. Tiberius Gracchus had, through negotiations during his military service, saved the lives of 20,000 Roman soldiers at Numantia. They were there fighting the Celtiberians, the Celts living in Iberian Peninsula. Rome fought the Numentines. And they were both great natural virtues. Plutarch makes a case that although they had a reputation for being well-educated by their mother, who was very highly regarded in Rome, Scipio's daughter, nevertheless, both of them were very intelligent, capable, generous. I think Trump, you can say, you can be a naysayer. Oh, I've heard this many times from conservators. Oh, how can you compare Trump with Caesar or something like this?

Caesar was a conqueror. Trump is just, he had a reality show. Well, I think Trump a quite accurate, deserving representation of what American business and media elite are. It was normal for Roman elite to make their careers early on in military. That is, I agree, a superior system. And in America, I think such time too will be coming, I feel this, but Trump growing up during Cold War, this was less so, I think, he made, excuse the attack, he made his name in business, real estate, and then showbiz, and so he is Americanissimus, and East Asians, Japanese especially, recognize him as this, as most American man, not only in his overwhelming super-American personality, but his background, his life story, and he's shown beyond any doubt, by the way,

immense physical courage during what just happened to all the naysayers. Even someone like Lutvak, who has seen plenty of real-time combat, led even in his old age troops in combat in Peru and such, even he concedes, this man has balls, this man has great physical presence and courage. Very few of you would have been able to do that. He probably thought he, you know, when you see blood that way, you don't know if you're dying or not. So anyway, modern peoples maybe don't deserve men like Caesar's or the brothers Gracchi anyway. But it's not even that. I actually think modern nations don't deserve Trump. Nations rarely ever deserve their great men. Probably almost never. You don't deserve Trump even with all his flaws. So Tiberius comes from this distinguished military career,

embarks on political program after coming home. He gets elected tribune of the people and is inspired by philosopher Blosius to settle the so-called agrarian problem that elucidated in the paragraph I read for you before. The fact that the opacity of oligarchs is fundamentally making it hard for Roman middle class to properly grow families, which is, that's where Rome's power came from. The middle class farmer, the lower middle class farmer with his family farm, giving his sons to Rome's army, you know? And he tried to solve this problem to massive resistance and ultimately assassination by the senators. Plutarch give actually extensive examples of how the Roman Senate either tried to enact later the same reforms as Tiberius Gracchus did or very similar ones, or they did not object

when others who were their allies proposed such reforms. And in the case of Tiberius' brother, Gaius, who was later tried to do the same thing as Tribune, the Senate's tactics seem to have been entirely one of co-opting, like I tell you, trying to create actually their own counter-demagogue to propose basically the same things the Graqi brothers had proposed, but even beyond, to cater even beyond that to the plebs, and through a man who would be theirs, however, and who would not fundamentally challenge their power. but they were very much opposed to the brothers' gracie doing it, and Machiavelli low-key seems to agree with the position of the Roman Senate, first of all saying that something like the agrarian law was the beginning of the end for Rome

because you should not try to fix in a sudden motion long-standing injustices in the Republic, and second, he was saying that the aims of the gracie brothers were more commendable than their methods, And I wonder how this relate to modern time, because I wish that the so-called elite in Europe and United States would co-opt the program of these populist insurgent leaders, who you will notice almost to a man have also either been assassinated or faced attempt assassination. Bolsonaro was stabbed in the stomach. Shinzo Abe was shot and killed. Trump was just shot. In recent times, Hirt Wilder's predecessor in Holland, Pin Fortaoun was killed when he tried to make similar limits to immigration, the importation, the modern analogy to importation of slaves, you know, and many other such case.

So it's obvious these men who are targeted all for assassination, they are the only ones who present some new thing, some obstacle to the corruption and sclerotic frozenness of the establishment that kills nations. I wish that the authorities instead, even if it tried to kill them, that it might want to co-opt their ideas if only out of a desire for self-preservation. So far, the only practical ones seem to have been government of Denmark. They tried to co-opt their own so-called far-right wing. But just as an aside, a tangent, I want to emphasize an aspect of the Danish case. It is not simply because the ruling government was public-spirited or had noblesse oblige or these things don't just depend on the selfless goodwill of the so-called elite. The Danish ruling class such as it is,

it's also just nobody technocrats. The story needs to be told by someone of what happened there. Maybe I invite Danish friend, but the far right wing in Denmark made it easy for the mainstream parties to co-opt them. They wanted to be co-opted, they made it easy. They practiced enormous discipline, not to spurg out in public about other subjects. They often cucked what you'd consider cucking they often moderated, they try to appear quite moderate and professional on all subjects except to be uncompromising on this one issue of immigration in particular mass global south migration. And it isn't because in part of the right in Denmark of the character of the right there because it was so disciplined that the elites could co-opt their policies with relative safety.

Whereas the same again with the exception of Trump I think the same cannot be said for the right especially in America and France, where rather than being similar discipline and keeping an eye on the one issue that matters, the Krakian matter of migration, they are instead really chasing points to who is the most edgy, who can check off the most base dissident boxes. You get this feeling they're not either actually fundamentally interested in a political aim, they want show on TV, and really then they lock themselves into a hysterical talking points and a ghettoized province. And it can become a large ghetto, but can still be cordoned off by the establishment. This is what happened to Le Pen in France, and it will happen as long as the retired Le Pen family is reading the French right.

I hope this doesn't happen, but seem to be probable because modern so-called elite are not as practical as Roman senatorial elite. They're not clear-headed enough to see their own limitation, to recognize the bare minimum of what must be done to remain in power long-term. Frankly, they don't have long-term horizon. They have barely any image of their children following in their own footsteps. They're not secure in holding generational power or even in their own lives. They don't have, what they have, they don't experience as power. Look now at Biden, president of United States, and yet he's about to be discarded like garbage by DNC, who used him as a marionette puppet for various interests in these last few years. I mean, it's not, I guess it's crumbs. I guess he took it.

What would have his life been otherwise? But it's not a life well-ended. But anyway, in the future, they might. and in regards to all this, I can see maybe a third argument being made through the example of someone like Ron DeSantis and AOC on the left. Sorry to get into detail of American political life for my international audience, but surely you've heard of your own press obsessed with American politic. But Ron DeSantis, who tried to adopt much of the Trump program, Trump-type rhetoric and even hand gestures, not on foreign policy, maybe not even on trade policy, he's quite a mainstream Republican on those matters. But by the way, that's insane, the trade policy thing, the industrial thing, insane from a hawkish Reaganite point of view, because apparently

the American military supplies are all made in China now. I don't know if it's true, this is what I hear. But certainly the scientists tried to adopt the image and style of Trump, and he was rejected by voters for being a loser's spurg who doesn't have it. But before he was rejected, there were many articles in media and elsewhere saying they could accept DeSantis or they could never accept Trump. So maybe low-key, there are those kinds of efforts occasionally, but my, and certainly no doubt the Republican Party would like to co-opt Trump allure and agenda and energy for themselves. But my fear is that eventually people like Trump and Bolsonaro are rejected or succeeded maybe through assassination, but they're succeeded by more conventional politicians

who, let's put four, five, six quotation marks, co-opt their programs, but you would get is actually not even their policies at all but just the rhetoric behind it. Because remember, before Trump, there seemed to have been large portions of so-called elite, including the Clintons in 1990s who were against illegal immigration, and even people like David Fromm, who's a retired, never Trumper, who were quite strong, at least in speech, on immigration. There was law passed for a wall before 2008, I think around then, it was just never executed. So it's entirely possible to have Trump-like rhetoric without even intending to deliver any results. You have just seen in England the great betrayal by the Conservative Party, Tories, I don't know, is that what they are, who elected,

They were elected to stop migration associated with England's membership in the EU, and instead they greatly increased migration from places outside Europe. So you cannot, I think, rely on establishment even when they pretend to co-opt someone like Trump, not in modern age where they are not their own men like the Roman senators were. You need maniac like Hulk Hogan to succeed Trump in a reign of light and terror. Let that spirit inhabit J.D. Vance by the will of Satan. Secondly, if you allow this co-opting, you are giving up what was also given up when the Graki were killed and co-opted by the Roman Senate in ancient Rome, which is this following, that ultimately, yes, the matter is migration and so on, or in Rome, the analogous problem of the importation of gangs of slave laborers,

the dispossession of Roman citizens. But why is there a migration crisis and this thing in first place? It's because you have, in our case, incompetent, corrupt, stupid, malicious fake elite who, if they are not, let's say, replaced or demoted a little bit in the long run, or who experience a change in spirit somehow, they will continue to do many such things. They are stupid. I remind you, insane ideas, such as in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, seriously proposing burning down many housing units in the United States to artificially prop up the prices. They are insane people, and the same, anyway, the same thing happened at Rome, not what I just told you, but where they killed the champions of the people, and even though the Roman Senate adopted many of these measures,

the people was extremely distraught, nevertheless, because of the treatment of their champions, the Gracchi, which signaled to them that they were not allowed share in power, which was promised to them by the Roman Constitution, that perhaps they would never be allowed their turn to rule. And it wasn't the policies, in other words, only. They wanted someone to permanently represent their interest. That was part of original Roman Constitution. And isn't that what these types of political theorists, who in our time you may have seen academics, especially conservative ones, they become very self-righteous, stuffed shirts, They invoke Aristotelian line. Politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn, in a republic at least. Well, and now, when it comes time

for opposing political social faction for a few years to enact a little bit of the reforms they wanted, which were completely mainstream reforms in the 1990s, and the response is, no, nothing ever for you, and you are the dregs of society, and you can never have a share in ruling, not to speak of ruling, but you cannot even have normal lives if you express support for this man, and we will kill him, by the way, figuratively at first, and then literally later. And same has happened in Rome. With the key here, let me read to you about the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus by the senators where the Roman senators themselves, by the way, they fought physically. In case of one of the brothers, in fact, they had conscription called to arms,

which the senators went home and put on armor and weapon. Imagine that happening today, as opposed to the Congress people scurrying and hiding under benches as what, during January 6th, so-called, when they were not even facing any real threat at all. Compare that to Trump magnificent, bullish behavior during assassination attempt. Trump spoke last night, 20 minute, I hear of this, When is next time politician you hear about, who speak about attempt on his life at political convention for 20 minute, but regardless, let me read for you from Plutarch again. Actually, I need to take break first. I'll be right back, talk Plutarch assassination, excuse me, assassination tale of Tiberius Gracchus, an ancient analog to Trump. Karl Rove tried to introduce something in my tongue

to make me tongue tied. I'll be right back. Yes, someone had just sent me message about buy down plan to, well it was not a plan, they invested 60 billion I think extra dollar in IRS to try to get tax revenues up and they increased tax revenues by one billion dollar. So you know, aside from the incompetence there is also the maliciousness, right? The left, of course, the Democrats, this, their stock-in-trade rabble-rousing against the rich. So in this show on the gracke, I'm saying that whole view has its limits. I don't think, again, the gracke brothers or Trump are anything like that. But the Democrats, of course, are in this issue of taxation. They are insane. They have proposed, if they should win, some bizarre taxation

scheme where above a certain threshold, maybe a large one, but it doesn't matter, they're planning to tax unrealized gains, capital gains tax on unrealized gains. Now think how insane that is, and I think of my own case. I'm not rich, I just nigger rich because people enjoy book and show, that just means you can afford to buy bling. And excuse me for a second, nobody likes tuning to show, listen to a guy complain about taxes and this, but it's not just that I have to pay an unreasonable amount of tax, which I do, which is complete unjustified as such, I don't live in United States. But that aside, the money isn't even being used to fund government. isn't really funded through tax revenue, either from someone like me or what they're planning to do

to people who they unrealized capital gains. It's done out of, on part, pure maliciousness to satisfy the bloodthirst of their base who wants to see some harm being done to so-called rich people or in this case, the unrealized capital gains tax would apply to, you know, what they would call nabobs or so forth, but if you take even just middle-class professionals or nigger-rich people, what is purpose of, they pay quite enormous taxes actually, they cannot really take very great deductions or such, what is purpose of that? Because government isn't funded through that, so the only purpose, and I believe the intended purpose, is to prevent them from building wealth and done in part out of maliciousness, in part out of cynicism. I have to think so, what otherwise, why would you do that?

But anyway, enough about tax. We are talking ancient Rome, and Tiberius Gracchus in this case, got too powerful, scary to the senatorial class, so I was about to read from Plutarch about the assassination of Tiderius Gracchus, a parallel to assassination attempt on the Gracchus of our time. Trump, I am reading. All the senators, of course, were greatly disturbed at supposedly Gracchus wanting to reach for the crown or the tyranny. And Nausicaa demanded that the consul should come to the rescue of the state and put down the tyrant. The consul replied with mildness that he would resort to no violence and would put no citizen to death without a trial. If, however, the people, under persuasion or compulsion from Tiberius, should vote anything

that was unlawful, he would not regard this vote as binding. Thereupon Nausicaa sprang to his feet and said, since then the chief magistrate betrays the state, do you who wish to succor the laws follow me? With these words he covered his head with the skirt of his toga and set out for the capital. All the senators who followed him wrapped their togas about their left arms and pushed aside those who stood in their path, no men opposing them in view of their dignity, but all taking to flight and trampling upon one another. Now the attendants of the senators carried clubs and staves which they had brought from home, but the senators themselves seized the fragments and legs of the benches that were shattered by the crowd in its flight. I interject. These men say whatever you will about them.

They took the benches and killed their opponent with them in a fight, and their opponents, There was a brawl. They didn't hide under their benches like the people on January 6 who faced no threat actually whatsoever. So I continue. They seized the fragments and legs of the benches that were shattered by the crowd in its flight and went up against Tiberius at the same time smiting those who were drawn up to protect him. Of these there was a rout and a slaughter and as Tiberius himself turned to fly, someone laid hold of his garments. So he let his toga go and fled in his tunic. But he stumbled and fell to the ground among some bodies that lay in front of him. As he strove to rise to his feet, he received the first blow, as everybody admits, from

Publius Satireius, one of his colleagues, who smote him on the head with the leg of a bench. To the second blow, claim was made by Lucius Rufus, who plumed himself upon it as upon some noble deed. And of the rest, more than 300 were slain by blows from sticks and stones, but not won by the sword. Does this make you feel good? Okay, now I wish the WASP patricians in America were more like this, that they had dealt with demagogues like FDR, real demagogues, that they had dealt with FDR in this way. Am I allowed to say this? Has enough time passed since FDR's crimes that I will not be ... I mean, I'm canceled already. What can they do to me? But it does bring up a question of ... Because I do think the analogous importation of slaves

in our time is actually a legacy of FDR's populist clientelism and not of, you know, the old guard was patricians being rapacious about their property in, you know, the way the senators from Rome in this case were. Anyway, that's longer talk. In this case, you could say the old south, that it was that, right? The old American south, the importation of literal slaves from Africa. And yet I think the RNC should, you know, the RNC had, apart from the Hulk Hogan thing, it was an embarrassing display of boomer RNC orthodoxy, boomer Republican GOP orthodoxy. So I think in that spirit they should host the speaker, the one who was featured on Phil Henry's show, a conservative speaker, who writes a glossy mass-market conservative book, you know.

Maybe he could call it Thank God for Slavery because without it, you know, he could make the argument we would not have the beautiful black culture in America. It's a god providence that they were important, you know. So anyway this is what happened to populist reformer of the time. I will not ask you if it sounds familiar. Thankfully you say it doesn't. They did worse to his brother Gaius Gracchus later. They killed a lot more of his supporters. Gaius was also a lot more like Trump in temperament at least. Okay look here I will read from Plutarch so you get a sense what these men were like. In the case of these young Romans, along with their strong resemblance to one another in bravery and self-command, as well as in liberality, eloquence, and magnanimity,

in their actions and political careers, great unlikenesses blossomed out. He's talking about the two Gracchi brothers. Great unlikenesses blossomed out as it were and came to light. Therefore, I think it is not a miss to set these forth before going further. In the first place, as regards the cast of features and look and bearing, Tiberius was gentle and sedate, while Gaius was high-strung and vehement, so that even when haranguing the people, the one stood composedly in one spot, while the other was the first Roman to walk about upon the rostra and pull his toga off his shoulder as he spoke. So Cleon the Athenian is said to have been the first of the popular orators to strip away his mantle and smite his thigh. In the second place, the speech of Gaius

was awe-inspiring and passionate to exaggeration, while that of Tiberius was more agreeable and more conducive to pity. The style also of Tiberius was pure and elaborated to a nicety, while that of Gaius was persuasive and ornate. So also, as regards their table and mode of life, Tiberius was simple and plain, while Gaius, although temperate and austere as compared with others, in contrast with his brother, was ostentatious and fastidious. Hence men like Drusus found fault with him because he bought silver dolphins at 1250 drachmas the pound. Again, their tempers were no less different than their speech. Tiberius was reasonable and gentle while Gaius was harsh and fiery, so that against his better

judgment he was often carried away by anger as he spoke, raising his voice to a high pitch and uttering abuse and losing the thread of his discourse. Wherefore, to guard against such digressions, he employed an intelligent servant, Licinus, who stood behind him when he was speaking with a sounding instrument for giving the tones of the voice their pitches. Whenever this servant noticed that the voice of Gaius was getting harsh and broken with anger, he would give out a soft keynote on hearing which Gaius was at once remit the vehemence of his passions and of his speech and grow gentle and show himself easy to recall. The differences between them then were of this nature, but as regards bravery in the face of the enemy,

just dealing with subject peoples, scrupulous fidelity in public office, and restraint in in pleasurable indulgence, they were exactly alike. Tiberius, however, was nine years older than his brother. So anyway, you can see this nice, there are some examples, but it's not extreme vivid history. There is much description here, but rather few examples and images. If you want a more book-like, novel-like form I mean of history, again read my favorite historians, Steven Runciman or John Julius Norwich, or now I am rereading Ernst Kantorowicz's biography of Frederick II Hohenstaufen on who is Superman of power. I am waiting to have that episode just on that one king. But Kantorowicz's biography also very imagistic and fantasy-like almost. But what you just saw from Plutarch,

this more a sketch of character than illustration, and yet still I think a miniseries, a book or a novel, a movie could be made built just on what I said so far about these brothers. It reminds me of how upsetting it is to see essentially made up science fiction fantasy movies about ancient Rome instead of this. So for example, these two brothers could easily make a full miniseries or you could make a movie about one of them or weaken the life of one of them. And no, instead let's have a second gladiator. The first one was based on fake history as well, but let's have a second one, also based on fake history, when there are in fact such wonderful, real, larger than life characters already in Roman history, real Roman history, why would you abandon that?

Now they have Denzel, yeah, it's fantasy fiction based on Roman-inspired Disney roleplay Denzel. You know, it's pathetic, but anyway, the similarities between the fiery Gaius Gracchus, the younger brother, and Trump, this also extend to, let's say, rhetorical vulgar style, which I much enjoy this kind of verbal brawl. Let me read. There are on record also many things which Gaius said about her, his mother, in the coarse style of forensic speech when he was attacking one of his enemies. What, said he, do you abuse Cornelia, my mother, who gave birth to Tiberius? And since the one who had uttered the abuse was charged with effeminate practices, He continued, with what effrontery, said Gaius, can you compare yourself with Cornelia? Have you borne such children as she did?

And verily, all Rome knows that she refrained from commerce with men longer than you have, even though you are a man. Such was the bitterness of his language, and many similar examples can be taken from his writings. So this hero, Plutarch, talk like Trump, quite vulgar sexual talk accusing opponent of being a pathetic. Viking trash-talking was similar, you know, you took it up the ass from that bishop. And so this also for all the pearl clutchers who pretend to see extremism in Trump's rhetoric when that's a whole other thing. It's really pathetic because a lot of the people who complains that about Trump, they know what New Yorkers, especially that New Yorkers talk that way. Traffic was a Holocaust today, that kind of thing. And they are pretending for an audience

that maybe doesn't know, or at least for the sake of disingenuous appearances in media, they pretend that Trump is extreme because he talks like that. They know it's nothing out of ordinary. It's so disingenuous. It's nothing out of ordinary either in historical political discourse, but certainly not where Trump comes from in New York, this kind of exaggerated humor speak. But yes, let's suspend knowledge of New York talk. Let's suspend humor. Anyway, Gaius, Gaius Gracchus was 21, or in his early 20s anyway, when his brother was assassinated. And then out of fear, maybe that he would seek revenge, and also out of fear of his natural gifts and his family background, the Roman senatorial class was eager to have him away from Rome, so he was put in military missions

and kept away for 12 years, much longer than the usual term, military expedition in a typical Roman political career. Famously, they tried something like this later. So eventually, he come back to Rome and pleaded his case that he should be allowed to finish his term because he had served notably and with illustrious service in Sardinia, I think, and that he should be allowed to return. And he entered then political life, he won that argument, entered political life, and had similarly flashy, explosive, volatile career as his brother, complete one time with a contested election that included fraud and so on. As tribune, many of his reforms had actually less to do with the controversial agrarian reform law. That program continued, but there were also efforts

to chastise in general the political ruling class, reduce its power by giving judicial positions to equestrians, which had formerly, the judges had been, judgeships had been reserved for senators, and also he greatly beautified infrastructure, improved roads, bridges, other public works, beautifying roads with aesthetic improvements. Plutarch goes on, at some length, at least a paragraph, long paragraph about this. It reminds me of Lee Kuan Yew turning Singapore into Garden City and the roads, making them beautiful, especially the road highway from the airport. I'll see you in more detail on future travel episode, but now if you go from the airport into downtown Singapore, it's the most beautiful highway I've ever seen. And Lee Kuan Yew apparently personally designed it

in the sense of he took many rides, of course, himself from the airport to the city, and he had engineers and city planners accompany him on these rides, and he pointed out to them, you know, here you need to put more of these trees, there you put such bushes, here clear that out, that doesn't look good, fix it. And now it looks just remarkable tropical garden highway, it's perfect, and the way Plutarch describes Gaius Gracchus changes to Roman roads, very similar. So I think maybe he represents Trump's second term, infrastructure renewal of America. But in other ways, I hope not, because both brothers were assassinated by, they had some, you say, ill-fated tragic life. And Plutarch begins his story that way. He say they had ill-fated tragic life, like their two Greek counterparts,

two Greek statesmen that he compares to them. And if he has, even he has reservations about some of the Gracchi brothers' illegal methods. But look, I'm not, I'm normally quite hostile to this kind of populist rabble pleasing, at least by reputation. But again, in fact, they don't seem to be just that. They seem to have addressed a serious decline that was changing Roman demographics population for the worse. And on the other hand, they have made the list of immortal Greek Roman heroes in Plutarch. So even naysayers, the kind of needling, debunking historians, will admit that these two brothers inaugurated a new era in Roman politics, one that marked the end of republicanism proper. Machiavelli often just casually refers to the Roman republic is from the end of the Tarquin monarchy,

the Etruscan monarchy, to the Gracchi brothers. And many other historians have done the same. It became, after them, time of extreme conflict, the extra-legal, extra-constitutional measures. It began breakdown of Roman constitution, leading eventually to violence and civil war. But I want audience to remember, because maybe now you see online people saying there would be war now if Trump were assassinated. I've told you first segment, if Trump were assassinated today, unfortunately or whatever, there would not be the kind of response that there was, let's say, 1930s Spain or even the attempts in early 1920s Russia, where there was enough of an organized right to try to contest the rule of the country, but there would be no such response today. Where would it come from?

But, but that doesn't mean that the rightist or Trumpist cause would thereby be lost even for very long in our time, any more than the cause of the gracke was lost in theirs with their assassination. They were addressing a persistent problem in Roman politic and life, and eventually, of course, there was Caesar who triumphed on the same cause, but Caesar appeared almost 100 years later. and in between them and Caesar, there was also example of Marius, who was a kind of populist proto-Caesar, who held the consulship many times, popularly that he was a war hero in the so-called Jugurthine War of Rome versus Numidia, which if you read on this, and I'll cover again, I have many plans for future episodes, but Sallust, the Roman author Sallust,

wrote the Jugurthine War, and Sallust is who Nietzsche names as one of the best, maybe the best Roman writer, best writer in Latin, the most severe and concise, also most innovative, just shocking turns of phrase and use of new words. His style can actually teach you the most, maybe, this according to Nietzsche. He solaced a partisan of Julius Caesar, who was a historian who wrote about Caesar predecessor Marius, both of these men being champions in the same way of the populist cause as the Grachy had been. And then, on opposing side, there was Sulla, after Marius, who represented the senatorial or oligarchic party, lists and lists of murders and reprisals, back and forth. So this cycle of violence continued, picked up, accelerate after the Gracchi.

But what I'm saying is not, it was not immediate. That year, the second year, as far as I know, maybe I'm not expert Roman history, but there was no immediate response because I don't want to call plebeian faction, gives you, you know, but this, the middle classes, the Roman freeholder, small landholder faction, they did not have a response, they were not organized. So their only response immediately was to honor the Gracchi, to honor the places where they had been assassinated, to honor their mother as a kind of goddess, the mother of the Gracchi, Cornelia. But there was no immediate revenge or attempt to contest Rome, because they had no ability to do this. And assassination, by the way, was not just the assassination of the brothers. It was a disposition of many of the supporters

that followed, and murder, in the case of Gaius, I think, 3,000 of his supporters were killed and thrown into the Tiber. Now, extrapolate for that means, given Rome's much smaller population, it was felt as if orders of magnitude more people imagined would be killed in the United States today, someone you would know. You think if they targeted many of Trump supporters, assassinating him and maybe hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters, but that has not happened in American history, and you say, let's hope not. But the point is to all the doomers who say if they killed Trump, populist movement would dissipate. There would be never any response. It was also true in case of Rome, and nevertheless, this cause eventually triumphed and began triumphing, I mean, not even in far after times.

Marius, who I keep saying picked up their cause, he became tribune only a few years after Gaius Gracu's assassination, the younger brother's assassination. I don't think there was any way to reform the republic otherwise. I think the populist and imperial reform was, for better or worse, the only plausible one, and inevitable, short of the collapse of Roman rule abroad. But who knows, who knows? Trump has not been assassinated, yet this is the point. He is protected by something approaching divine force, divine wind, and maybe he combines in himself the attributes of the Gracchian Marius or something like this, we will see. Let's see, maybe he will seek third or fourth term. Maybe his son is the Quizazz Haderach. And in today's world, things move, of course, much faster than in antiquity.

So Trump shows in his titanic personality, in any case, Trump shows that history not end, but full of potentialities, always. and this is because the power of one man, one personality that is like the sun, that makes other planets circulate orbit around him. And that is what moves history now and always. It's not trends, it's not ideologies, it's not forces, it's a man like this or a few men like this. And with that, I promise you future episodes of Men of Power, I know these are some listener favorites, but in the meantime, I'm telling you this, I've had a few guest shows recently, and as I'm still on the road, I will continue to have some quite interesting guest shows for the next few episodes or couple of episodes.

And also these allow me to continue developing my drinking habits I drink during guest show. As a result of my continued drinking, I will be able to give you small house champagne reviews. Champagne always happy drunkenness. Very good. Until next time, Bap out!