Yes, Elon Musk is raping anally Pete Buttigieg as a FEMA director or whatever he is, Department Transportation, come eating director of United States SCOMELA government. He's being mass raped by Elon Musk live on X Twitter because Elon Musk run apparently his own private government that's effective unlike the United States DMV SCOMELA government and Elon trying to save victims of Helena massacre hurricane where they say 200 people died but it's probably many hundreds if not thousands and being hidden and for election year trickery and Elon Musk flying private helicopters like many other very enterprising frontier Americans are trying to do their best to help their fellow citizens in this disaster and Elon sending Starlink sending his own

helicopters but posted about how the FAA or again I do not know what the various DMV departments of American government are called, but their bureaucrats are actually stopping both him and other Americans. Of course, Elon Musk is not just an American, he's an African American, just like Peter Thiel. They are both from South Africa and Namibia. The most prominent tech guys are African Americans now. But Elon Musk tried to help, and then the United States government stopped them. You have to go through procedure. You didn't sign in a triplicate. And so he exposed this on Twitter. And Pete Buttigieg, he tried to say, no, it's not true. We will never stop people from trying to help. And I think Elon raped him with some replies showing that indeed United States government

obstructing people who want to save lives. It's outrageous this, but we'll see what happened. Look, I have suggestions for Elon Musk, after I have just praised him, I have some criticism on unrelated matter. But Elon, since every three business days, you agitate about how civilization will collapse if people don't have children, the depopulation crisis. Why don't you begin by asking young people, especially those who are intelligent and have potential who I assume it's who you care about and I hope it's who you're talking about. But why you not begin by just asking them in detail of why they are not having children as much as you think proper, which I agree with you they're not, but then seeing what they think they need to fix this.

And it's astounding I have to ask something so simple, but for a man with almost unlimited resources, I'm not aware of any studies Elon has funded in this direction or even I've I've never seen him express the slightest interest in this himself, even just asking on X why this is happening. Maybe he assumes he knows the answer. But for such an important matter, why wouldn't you at least try and double check, even if you think you do? And only agitation at level of societies and civilizations, that type of scale, which you know in his case, it's maybe just the Asperger's, okay, it's a bit of the touch of the tism, autism but there are others too who are concerned with the same things who are not autists like

Elon and they always bring the question of birth rates again to this political civilizational scale only graphs and it makes me suspicious it makes me suspicious that the so-called solution they might have up their sleeve to the depopulation crisis so-called that it's something coercive and unpleasant that doesn't have much to do with the wishes of the individuals involved. Otherwise, if this problem is so great, wouldn't it be the most necessary thing to have best possible information before offering any solutions? And yet Elon and many others such, they never seem to have much interest in getting new data. Why is this going on? I don't even think actually there are so many reliable studies that break down populations in

interesting and revealing ways to tell you precisely who is having children and who isn't, which subpopulations, I don't just mean racially or the usual big block demographics mentioned by governments, that is known. But if this question is so important, why don't you design new studies that look at things in much more detail way regarding groups, classifications that other people haven't done so far, see if that give any clues. There are many subtle differences even within, let's say, college-educated, upper-middle-class whites in the United States, or even between different types of Asian populations, Japanese versus Filipino, if you can even characterize them as same race, but, you know, Korean. This would maybe reveal much information if close attention were paid,

which such are having more or less children compared to, let's say, a generation or two back, and with who? Who is the other parent? Broken down not only by, let's say, Unitarian background versus Presbyterian and so forth, but even by things like personality score type, life path, career, preferences for favorite foods. If this question is so important, the smallest clues may be revealing. I see many differences between my friends that map over to the having of children and having met people of various types in various countries, I can see one cause in one place being responsible in another nation could be totally different cause for the same phenomenon and many such things. But I don't think such studies exist even for

very developed countries and as for the third world, population statistics there are very unreliable. As my friend Loki Giuliano say, longitudinal fertility studies in many countries are garbage because historically they couldn't carry out the proper census and until recently, actually in many cases even now, they don't have a good image of what their total population is. One interesting related thing is the blue zones. You may have heard what people supposedly live a a very long time in the world, most centenarians and such. And it was always an industrial country with a backward area, like, let's say, Okinawa in Japan or Sardinia in Italy. And of course, what was actually going on, it was provincials without birth certificates in otherwise bureaucratized countries,

often with developed welfare states. And they were estimating age wrong to get benefits or lying about it. And then on the basis of these one or two bullshite studies based on kind of cooked statistics, if you remember, there was so much written on, oh yes, it's the Okinawan bitter gore, the bitter melon from Okinawa in Okinawan cookery. That's the reason. I love Okinawan food, by the way. It's very different, it's not very different. It's different from other Japanese food, but when it's well done, it's very nice. Bitter melon eggs, stir fry, this kind of thing. but it will not make you live to 120 years. The Mediterranean diet in rural Greece won't either. And books about Caucasian, from Caucasus mountain or Balkan yogurt or whatever will make you live

to 100 years, these are fake statistic and no birth certificate parts of the world. And in case of Africa, when it come to population numbers, For example, Somalia and such. You hear horror stories of billions and billions of people. Look, it's possible, but they're only estimates. For this or that province, it's many times based on how many people are assumed to use a public water well. You know, like somebody sits outside a public water well and makes check marks whenever people come, and then makes an estimate for that whole province. And that's what you hear about a population of Somalia or whatever. So the actual results may be off by orders of magnitude. You know, these countries, as well as NGOs, who clamor for migration, they have motives to inflate population number.

You know, you see my friend Limmit, search Limmit if interested, old poster Limmit. I have mentioned, you know, the puben curl guy, covered in cockskin, excuse me, if you listen to my show with Curtis Yarvin, you know what I'm talking about. But Limit believe that Africa is very much under-populated and that at most 40,000 people live in entire continent of Africa. This, my friend Limit says this, and therefore the black race can and should be fucked out of existence through mass miscegenation. Miscegenation orgies and so on. Look, excuse me, this is not what I believe, this what Limit believes. I'm only reporting what he say, this is objective news show and so on. But this, regardless, I mean, you'd think carrying out the census would be simple,

but even that is very hard. It's an uncertain thing for many countries. And yet I ask, where are very detailed studies on this matter of fall in birth rate in United States and West Europe, or Japan, where you have the resources to do this. But it's actually quite rare to have detailed studies. It's been years now of agitation on this. and Mr. Elon, if this matter is so crucial, why you not order these studies? And even more so, I mean, again, asking the people involved, why? The problem is that many of you who so resolutely claim that this is problem of civilizational life or death, it poses an existential, right? It poses existential. He just says this. But you assume you know the answer about white people and which people aren't having children, but you actually don't know.

You just think you know see for yourself ask anybody who's wringing hands about this Ask them what is reason for decline in fertility rates And why they haven't actually talked to the people to ask them why and you start getting weird Combative angry answers like how dare you ask of course we know that they will tell the science is settled don't ask that but You know there was a survey from 1994 something like that But you know a low quality survey isn't an answer When you force people to answer preset choices and they mark something off hand like that I don't know. That's not the fact is None of you have ever taken real interest in finding out why and without that interest

Why I really wanted to say this and why this get to me is because aside from that interest this conversation has a coercive bullying character and when you transfer it to state apparatus political sphere it is actually a totalitarian consideration because it's not really a government officials or Elon's business to try to harangue or coerce people into having children into having them oh you give an account why haven't you had this many children you have you produced the meat for the economic machine for the comrade, it's something intrusive, it's not really the concern of governments in free societies, it is in character with what you'd find in communist Romania or North Korea, and the only way around that is if you actually take a humane

interested approach to find out what's wrong and what individuals think they need to fix it, and you know, if you want to convince them then make an argument about why it good or bad for them as such in their own lives not about the scale of societies or civilizations you know now of all times when no individual is likely to consider himself a cog in one of these fake agglomerations that you call a great society today but for that you have to do interviews and not like a survey with a preset question high quality detailed interviews and And even beyond that, I think you have to hire spies, which Elon and some other people interested in this have the resources to do, right? Because many times people will say something different if they think it is a study.

And if you really care about this question, you then hire a number of high skilled, socially skilled investigators to bring up this topic offhand in a casual way in conversations when people don't think they're being observed to collect varieties of answers and look at who is answering, look at their life story. Many times, people may not even know themselves or they have maybe not thought about it carefully why they have not had children. It's such a big part of life. So you also have, I think, to do lifetime study between comparison between individuals to see what, for example, for someone who was not considering it, what makes them change their minds in their own lives and so on. It would be complicated, sensitive, expensive, thought-out studies, but for Elon or something like this,

they have the resources. If it's so important that you're posting about it every other day, it would be peanuts to them to make serious effort to find real answers to this. And I'm aware, yes, of all the answers that are thrown about at this time. For example, that young people don't want to make the material sacrifices necessary to have children, but instead they choose to lead a luxury lifestyle, or what someone answered me the other day when I asked this, an unbelievably, unreasonably luxury lifestyle, which is just, I think, a mean, callous thing to say. I don't know many young people who are doing that. I suppose they mean that if you skimp on avocado toast and you stop having latte, coffee, Star

cocks latte a couple of times a week, Starby's is called Starby's now by the by the use right but that you'll have an apartment or house then to raise a family is that the claim if you if you save price of a latte or it's just this kind again of bullying boomer type talk except in this case it wasn't coming from a boomer it was coming from natalism dork so you know please don't make when you talk living standard comparisons to the 1970s, that's another common argument. Oh, you say you have low living standards and not the resources to have children, but in 1970s, living standards were supposedly lower than they are now. You know, children had to share a room, or there was no television, or only one TV, or no air conditioning, and many such arguments,

I'm sure you've seen. What people are missing is that many today live in financial insecurity they did not back then. I think both Europe and United States on one hand and Asia on the other hand, it's a different question from luxury, financial insecurity. For example, not knowing if next month you will be totally broke or be able to pay rent, but that is not the same thing as living standards the way these people I've mentioned now just define them. You know, the fact that you have iPhone now but did not back then, on the important matter of the stability of knowing you will not be kicked out of your apartment is not the same thing. If you've ever heard the term nigger rich, it can mean a few things, but it's actually

even maybe irrational to splurge on things like avocado toast or an expensive dinner or gold chain, if it won't make a difference in your finances anyway because you live in fundamental insecurity. In the United States, if you look at savings rate, there are no savings now. Families don't have any savings in the 1970s, they did. So if a parent lost a job back then, it was not a big problem because they had enough to tide them over for some months and so forth. But now, almost all people, even people who have high-paid jobs, live one paycheck away from financial disaster, and they're not going to risk having children living under that kind of stress. Many are living on credit cards and such, and in Asia, where there is less that kind

of debt and other such thing, but they have similar problems. Movies, for example, about murdering people to get an apartment in Hong Kong. It was kind of a horror joke movie, but everyone in East Asia empathizes with that because there's just no housing at all, or it's extremely bleak what is available, not livable. So similar in Sweden, young people absolutely do not have access to their own housing. And Nordics, I'm sorry, will not live with their parents in a multigenerational longhouse situation and have children living with grandmother and so on. It's not in their culture or nature, frankly, nor should it be. You know, anyway, yes, I do think there are also then many economic reasons, but they are misunderstood because of focus on the wrong questions.

But yes, a question in any case that should be investigated, and it doesn't stop at just the examples I gave. All I mean is, it's very cruel to say, as many natalists do, that, oh, you are just a luge profligate who wants to have expensive brunch and live an unbelievably luxury sex-in-the-city lifestyle and you're just, you're a degenerate going to nightclub instead of the virtuous family life. That's not what I see going on at all with young people. They just, it's a much bigger problem than imagined. Another favorite answer of natalists is the religion thing, right? Which I think really tips their hand. I mean, excuse the attack. I've seen even Elon veer into this territory in some speculation, oh yeah, we need to teach people religion, then they will have children.

I mean, if you point to a graph saying it's because of lack of religion, that people are not having children, um, and that, you know, have you tried asking people, you know, interviewing them, it might expose the absurdity of this approach. You know, no 25 year old woman or whatever will tell you, oh yeah, I'm not, I'm not having children because I'm not religious, obviously, right? So how do you then intend to persuade that girl, by the way? Will you tell her, well, you should become religious? Well, why should I become religious? Because if you do, you'll have children. Well, why should I have children right now? I have all these hesitations. Why should I have children? No, no, you should have children because then you'll be religious.

Or you become religious first, then you'll also see the reason to have children. It's absurd logic, right? I mean, religion has receded worldwide for two centuries, and religious thinkers in modern times have had big problems trying to bring believers back into the fold. But who knew it was so easy as, oh, you just need to show people a fertility graph, and then you don't even need to give them a reason when they ask you why have children or why become religious, right? Obviously, it's for both, right? You tell them it's for both. Which admittedly, when people ask that question, by the way, why should I have children? There's something wrong to begin with, right? Because it's a natural need of all life. So even extremely independent men would not mind,

maybe under right circumstances, to have children. There's something obviously really wrong when this becomes a question in this way. Why is it a question? But especially these religious pile drivers, so-called traditionalists, they will not ask it, they will not delve into why. Many just have coercive theocracy up the sleeve, which doesn't work either. When you look at Iran, a place with a morality police, a theocratic state, and yet he has a low birth rate. Then there's the woman question, which I've brought up as well, but, sorry, absent a major catastrophic reset you're not going to take women's rights and independence away and not even in a place like Iran so you might have to think of new methods given that part of it but so you see the

answer in any case however far we talk about this the answer is just assumed by people like Elon or other oh yes I love the examples they give of what was it in Georgia apparently the country of Georgia where the birth rate was partly turned around because they got the national bishop or something like this to offer to bless every to personally bless every new marriage or every new child produced or something like that and from that one example or that example plus Israel you know there's just two you know n n equals two they jump to all kinds of wild conclusions that that's all you need to do right so yes i'm sure your average dutch girl is waiting for the uh the archbishop of the limestone karst to uh anoint the head of her baby she will

she will have seven children for sure it's absurd they don't know why they should find out it's crucial question i agree especially for certain smart demographics how you get them to do this but the lack of interest in it and actually and compassion and empathy for the people experiencing this problem, it's astounding to me that the ones who pretend to be concerned about it show no interest. There's only coercive, imperious tone and desire to blame, to accuse, to bully, rather than to simply find out the real reasons. And when on these surveys many people report, I just don't want to, you know. Actually, that sign of a deep problem. It's a beginning. It's something you should see it as a beginning. I mean, it's something they don't want

to talk about or reasons they haven't thought through or can't face. It's the same, by the way, with sexual orientation. I'm not saying the two problems are related, but it's a deep psychological question that almost no one today wants to face. Why are some people gay or whatever, other things like that. And it's sort of, you're not allowed to delve psychologically into that question and find out why. I tried in my book in one aphorism in Bronze Age Mindset, in one or two, to investigate this. Freud tried, Camille Paglia tried, there are other interesting psychological speculations about why, and biological too, you know, Gregory Cochran thinks it's a virus, I think that's stupid, but in any case, the debate worth having, nevertheless, for the

vast majority, even of smart people, the label gay or some other sexual orientation label, investigation's supposed to stop at that, or I don't know why, I just want to or I just don't want to and and it stops there and no further investigations allowed but here on the crucial matter of reproduction and having children the the same thing is going on you know and no further investigation somehow you are satisfied with the bizarre answer of I just don't want to you don't you don't want to what it's obviously a stoppage of the natural course of life I just don't want to eat I just don't want to go to the bathroom Now imagine saying that and accepting it, leaving it at that, it deserves I think some further detailed investigation.

And I'm afraid that whether Elon wants this or not, and I think his intentions are good, he wants the human material for space colonization. This is a hopeful goal, giving a great goal to mankind now, which is, you know, a jaded time of no great goals. But maybe Elon does not see that this hectoring, annoying autistic agitation over this matter of low birth rates, it will be translated in the context of modern states which he does not control, it will be transferred into things like forced marriage, I believe this, as in the state will forcibly make you a trans father, you know, it's not a trans woman, you'll be a trans father. It will put your name on the birth certificate of some fat single mom roasting. Here you have this duty now, you pay up. Isn't this what you wanted?

Don't you want to do your duty for civilization and family and traditional values? Isn't this what you asked for, you chuds? Well, if you think I'm exaggerating, you are delusional if you don't think states will do some version of what I just said. So how about maybe you don't use this Hectorian tone, you think about how to solve obesity instead. How about going into a totally different direction? Making babi is traditionally for most animals supposed to be a pleasant activity. They don't think so much about the future, they think about the making babi part. I think highly erotic civilizations became so because they were concerned with low birth rates. I give you two examples. african civilization if you want to call it even that but african tropical societies according to

noted uh race science thinker steve sailor my friend but he make good point africa has actually historically chronic problem because high disease load dangerous animal and many other such thing they needed to pump out kids and so their society became highly eroticized to encourage that and in a similar way maybe for slight different reason but a society you would not expect that also went in that direction was the ancient Greeks who had just chronic low population problem and so they highly intensified and and focus on this the Dionysian erotic instinct The flip side of it was, yes, they had, by the time it come to Plato and other such, the philosophy that came down was very much in the opposite direction. And on this episode, I will talk about a very moderate

and temperate man on the second half of this episode, temperate ancient Greek, a Platonist man. But nevertheless, Greek society was indeed highly focused, even if critical at times of, but highly focused on the Dionysian erotic aspect, which it absolutely worshiped in men, it needed that. I'm sorry to tell traditionalists, but Babi come from that, it come from erotic activity. And how about in our time, if you have this problem and if it's not being solved through traditional means, that then you intensify sexual erotic impulses, you fetishize pregnancy, you have a mass Dionysian impregnation parties. You know, you subsidize intelligent women to breed with intelligent men. You give an intelligent man bounties of up to $500,000 per successful impregnation of intelligent woman.

He could use that money to bribe the woman, woman to carry Babbie to term or some other scheme like that, which would not be acceptable from point of view of traditional family. But that's gone as a social institution now anyway. And it will not return unless Babbie exists already, you see. And it comes back as a necessity, which it always was historically anyway. I mean, traditional forms. Its return is only possible not as a matter of willing, rational planning. Oh, we want to be traditional again. as a matter of necessity, oh suddenly you have all these babies around, how do you take care of them? But Dionysian impregnation fuck parties all over Bali and California, Mr Elon, think about it, bounties, bounties for intelligent men, you know, gym cells with IQs over 130, you know,

make knocking up exciting again, make it a hunt, well that's, okay, that's my speculation, okay, but many other speculation are possible anyway what else this episode is actually about something else completely it's uh welcome to caribbean rhythms episode 174 i will talk here man of power ancient greek statesman fokion but that's on the following segments this is news segment what else ask me anything you know there's again there's the catastrophic hurricane that went inland in southeast united states destroyed mountain communities wiped out bridges and roads, the force and might of ocean wind. All the plans of men are made a mockery, whether with this or with Japanese tsunami, where they had huge walls that ended up meaning nothing.

Men's buildings are like cardboard trash to the gods. Doesn't matter almost anything you do, but you know, they say big disaster, probably in reality hundreds, thousands, maybe dead. It's the propaganda arm of the DNC. The media and the newspapers will likely hide the death toll and devastation. And there are rumors spreading now that almost all the rescue efforts are being carried out by private individuals, again with their own helicopters, something that could maybe only happen in the United States, and that none of the rescues that you may have seen on television so far, that none of the rescues, that government had no part in any of them. That's one of the rumors, and I believe that. The Scumala comes now on television and offers $750 to those affected by hurricane,

only when they absolutely need it. When you know the Haitian cat eaters in Ohio all get $2,200 per month. So you see, the priorities of this state are exposed, and this is in supposedly swing battleground states. So I don't think this is planned. I think it's just such incompetence, malignant malicious incompetence but still the DNC destroying itself perhaps in what should have been instead a heroic rescue an evacuation effort it would have been possible and in she could have even redeemed her name if she had planned that I don't mean just for the election but historically it could have been some airlift of that population out but instead it's mostly being ignored the the military is not being deployed despite having resources there, there are bases nearby

in North Carolina, and in many cases I assume it's these soldiers' families who are affected in the devastated town, many American especially combat soldiers come from those kinds of hill towns and so on, but they're being basically made to stand down, they can't help their families and neighbors, and there are reports also spreading that the governors of these states are not allowing the feds or the military to act. So in all of this confusion, you know, it's hard to know what's going on other than incompetence. I don't want to repeat news or stories in any case that you may have already heard. You can find that on your own. All I wanted to add was that the more exotic theories I've seen thrown about recently, that this is some

kind of Machiavellian plan, let's say, to destroy right wing communities, to force them into the cities as part of an intentional design to change electoral map? Anything at that level of coordination or intelligent intentionality? I don't think so, even to the point of, oh, they hate white people, which actually I think that's a good line to be used by some people at least. If you remember around Katrina Hurricane, Kanye West, the retarded gay Congo rapper, was saying George Bush does not care about black people. Well, you can say Scomala does not care about white people. You can say that. But I think beyond that baseline level of government incompetence and malice, which doesn't even arise maybe to the level of awareness as such in her own mind and of others involved

that that's what they're doing, it's not necessary, I think, to attribute some centralized plan. I've seen many on Dissident Right, so-called, are doing this, attributing a master plan in the same way that the left used to do to a vast right-wing conspiracy here, you know, Dissident Right is doing it. When something can be explained by typical DMV morons running government agencies, which could be reformed, these agencies, they could be made efficient, yes, but the manifest reality what's going on is bad enough. Massive government incompetence mixed with some petty malice, ass-covering, venality, same thing that was going on in East Block during disasters like Chernobyl or such. They spent all federal emergency money on migrants and flooding the country with cat-fucking

refugees, which was done again partly out of malice, although sublimated in their own minds, partly out of retard shit lib morality and you know empathy and care for the other but now they have nothing left over for actual disasters which is why they exist their mandate and is same thing as when california public works and dam the dams in california are crumbling because the money is instead spent on lesbian boricua outreach and such things what i mean to say is it's all bad enough as it is. All of this describes a mix of these bad qualities of incompetence plus petty malice, makes them look terrible. There's no need then to impute another intelligent diabolical plan, that they have a master plan to destroy rural America. As a frog friend, you can find him

aqualover420. As he say, when you do that, which the dissident write and people like Alex Jones have a tendency to do that but all you do is you instill learned helplessness, learned helplessness into your own side. You make your own side conceive of themselves as playthings of all powerful demons directing events at will and it is not good because again these government agencies can be captured and made to do the at least relatively competent things the way they do it in Norway or Iceland or Japan or such. I don't see elite human capital involved in the high ranks of the left and the Libtards at all. It's more what you see with Scumala is what you get. What you see with her bizarre John Wayne gacy kind of killer clown doll, Tim Walz, that's what you get.

Those types are sufficient to explain the disasters America's facing now, not just the response to this hurricane, but economically in general and so on, Which brings me, look, I have to go to break soon. I need ham, cheese, egg. I like this simple sandwich, especially with high-quality mayonnaise. I'm very hungry. But usually the vice president debate, nobody watches. I did not myself watch this one with J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, I have to admit you. I don't even watch Trump's speeches. I love Trump. I love his energy. He changed the world with his energy. but speeches are a different thing. Politician speeches are very boring to me. And this debate, I hear Van's performance was excellent. I saw some clips, he make everyone look like fool who was attacking him before.

But what I could see in these clips of Waltz, from this, also Tim Waltz's public appearances, tampon Tim, there is to this man a vicious, demonic aura, and I don't understand how it's possible for people to interpret Tim Walz as a Midwest, nice, or affable man. I have European friends who also, they were not really paying attention, but they watched the debate, and he come off like my friend you give me a sale. He come off artificial intelligence. There's something truly bizarre about both he and Kamala with her witch-like cackling, but him in particular, you've maybe had teachers like this, but they're vicious, they're male-volant people. His character was revealed when his, if you remember, his demeanor changed completely with a brutal facial gesture.

He jerked his retarded downy son out of the way one time. I mean, my point is, how is it possible for people in Minnesota to tolerate and elect this guy as governor with his bizarre, nervous energy? And to me, it stinks of male-volance. And then I'm told that this is a type, this is a type in the upper Midwest of United States and Minnesota that half of the older libtard men are like this with this kind of precious like performative energy they copy from television sitcom. And my point is when you get a large portion of people already voting happily for someone like Tim Walz and Kamala, Leave aside policy, but simply this kind of vicious male violence that accompanies this character, this insipid combustion of self-regard, nervousness, weakness, ideological rigidity.

You know, apparently his friends call him a Maoist. Tim Walzes, longtime friends, call him, he's a Maoist. He's a follower of Mao of China. And so you have a self-described Maoist as vice president candidate in United States who inexplicably took 40 field trips to China, whatever that means, I've never heard of that. You run a high school sports team and you take them on a field trip to China. What does this mean? Who pay for that? That's not cheap, the plane tickets and so on. And during the debate, he had some bizarre, preemptive answer to explain his whereabouts during the Tiananmen Square massacre. and apparently he married on the anniversary of this massacre saying that he wanted it to be a memorable date what that mean ask can anybody ask uh journalists noted journalist michael

tracy or other disingenuous leftists who claim that there are no marxists or reds in the united states government can anyone ask them what this maoist tim waltz getting married on tiananmen square massacre they means, what means? Because I know they're blind, people like Tracy. I know people in government who describe themselves as Marxists, and they do have the same kind of faggy murderousness about them as this imp Waltz does. I don't know anybody in the United States government, by the way, who calls themselves fascist. You'd get ostracized for that from any Republican or conservative circles. I mentioned this on last episode with Martin, but this is the face of the only remaining white men on the left in the West, the Tim Walzes,

and so I'm sorry to the irony leftists. These are the younger leftists who are still trying to pretend to be cool after actually the left has become this sclerotic stuffed shirt establishment. These are people from Chappo Trap House, I call them Chappo-Tards, but I'm sorry Chappo-Tards and irony leftists and others who are posturing as the anti-woke left and again trying to present to the media or the public an outer face of ironic cool or remove everyone knows the face of the only remaining uh white male on the left is this eunuch abomination tim waltz this type you know well this is topic for another time but i just want to tell you quickly when nietzsche attack slave morality. It's not because he just thinks it's weak and too timid or nice and turn the

other cheek and that it would be okay if it would be strong, okay? Nietzsche is not saying he wants slaves or such people to be more assertive or violent about what they believe in. What he's doing, he's describing a type of vengeful psychology that tries to pursue its vengeance in subterranean or convoluted ways supposedly in the name of compassion for the weak but actually out of rage against types of life that are not misbegotten and what better way to describe this man waltz i mean it's a common psychology both in antiquity and among reds like him but if you see outrage over when i mentioned online my plan for bali surfers to fuck and knock up beautiful girls you know, or when I post images of beautiful youths. I think actually what drives a lot of the rage against me

is when I do that, and a lot of people would kill me if they could, okay, just because I post those kinds of things. The replies when I post something like the Bali fuck increase knocking up proposal. It's insane rage driven at me, and it is this that drives people crazy most of all. So I think many mystics, slave morality can be brutal, It can be ruthless. Nietzsche was trying to describe the modern Reds, okay, the communists who can be very brutal and assertive, but spiritually there is no better image of it than this malevolent Maoist eunuch dwarf, Tim Walz. I think he's a born murderer. No, I don't think that being a violent murderer makes Reds sound cool, okay? The weak man, the slave, this is the bad man. I will be right back.

I am interested in possibility men of power and greatness who arise in the worst of times. This become cliché recent in form of bad times make for great men, but you know they don't always. Sometimes bad times just ruin nations permanently. What about if you are men of great potential and vision at time when your state and society was going to end anyway? Is it possible then to have a great and glorious life still? And so here I talk about life of ancient Greek general and statesman Phocaeon of Athens, who was just such a man, who Plutarch has biography of him in parallel lives. I like Plutarch writing style because in introduction to all these biographies, which are quite short by the way, you can read each one in sitting, but he often has kind of rhetorical throat clearing.

Greeks don't always do that, Herodotus in his history, he just jumps right into the action basically. By the way, I've met many friends who didn't like the beginning of Herodotus' book, but if you stick with it, it becomes, you can't put down by book two of the history, when he discusses Egypt and its customs, Z.P. sitting down and this kind of thing, it's a slow start, but he just nevertheless goes into the action, so does Homer. And however, some later Greek authors like Plutarch, they often have this kind of throat-clearing introduction. But I like him because even though he meandered a lot in some of his, you know, there's always interesting tangents, you go on. So I'll just read. Sometimes it sounds like it could have been written today, the content I mean, if you

look past the formal rhetorical style I read now. And yet it is commonly held that a people is more apt to wreak its insolence upon good men when it is prosperous, being then lifted up by grandeur and power. But the reverse is often the case, for calamities make men's dispositions bitter, irritable and prone to wrath, so that no one can say anything to please or soften them, but they are annoyed by every speech or word that has vigour. He who censures them for their transgressions is thought to abuse them for their misfortunes, and he who is outspoken with them, to despise them. And just as honey irritates wounded and ulcerated parts of the body, so often words of truth and soberness sting and exasperate those who are in an evil plight, unless uttered with kindness and complaisance.

Therefore, doubtless, the poet, he means Homer, the poet calls that which is pleasant menoikis, on the ground that it yields to that part of the soul which experiences pleasure and and does not fight with it or resist it. An eye which is inflamed dwells most gratefully on colours which are dark and lustreless, but shuns those which are radiant and bright. And so a city that has fallen on unfavourable fortunes is made by its weakness too sensitive and delicate to endure frank speaking, and that at a time when it needs it most of all, since the situation allows for no chance of retrieving the mistakes that it has made. Therefore the conduct of affairs in such a city is altogether dangerous. For she brings to ruin with herself the man who speaks but to win her favor, and she brings

to ruin before herself the man who will not court her favor. There, you like that very nice balanced last line, a rhetorical excellence from Plutarch. In a bad time the city will take down with it its flatterers, but those who speak frankly it will destroy them before they can fix its problems. I think it's true, it could have been written today, states and societies in a bad way don't like to hear truth and frank speech, I think more so than others, you know, they generally only promote flatterers and they blame men who stand against them with common sense. I know currently in mass media and among libtards this valuation is put on its head when it comes to Trump, but I do think this explains a lot of Trump derangement syndrome.

It comes from herd mind over socialized libtards who know that their affairs and their country is in a very bad way, and for that reason they can only tolerate those who insipidly flatter their morality. The mob is a neurotic woman on antidepressants. My only innovation to Mussolini's claim that the mob is a woman. Well so is our time, a hand-wringing woman on medications, but as for the life of Phocion, I will tell you its general features now, and its defining characteristics. He was remembered throughout antiquity, long after his death, not so much for political acts and generalship, although he had very successful career as a war leader and diplomat, but he was remembered for his extreme frugality, for his incorruptibility, his temperance,

his personal virtue, basically in standing up to any level of social pressure and being opposed to the vanity of the people and he being instead for the old austere aristocratic order. He is very much in this like the Roman Cato the Younger. Plutarch tries to compare them, the full exposition of the comparison has been lost to time, but Phocion, yes, he was born in Athens around 400 BC, 402 BC, so he was born in any case a few years after the Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War, you know, at the end of that war around 405-404 BC, so Phocion born after that, you have to imagine then his formative years growing up as a disaffected probably aristocrat in a democratic essence that had just lost a decades-long war,

and basically that war ended the high classical era from point of view of modern historians, but something did change even though as you will see in politics at least it's actually never over Athens despite the view held now that it lost the war it became resurgent during Phocion's life in the 300s BC I think actually in large part because of his abilities and efforts Athens managed to get the upper hand over Sparta again but Plutarch is at pains to prove that Phocion came from a well-to-do aristocratic family despite some later rumors that he had been a Miller's son or some working-class background like that but yes is interesting the contrast here with what is important for the people in American discourse now you're seeing demented efforts to paint JD Vance as an

obnoxious rich kid or such it comes from this kind of hoary Maoist resentful leftoids like Tim Walz unfortunately also Michael Tracy who is otherwise okay guy journalist, but he has some of these hoary Marxist, you know, attacking J.D. Vance as supposedly a privileged sort of tycoon, if you can believe. But as my friend Loki Juliano say, it's quite odd because this is sometime after Bill Clinton, you know, I mean, some short time after Bill Clinton. It was not that long ago, you know, so-called white trash. I don't like that word, but white trash in quotation mark with genius level IQ and incredibly powerful work ethics exist. You know, Bill Clinton is an example, get over it. Saying this to Michael Tracy, who considers

J.D. Vance a fraud apparently, because although he grew up in very tough circumstances, he become very successful, as if this is some type of, you know, trickery. But yes, get over it. Vance is proud of his working class origins. I'd say he's being, it's not even working class. He's proud of very, very poor, tough origins and of having succeeded despite that very difficult childhood. And that's considered nice and respectable today, but in antiquity, and not only, but that wouldn't have been seen as a good thing, being of so-called low birth. So Plutarch is at some pains to prove that Phukian was not of low birth. I know the claim that this is a typically American thing to want to vaunt about that. I'm not sure that's true either. It's, when you look at American history,

there is a definite anti-aristocratic, and in particular anti-European aristocracy flavor to it. But I don't think all New England families and such would have been ashamed of their pedigree or been expected to be ashamed 100 years ago or something, I think this adulation of low origins is more of a modern leftist and actually Ashk-influenced mentality than just a purely American one. You know, when these tropes in Steinbeck about virile working-class men as opposed to effete upper-class men, I think that's false, a kind of hoary leftist trope that's confused today for something typically American. I don't think Teddy Roosevelt was ashamed of his ancestry. But in any case, a related matter is how the popular mind today approaches the invective against aristocracy,

which again is seen as effeminate, precious, soft, luxury-loving. You get a good image of this in a French movie, Ridicule. I liked it when I first saw it, but you quickly realized it's Republican, small R, Republican, bourgeois Republican, and even worse, a kind of libtard pseudo-communist propaganda against the aristocrats, because the way aristocratic qualities and virtues were seen historically is very much the opposite. In this movie, Ridicule, which you should watch, but it's a caricature of the effete aristocrat, you know, lecherous and this kind of thing, but historically, even the people saw aristocratic qualities as very much the opposite of that. They were seen as austerity, frugality, triumph over and indifference to pain,

indifference to pain and pleasure, both yours and others, their desire for overcoming and conquest, the affinity for activities like hunting and war. For a popular image that's more in line to how these differences were actually viewed historically, you can think Tywin Lannister, the Lannister father from Game of Normies, Game of Thrones, that would be recognized by both the People's Party and the Aristos as a more accurate image, and its bad points would have been not indulgence and softness and wanting to eat rich sauces or such, but actually harshness, cruelty, insensitivity to the suffering of the people, other things like this. But yes, the Yankee, Old, New England, Brahmin, Wasp, Patriarch, that type of austere personality

you can think. Some of this also come, I mean, the debate also comes from when it's different type of aristos using invective against each other and so on. So the American and English type may have at times attacked the European type, you know, in various. But it's important to go on this tangent because the things for which Fauquier was remembered, there was very much this intensification of typically aristocratic tastes and traits, especially severity, austerity, frugality. And so his background, his upbringing from this class is important. He grew up as an aristocrat in a democratic essence under nominal Spartan domination, and probably grew up on family and other social traditions of his class about how the fickle and frivolous

and softest Indian people, the demos, had basically fucked over the city time and again during the war and had brought disaster. And then the people also executed Socrates a few years after, which is also very significant for the case of Phocion, because in his youth he was a student at Plato's Academy. So then you have to consider these two, the kinds of stories that would have been traded among this group of students. This would have been Plato's first generation of students. mythology they surely have developed at the time around Socrates' trial and execution and his martyrdom for the sake of truth against democracy, you know, as well as tales actually of his legendary cares not type of hardiness, his indifference to pain and to the cold.

And in the case of Socrates, there are images of him doing this, being very hardy in battles, being ever afraid, being able to withstand the cold. And these are traditionally, some of them, aristocratic traits of endurance and temperance and indifference, but in his case it didn't come from aristocratic sensibility because Socrates was basically a plebeian. In his case it came from a philosophical sensibility. So among the famous traits that Phocion had throughout his life, not only frugality and incorruptibility but also he was famous for going around same without the cloak you know in the cold just displaying his indifference to cold weather going around without shoes on campaign in the country even during times when he was a general he would never wear shoes on long marches I know

many hikers I I've always been jealous of such yeah excuse me if you hike for long distance in it has to be in dry weather you can't try this in something like Iceland right because too wet and mossy but if you hike long distances in dry weather gradually you can build up your your the soles of your feet in kind of thick skin kind of like the hobbits you know you can go barefoot it's actually much better for hiking than any kind of shoe if you can get to that state. You have to build up to it gradually, so I hear from hikers. But this man, Phocion, despite his aristocratic background, you'd expect a lover of softness and such, but no, he liked to go without clothes on and without shoes and harsh and difficult weather and terrain.

But I want to add that there's a lot of this kind of tough guy posturing among Socrates students, by the way. I'm not attacking it, it's probably Xenophon, if you read him, he has a passage like this in the Anabasis where he displays himself being just kind of super tough and I'm willing to rough it with the soldiers shoulder to shoulder and lead them by example in a way that shows his friend and student of the orator Gorgias was not able to do that, was too, you know, hottie totty or what you'd call too much of a tough and an aristocrat and in the soft, you know, in the soft sense that, you know, the oligarchic soft man sense that he's not willing to do the tough things that a real old style aristo like me is willing to do. And again, I'm not blaming that,

I don't think that's a bad thing or not admirable as such, or I'm not mocking it. In their time, it was probably a necessity because they did live in a decadent age, their societies had become, you know, men had become much softer and more on this in a moment, but what I mean to say is there's definitely a kind of self-consciousness about this kind of tough guy posture, a deliberative, a deliberate performative character to all of this that you don't see in earlier Greeks. If you read Homer, Herodotus, if you actually read the truly aristocratic poets Theognis and Pindar, they have different concerns. They look down on the common man, but in a different way, they're not so much concerned with this kind of showing, I'm a tough guy walking in the cold without shoes.

To me, all of this supports Nietzsche's claim that Socratic philosophy in its moral aspect, had this medical intention, it was this exoteric function to give the patrician men of that time a new basis for their virtue when their old instinctive and natural basis for it had dissipated and they would have probably become dissolute and so on, but it gave this new Socratic philosophy, moral philosophy, gave them a rational self-conscious motivation as it were to be tough and hardy and austere, a kind of intellectual, deliberate, rational performance to make up for what was lost in the instincts of the aristocratic blood that had dissipated. You see this kind of moral showiness in many of these types of Socrates and Plato students.

So again, who is to attack it? I'm not attacking it. The alternatives to this were not good, but But I think it does literally pale in comparison to kind of natural, fiery magnificence like you might see in Alcibiades, you know, which is not forced. It's not performative in this way. It's kind of charming in its degeneracy, but at the same time, I think Alcibiades far outdid both Phocaeon and Anxenophon in kind of personal adventurousness and winning in war and so on but without needing to show off this way, he showed off in a different way. But yes, related to the same matter of is it possible to be a great man in age of dissolution and of what type. Anyway, after his studies at Platonic Academy, Phocaeon went into military and political life,

and he attached himself to a general, cabrias. This is historically one of time-tested way for ambitious young to become successful. You attach yourself to right mentor and so on, although there's not always a necessity. I think, you know, Napoleon, for example, did without any such thing, for example. But he became friends with this general cabrias. he became kind of his aid, and he corrected, he balanced many of Cabria's personality faults. Cabria's was at times too impetuous and volatile, and Phocion was the opposite. He was steady and moderate and reasonable. But Phocion chose right, or was chosen right by luck, because the two of them end up, how you say, fought many important battles together.

Most of all, they gained renown in 376 BC, so you can think Phocion was something anywhere from 24 to 26 years old, and he was the lieutenant aide of this general, and at that time, 376 BC, off the island of Naxos, they defeated Sparta, important naval battles. So this is basically 25 years or so, a little bit more after the supposed loss of the Peloponnesian War, but Athens defeats Sparta and then once again comes to rule the seas after 376 BC. And in this crucial battle, Phocion played an important role. He led the left flanks, basically decided the battle in a very fierce fight, and the Victory celebrations took place by coincidence during the most important religious ritual time for Athens, the Eleusinian Mysteries.

So because of their victory and its timing, Cabeias and Phocaeon reputation became legendary. They were solidified reputation legend for long time after, and Cabeias took advantage of it. He made recurring gifts of wine to the city on this date of the festival for long time thereafter. It was also in diplomacy, actually, though, that as much as war that Phocion became distinguished at this young age, Athens, well, I don't know, is it young? You should not consider a 26-year-old man to be young. But anyway, it was not just in war battles, but in dealing with Athens' allies and subjects. Athens relied on the goodwill of its allies. Again, many were more or less subordinate to Athens. They weren't so much equal allies. But you did not want them to rebel, they had this ability, right?

And throughout his military and political career, Phocion always remained well-respected by Athens' allies as well as its opponents, but sometimes Athens' foreigners outside were saying that he was the only Athenian they'd be willing to talk to. Alexander did this much later, you know, oh, I don't trust other Athenians, I only want to talk to Phocion. And when still young and during these early campaigns under this General Cabrias tutelage, there are anecdotes such as that, Cabrias would say, here, take 20 ships, go to our various allies, get money, get contributions, and so forth in the islands. And Fokian would say, 20, no, I will not take 20 ships, 20 is not enough for a military force to take over or to intimidate them if it comes to a fight.

But it's too many to be a sign of anything other than hostility. So I'm only going to take one ship." And in this way, he showed trust and he gained the goodwill of Athens' clients by treating them fairly and, you know, without bullying and so forth. But this kind of magnanimity, for which he became very popular, shows itself various times in his life. on, for example, after he defeated the Macedonians in an important battle I'll mention much later, he just let the hostages go, Macedonian hostages he had captured, because he knew that the Athenians in their rashness would execute prisoners. Maybe you can say he became too magnanimous. In fact, it was an act of similar magnanimity that ended up being his undoing and that led to his execution,

but more on that in a moment. But again, even early on, a great reputation as leader in war and diplomat, and then self-consciously he decided he'd go into politics and learn to speak well also. Because, I mean, I mean to say he did it self-consciously because he saw that there had been a bifurcation in Athenian political life, because between men on one hand who spoke well and they persuaded well, they are the famous orators you may have heard of like Demosthenes, but they didn't really take part in warfare. And on the other hand, there were men like his friend, the general and his mentor, Cábrias, who they fought well. They led armies, but they were not good politicians. They didn't speak well in public, didn't play enough important part in the decisions

that were taken to go to war or not. So he decided, I will do both. And he became good speaker with even Demosthenes calling him the pruning knife of his own speeches, with the kind of style that you'd expect of a man like him, a typically laconic, terse style of speech, full of substance, but short, maybe too short for the Athenian taste which appreciated eloquence, too severe, too Spartoid, you know? And it was this severity actually in all aspects of life that came to characterize his career. He ended up strategos, or that just means basically general, but in his case, commander in chief. And he became this, he was elected to this position on more occasions than any other Athenian in history. But yes, severity in lifestyle, but you can also think of severity in policy,

where he constantly advocated for moderation, temperance, peace, and he was against foreign adventurism. But when placed in command, usually he delivered a victory, even if he disagreed with the decision to go to war in the first place, but to get a sense of his character, here I will read from Plutarch, this very revealing. He did not seek the office of strategic general or canvas for it, nor on the other hand did he flee or run away when his city called him. It is generally admitted indeed that he held the office of general 45 times, although he was not even once present at the election, but was always absent when the people summoned and chose him. I interject, this reminds me of election in many European countries of election of kings for example

in election of Romanian kings where traditionally you had to refuse three times before you accepted it was a understood to be a formality but you still had to refuse before you accepted I think this how the Hohenzollern German line of kings was elected in that country It points to something in All Men, I think, rightly recognizes maybe the best kings are those who don't want to be or who don't want very much, are not too ambitious, you know. I continue to read, Therefore, men of little understanding are amazed at the conduct of the Athenian people. For Phocion opposed them more than anybody else, and never said or did anything to win their favor. and yet, just as kings are supposed to listen to their flatterers after dinner has begun,

so the Athenians made use of their most elegant and sprightly leaders by way of diversion and having fun. But when they wanted a commander, they were always sober and serious, and called upon the severest and most sensible citizen, one who alone, or more than the rest, arrayed himself against their desires and impulses. Indeed, when an oracle from Delphi was read aloud in the assembly, declaring that when the rest of the Athenians were of like mind, one man had a mind at variance with the city, Phocion came forward and bade them seek no further, since he himself was the man in question. For there was no one but he who disliked everything they did. And when, as he was once delivering an opinion to the people, he met with

their approval, and so that all alike accepted his argument, he turned to his friends and said, can it possibly be that I'm making a bad argument without knowing it? This how much he dislike the people and their indulgent democratic quality and this severity against the people in his own city is yes I think what give character to his whole public action even in the case of his reluctance to go to war right it wasn't because he was a pacifist but because it deeply distrusted the Athenian people and maybe even his own aristocratic friends distrusted basically the human material of Athens at the time, did not deem it capable of sustaining a long war, and basically considered them blusterers or frivolous people who thought

they were braver and smarter than they really were. And I think on this he was probably right, and actually in a nutshell, in a nut case, that is the whole problem the city and this man Phocaeon faced at the time the poor and declining character and quality of his fellow citizens. So you frequently find anecdotes about Phocion where he's calling his countrymen basically chicken hawks, you know, frivolous puffed up things. Here I will read. Once, too, when the people were unwilling to adjudicate with the Boeotians a question of territory, but wanted to go to war about it, he counseled them to fight with words in which they were superior and not with arms in which they were inferior. Again, when he was speaking, and they would not heed or even consent to hear him, he said,

you can force me to act against my wishes, but you will not compel me to speak against my judgment. And when Demosthenes, one of the orators in opposition to him, said to him, the Athenians will kill you, Phocaeon, should they go crazy. He replied, but they will kill you if they should ever come to their senses. And so you get constantly the sense of a man who was very much aware of the limitations of of fellow citizens of his time, trying to hold them back from doing something stupid, trying to hold them from destroying themselves again, including up to making fun of what you'd consider today the typical fat neocon chicken-hawk. I mean, okay, yes, neocon is very much an anachronism, and by the way, I think even today it's mostly misused

to mean someone who's self-assertive in foreign policy or hawkish about American foreign intervention. That's really not what it means at all. In foreign policy, I think, neocon refer a posture regarding the possibility of spreading democracy to other nations. But anyway, the image still stands. You know, the people like Fred Kagan, or Bill Kristol, or Luntz, or even Lindsey Graham, you know, become this kind of image of fat, gay warmongers who they would never do it themselves. And there are anecdotes like this too from the life of Phocion, here I read, it's nice local flavor, time flavor. I'm reading, again, when he saw Polyuctus, the Svetian, that's a part of Athens, okay, but he saw this guy Polyuctus, the Svetian, on a hot day,

counseling the Athenians to go to war with Philip the Macedonian. And then, from much panting and sweating, since he was really very corpulent and obese fat, frequently gulping down hot, frequently gulping down water while he spoke, Phocion said, It is meat, it is proper that you should be persuaded by this man to go to war. For what do you think he would do under the breastplate and shield when the enemy was near, if in making you a premeditated speech he is in danger of choking to death?" And similar, Phocion said of another. Again when Aristogaiton, the public informer who was always warlike in the assemblies and tried to urge the people on to action. He came to the place of muster, leaning in on his staff, and both legs bandaged.

Phocaeon spied him from the tribunal when he was far off and cried out, put down Aristogeiton II as lame and worthless, so that one might wonder how and why a man so harsh and stern got the surname of the good. So, you know, I stop reading now, but using harsh mockery and invective, you know, often he tried to curtail the Athens he knew was not what it had been, but that it had become a kind of vaunting bullies and, you know, fat faggots unable to hold course, you know again when they had been humble and timorous during a war but then after peace had been made they were getting bold and denouncing Fokion on the ground that he had robbed them of the victory you are fortunate he said in having a general who knows you since otherwise you had long ago perished and

this one anecdote i think basically captured it he knows his kind of lame annoying countrymen all too well and he's trying to do what he can with what he has with them in a bad situation. They're good at talking anymore, but not so much good at fighting. They got lucky in some battles, but he knows what they're capable of and not. They don't know that, but he knows that. But it shouldn't be imagined that he's just the gadfly or, you know, paleo-con style commentator, desk general, talking only about Athenian curtailment and managed decline or whatever you'd call it. You know, in the field both of battle and of diplomacy, he delivered success after success when it mattered and when he was appointed to these positions.

Athens' allies, again, were so enamored of him that at times it almost sounds like the Athenian alliance or empire, whatever you want to call it, that it was held together only because of Phocaeon's personality. I read quickly, the Allies and the Islanders regarded envoys from Athens under the conduct of any other general as enemies, barricading their gates, obstructing their harbours and bringing into their cities from the country their herds, slaves, women and children. But whenever Phocaeon was the leader, they went far out to meet him in their own ships wearing garlands and rejoicing and conducted him to their own homes themselves. And so he continued leading Athens to victory in battle, even against the Macedonians.

Two times very notably, the first in Euboea, which you know is this large island right off mainland Greece, right to the east, second only to Crete in size. It's hard to see from map because it's quite close to mainland Greece. But in 350 BC, Phocaeon won very notable victory there against Macedon, basically took the island from them and took an important fortress and this was a purely military tactical victory that I will not discuss the quite confused details of it, but it was won basically entirely by Phocion and then 10 years later, and I'm just giving these as examples, he did many things like that. He saved another city called Megara which is near Athens, he basically secured it from the Macedonian faction, there was a faction that was trying to take it over for Philip

of Macedon, and he intervened and saved it for the Athenian side. And then 10 years later, he saved Byzantium, which was in the Athenian sphere, or was supposed to be, but he took it, you know, it was being threatened by Philip of Macedon, and he routed Philip of Macedon from that place in around 340-339 BC, basically kicking the Macedonians out of the Hellespont. This is Athens' entry into the Black Sea, right, where current-day Constantinople is. Athens relied on that for its Black Sea grain supply. It lost, technically, the Peloponnesian War when Sparta won a battle there and basically cut off its grain supply. But Phocaeon secured that from the Macedonians. But yes, this particular campaign, he didn't just carry through with military success.

It was mixture of excellence both in war and diplomacy. one of the leaders of Byzantium, Leon. He had been an old classmate of Phocaeon's from Plato's Academy time. And because of this relationship, the Byzantines and the previous reputation he had as being very fair, but because of this friendship with a fellow student of Plato, the Byzantines trusted Phocaeon and ended up fighting very hard, both for their own city, but also alongside the Athenians. And following this victory, Phocaeon was even able to invade parts of Macedonia proper, he routed Philip completely from a lot of the seaside regions around there. And the proof of his indispensability and his superiority in battle is that whenever the Athenians changed their minds, which they often still did and they replaced him

as commander, but the replacements they got only brought them shameful defeats. So he was maybe a unique pillar of the state pillar of the state during this whole century of action. It's a matter also of picking your battles as a great commander, right? He knew which battles he wanted to fight and he fought them well, but at other times he tried to get the Athenians and the Greeks to not fight. For example, most notably Philip of Macedon at Chaeronea in 338 BC. This was the decisive battle that gave Macedonia mastery over all of Greece, Philip the Macedonian defeated the united Greek forces, in a quite shameful way too. Many of them just abandoned the field, it wasn't really a full battle, but Phocion, I think, knew this. He knew it would turn out this way, and it's because he had his

fellow Greeks numbered at the time that they couldn't or wouldn't fight. He knew what would have been possible or no, and he tried to get them not to fight this battle, but he didn't listen to to him, you know, they lost. And similarly later, when Alexander the Great destroyed Thebes, prior to that battle, Demosthenes, the orator of Athens, the super hawk, he was trying to get Athens to join the fight against Alexander on Thebes' side, and Phocaeon said do not do this, do not fight this savage man Alexander, or a flame will eat your city. And I think it's good that in that case he prevailed in the argument, because if Athens had joined, Alexander would have maybe ended up wiping Athens out too. He wiped Thebes out.

He only left in Thebes standing what was supposed to have been Pindar's house, the famous Theban poet from a few hundred years before, that was left standing. But I think that could have also happened to Athens if it had foolishly joined the battle. So while there is this other side of this, which I'll address on next segment, which mean Phokion, did Phokion fail, you think, should he have been more vigorous and warlike, and would that have preserved Athenian and Greek freedom from Macedon? For example, in what I just told you regarding Alexander and Thebes, someone on the other side could come in and say, no, Bap, you're wrong, he should have joined Thebes, and then they would have won. Thebes wouldn't have been wiped out, they would have been able to beat Alexander, I don't know.

Whatever way that question is decided, it's without a doubt that Fokian's life did not end well. I don't want to discuss the very end of his life because it's depressing, and also, I would have to get into very minute type of Game of Thrones intrigues between the different Athenian and Macedonian political factions. But basically, after the failed rebellion against Macedon, Athens was forced to accept Macedonian rule, and even a Macedonian military garrison. Macedonian ruler at the time was an antipater, but he died, and this left a succession struggle between his son and the men he had designated to be his successor. And each of these men was allied to a different Athenian faction. Basically, there was the people's faction and the oligarchic or aristocratic faction,

whatever you want to call it. and Phocion ended up being on the losing side of this factional struggle. And this loss, or this bad choice, you can say, or inevitably bad choice, combined with his intransigence and also the Athenians maybe angered at having lost their independence completely, it led to a public trial where he was not even allowed to speak in his own name, but was then executed. His body was not allowed to be buried within the city walls. So after this most illustrious career where he had led Athens for decades, he ends up completely humiliated, executed, his body was supposed to be thrown out, but his wife collected his ashes and brought them back knowing that the Athenians would eventually repent, which they did later and they honored him.

These events are shown in two famous Nicolas Poussin paintings. Among this painter's most famous and rightly so It's just a haunting, ghostly quality about them. I'll mention them in a bit. I'll also post them. I never fully understood why this event moved Poussin so much, this painter from the 1600s, to make two paintings about Phocion's death. But it's a tragic tale of intransigent virtue, even excellence in the middle of widespread decay and decline, culminating in an unjust execution, martyred them also for sake of this devotion to the state, but I will be back in a moment for some further remarks on the historical and moral evaluation of Phocion and also this crucial period in Greek and world history. I will be right back. There are varieties of flavors of bad times,

times of great crisis that lead to Caesar and Napoleon, which were bad times but not worst for their states. In fact, in case of Caesar, you say some of Rome's best days were ahead, the glorious years of Emperor Trajan and the five good emperors of the century 100 A.D. and after, second century when all the world is in glory according to Tacitus. The state was in peace and secure and the world spanning, the people live in prosperity, contentment and the wise men had freedom of speech and thought. You could argue this This was better than Rome's early Republican days even. And France, you make the case that it reached its height under Napoleon, or maybe even if you say it did so earlier under Louis XIV, and Napoleon was just one last glamorous flame like supernova sun.

But in any case, that was only politically, whereas artistically cultural, some of its best times were in future, and still had very good political days ahead anyway under Napoleon III, and further exploration, colonization of Africa, and so on. But especially artistic cultural eminence, that was very much in remembrance of its Napoleonic spirit, and that happened later in 19th century. But then what about a time when a state actually ends, when it loses its sovereignty permanently, And everything about it then becomes obscure and grey, including its intellect and arts. For Caesar and Napoleon, it was the end of just one political form, maybe, but the state and its independence continued and became maybe even stronger in the world.

But when Alexander came, who both Caesar and Napoleon looked up to Alexander and tried to emulate the way Alexander tried to emulate Achilles. So yes, you see this, the drive for individual glory is at Homer. Homer best put this in shining light in his poems, but this is a unique engine of European and Western society for more than 2,000 years, embodied in leaders like these who seek to emulate and outdo each other over history, huge spans. But when Alexander came, you see him today, or at least a casual historian popular view, He can be seen as the conquest of Asia by the Greeks, and in a way he was the continuation in even the victory of Greek civilization, of Greek culture over the world. But he was also the end of the Greek states that germinated that unique culture.

And however much you say an Athenian may have hoped to play a role in the new world-spanning Hellenistic empire, his own state and its own destiny had ended and was then subordinated to another now, to Macedon. And yes, this was more tolerable than if it had been to a total barbarian. The Macedonians were seen as rustic Greeks. Their leaders had to prove ancestry before they had been allowed to participate in the Olympic games. But at least, yes, you say it was a Macedonian and not a Celt or a Lydian or a Persian or, God forbid, a Phoenician who had taken over. That's true. But nevertheless, for an Athenian or a Spartan to lose independence even to each other or to the Thebans or whatever would have been

intolerable for their entire real history. They wanted to live in their own local city-states. It was always this way. When the Thebans liberated the Messenians from Spartan rule in the 300s BC, the period we are talking now, and Sparta had ruled over the Messenians for centuries as serfs, right? And the liberated Mycenaeans, they could have formed a normal type of mini-empire, or let's say territorial nation-state. But they formed a confederation of independent city-states. That's just what Greeks did. They wanted always fiercely to protect their local freedoms and the right to self-rule. And so it's a different world when when you cannot run your own foreign affairs, you're not master exclusive charge of your own destiny, you may even have a garrison from a foreign state,

and even if Greek, or in the case of the Macedonians, Greek Lloyd state in your territory, but that's a reminder of your humiliation, of your dependence on another, your absolute lack of freedom. So you know, the fact that the Greeks now rule the world, that is cold comfort for a Greek of that time, of the real type, you know, and even if you got a position, let's say the new Greek empire, it would have been still Macedonians close to Alexander who were dominating it, not you and your kind. So you can see why Europeans now, right-wing Europeans, many of them, especially the Scandinavians, are so anti-Russian because they fear this outcome. If they were ever to become part of some Eurasian entity, they'd become just a province. and you say, well, they are now. They don't feel like that.

They still can run their affairs. Norway, Sweden, they feel like they can run their own countries and destinies to some extent. They'd much rather prefer American patronage because United States is farther away, and besides being more traditionally permissive than the Russians anyway, it reminds me also of the black plight in United States, the fact that they've given up the drive to self-rule and sovereignty and are happy to be forever dependent on another or the ward of another and not to have their own destiny. To me, that speaks of a permanent childhood. I do not want to insult children, a kind of permanent effeminacy of spirit. But now I don't, you know, my two women subscribers will be upset that I say that. But in historical remove anyway, You see Alexander, glory of the Greeks,

and then you meld them all together in your mind, but in practice, it didn't feel that way to many at a time. And they resisted, of course, the Athenians in the famous example of Demosthenes, orator, statesman of this period, maybe the most famous orator of all time, champion of Athenian and Greek freedom and independence against what I am describing now, the rise of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, which threatened eventually did extinguish Greek freedom in the 340s to 320s BC, which is the reason Demosthenes remained an important symbolic name for liberals and republicans, I mean small-R republicans for a long time after, including in 19th century ideas of resistance to monarchy, resistance to tyranny. And he presided, of course, over a failed noble resistance,

which I may talk another time. But then what do you say about the man Phocaeon who presided over the decline of Athens and who even led Athens in a way after it was absorbed by Macedon for a few years at least. Is it possible to have greatness in that sense when you preside over the end of your own state, to be a great man in the very worst of times, times with nothing redeeming after because there was not even great Athenian thought or art after this, not really anyway. It was the permanent extinguishing and obscuring of Athens, at least in antiquity. And I think it's possible, who am I, who are we to stand in judgment of great men of antiquity? None of us are at the height of even Phocion, no matter how you judge him. But whether it is this man, and Phocion is very great,

by the way, I didn't mean to, There was not a neg against him when I say even Phocion. He obviously made the roster of great Greek heroes, Greek and Roman heroes of Plutarch and some others. But whether this man, Phocion that I describe on this show, whether he can compare most favorably to the other great men, to Solon and Alcibiades and Caesar, I cannot decide this still myself. for all of his amazing qualities. Plutarch thinks he was comparable, and other ancient historians thought also that he was worthy of remembrance as one of this list of great Greek heroic statesmen, but some other had mixed opinion of him even back then. I can't decide. I tell you in brief now his life and accomplishments, and you decide for yourself. In antiquity, it's important to say again

He was less remembered for his public accomplishments like the wars he won, which he did, quite admirably many battles, but he was not so much remembered for that. Much more, he was revered for his personal, private morality good points, refusing large sums of money and so on. Incorruptibility, living a very virtuous, poverty life with his wife. Even Alexander the Great tried to send him a huge sum, and Phocion refused, he became famous for this, almost as famous as Diogenes telling Alexander to move out of his son because he was trying to get some raise in tan, Diogenes the cynic philosopher. And Phocion was actually the only man who Alexander continued to address with a honorific in his letters after Alexander had become world ruler,

And yes, this man was the only one he continued to address with some equal respect, and the only Athenian he liked to talk to in negotiations. But again, it was because of his public uprightness and the kind of harsh, severe virtues that he was best known to display, even in his own life maybe, and certainly long after, which is why he was given the nickname the good. In English, it's translated usually as the good, but I'm not sure it's the right translation. Ho Christos, right, the anointed, Christos. Keep in mind, the Greeks had many words for good. I am sure I repeat, I've said this before on this show, but it's like the 1,000 words of the Eskimos for snow, connoisseurs of snow. The Greeks were connoisseurs of comparing one man to another and seeing who was better.

Their whole society was based on this, this type of competition. So you have comparison names like amenon, craton, beltion, ischiroteron. Each of these is a comparative corresponding to different words for good, like agathos or aristos or kalos. You may know some of them, but they have slight different meanings. Better as in stronger, better as in braver, better as in stronger merely physically, better more noble and truthful, each with slight different flavor of goodness and magnificence and nobility. But it's quite rare, I don't even know other cases to be named Christos, the good, which doesn't really mean that, it means the anointed. And I don't want to make any grand claims about relationships to, of course, one other famous man

who was given this title or another religion, the Christos. But he does seem to have some things in common, even if superficial things. personal virtuous rectitude to the point of self-destruction, renunciation of all earthly wealth, total devotion to a cause, in this case devotion to the state for the sake of which he is willing to give up everything, even friends, and finally his own life which is taken as part of a false public trial during which he is humiliated and then executed. And so his body taken outside the city walls and it is up to his close companions and his wife to gather his ashes, so this is very interesting and I wonder if pre-Christian symbology like this is why Poussin made these two famous paintings of the funeral of Phocion and the gathering of the ashes and bones

of Phocion. The latter again I discussed I think on episode 15, Poussin again the great French 1600s painter who, this one of his most haunting works, I will post it with the show, Landscape with the Ashes is a folkion, very surreal, peaceful, otherworldly kind of Giorgio de Chirico atmosphere. I didn't know this, there's apparently a version of it in the Connecticut Museum, not just, there's one in the Louvre, too. There are ancient precursors to Christianity, like the cynics, the philosophical school, I think, but obviously very different in intent. They sought contentment in this world, not a salvation in the afterlife, but the Cynic Philosophical School, similar in their practical ethical behavior to, say, a Christian monk or Christian holy man.

But I'd never heard of a precursor to monastic virtue or saintly virtue in a man that was so devoted to the state and actually to an aristocratic posture of frugality that it led to what can look like Christian self-denial, complete with a Christ-like martyrdom. And when he died, he said he was fully aware of how the Athenians had treated their other great men, and in particular, Socrates, with who Phocaeon obviously saw a kinship, fellow martyr, probably had been preparing for that moment for part of his life, at least. So in these examples of personal virtue and eminence, he was remembered for long after, and I think it's also why people like Plutarch and this other historian, Cornelius Nepos, This why they have profiles of him as a great man,

more so than his political or military accomplishments, which were quickly forgotten despite being objectively impressive. But I should say that even in regard to personal virtue, I have reservations of Phocaeon, and so does this other historian, Cornelius Nepos, who, again, like Plutarch, he has short biographies of famous statesmen and generals, but during the last few years of his life, of Phocion's life, when basically Athens was in crisis and was getting absorbed by Macedon, Phocion made two crucial mistakes. I see them as actually personal blunders. First, he trusted too much the Macedonian who was leading the garrison in Athens, merely because the two of them had aristocratic sympathies in common, but then this man betrayed him and tried to seize the Piraeus,

this is the harbor of Athens that was crucial for its survival, and in the ensuing battle against this usurper, many Athenians lost their lives, and so they were rightly pissed off at Phocaeon for what appeared to be his blundering trust, and really then his judgment clouded by political bias, which you can say maybe was unlike him to be, but there's this one weird line where he say he would rather suffer wrongs and do wrong, and I think it's this kind of moral fanaticism in his old age that became too extreme and led to this great mistake that caused more harm than good to his city. And second, which I personally see as unforgivable and as with any ancient Greek, when Macedon asked Athens to hand over Demosthenes and other anti-Macedonian personages,

public people, dissidents, you can say, as part of a peace deal. Phocaeon said that Athens should do this, and he brought out his best friend next to him in front of the assembly and said, I've known this man a long time as my best friend, and I would hand even him over if I thought it was good for the country. And here, I will read from Cornelius Nepos. After fortune had continued favorable to him almost to his 80th year, he fell toward the close of his life into great unpopularity with his countrymen. In the first place, he had acted in concert with Demades in delivering up the city to Antipater, Antipater being the Macedonian ruler, Demades being another orator in Athens. And by his suggestions, Demosthenes and others, who were thought to deserve well of their country,

had been sent into banishment by a decree of the people. Nor had he given offense only in this respect that he had ill-consulted the interest of his country, but also in not having observed the obligations of friendship. For though he had risen to the eminence which he had then held through being supported and aided by Demosthenes, when he furnished him with means of defense against Caris, another Athenian politician. He's referring to in the past when Demosthenes had helped Phocion out of friendship and had advanced his career, had helped him in court cases. And though he had several time come off with acquittal on trials when he had to plead for his life through having been defended by Demosthenes. He not only did not take the part of Demosthenes

when he was in peril, but even betrayed him." End quote. And I don't know, I find this part, this lack of gratitude and betrayal of a friend, even if it's not your best friend, I find this unforgivable, and he would have had, by his word, his own word, he would have been ready to give over even his best friend, And that level of devotion to the so-called public good, that type of moral fanaticism to which you are willing to sacrifice even friends is very much against my own preferences. I understand some today see it as noble, but for Greeks, it was complete unacceptable. And as I am telling you this, I do prepare, of course, notes for my show, but I frequently deviate and improvise, and sometimes ideas come to mind, while I am telling you things,

and now as I am telling you more about this man, I have more and more reservations about Phocaeon, because again there is this weird showiness, this platonic, you see this in other students of Plato, this performative moral fagging for the public, this being an actor, thinking you are on a stage, and I find this tasteful. There is one passage in Plutarch's telling of the life of Phocaeon where he is on this island Euboea. He's about to get into battle with the Macedonians, which he ends up winning. It was one of his great victories. But it was an unusual case, obviously, long remembered after because Phocaeon kept delaying and delaying and delaying the attack because he was trying to make religious sacrifices and the omens were not coming out right.

And so he delayed until the last minute, people were becoming exasperated, and then went into battle, I guess, when the omens came out favorably. And it reminds me of similar episode in Xenophon and a basis, again, where Xenophon is several times doing this one time conspicuously so, so much so that friends who I've read there on a basis with have told me, This guy, he acting like a religious fundamentalist. That's what the equivalent would be today, like a complete fanatic, a religious fanatic, publicly, you know? And there's something about all of Socrates' students that is like this. It's artificial, and you can tell it is. I mean, look, in both cases, they were probably being a little bit wily, and maybe he wanted just an excuse to delay the attack, and he was using that.

but this kind of public religiosity is, it's not that other Greeks previous to that had been atheist. I'm not saying that, but this kind of extreme showing us about I'm publicly religious and look at how moral and virtuous I am and we are the pillars of the community. We are the pillars of public morality. We have to show a face. You can see why other Greek thinkers, the school of Epicurus, they saw the Platonists as these kind of fakers and actors. It's because of this kind of moral showiness. Again, there's a great artificiality about it that you don't see in previous Greek statesmen. And something about this I find distasteful. But anyway, you can say toward the end of his life when he made these mistakes that even Plutarch recognizes as mistakes,

He misjudged the intentions of the Macedonian, I was going to call him a harmost, that was the name of the Spartan commander, the garrison leader, the Macedonian garrison leader, and it led to some disasters for Athens. You can say he faulted in his judgment because he was already 80 years old, and men tend to lose both their minds and characters by that age, but who knows? And as for the more significant claim that's made against Phocion by liberals, I mean 19th century classical liberals, I don't mean modern Libtards, but the lovers of freedom, haters of tyranny from the 19th century and early 20th, and they say that Phocion was a failure because he presided over the end of Athens' independence, and they claim that if he had only been more resolute

and bold, more hawkish like Demosthenes, if he hadn't laughed Demosthenes off at times during disputes over what to do about Macedon, that then Athens could have continued as independent and free, and that Philip of Macedon could have been stopped in time. And you can imagine how much of this narrative is pleasant also today to those conservatives who want to invoke the danger of Hitler or of Hitler and so on. I mean, the few conservatives who would even know this ancient history about Demosthenes, I mean, most would not. They likely don't know the name of Phocion, almost no one today talks But this is an interesting, I think, historical, alternative history question, right? What would have happened if Macedon had been stopped and if Alexander then had never made his conquests?

And I think actually the world would look very, very different, fundamentally different today. I know you can say this about many important thing of the past, what if this or that empire hadn't existed. But I think this turning point, turning point Alexander, is so different and so much bigger, maybe bigger even than Rome, which after all just took up the continuation of Hellenistic civilization that first exploded here with Alexander. Nietzsche just calls it Alexandrian scientific civilization, the kind of rational universal world that followed Alexander's conquests and established this kind of cosmopolitan Hellenism all over the world. Kosev, Alexander Kosev says something on this that I agree with, that basically empires had existed before, of course, even though empires, by the way,

are not a constant in human history. They are a relatively recent development. You get things like a great king or a king of kings. That's a Bronze Age phenomenon and after. That's what empire is, a king who holds the fealty of other kings. But even then, it existed quite late, Bronze Age and after, in only some parts of the world. But these were always justified, whether through mere might or through religious claims that were as such necessarily unconvincing to outsiders, to people who didn't believe in that religion. The classic case of self-justification, self-glorification of empire, you can find in when Darius, Darius takes over the Persian Empire during this kind of civil war, and then he puts down the rebellious provinces, and then he has this kind of Star Wars,

majestic declaration, you can find he goes something like, I am Darius, an Aryan, the son of an Aryan. My ancestors have been kings for nine generations and here they are and here are their names. I am, by the grace of Ahura Mazda, 23 nations have come into my hand and then proceeds to list the 23 nations. And the Persians understood the world in a literally ethnocentric way, where they were at center of all the world and of center of all value, and then as you are farther away from them in concentric circles, you became progressively more worthless. But with Alexander, there is a different kind of empire, I'm saying. Something changes for the first time. You have empire established on natural and rational, I don't want to say scientific, but yes, rational arguments as a result

of his education under Aristotle maybe, with his biological conception of the natural unity of mankind, which this concept had not existed previously. And it is on the basis of this that he found World Empire and even tried to create and breed a new ruling caste, marrying forcibly Macedonian nobles to Persian women and many such other attempts. It's interesting idea, but whether you go this far, I do think there was something, there's a feel to it, there's something entirely new in flavor come about with Hellenistic Alexandrian empire civilization, where Greeks also are now trying to get local non-Greek elites to join, to assimilate to Greek language and culture. This is when the Greek alphabet, as you know it, is designed. I mean, all the accents,

which French and other languages have inherited also, I mean, they were actually pictograms that described what you are supposed to do with the pitch. Prior to that, Greek did not use accents. They designed them for non-Greek speaker to learn where to put a pitch accent. And so yes, it was a pitch language. Maybe I should start weekly reading of Greek. Would you like that? But I may put that at a different tier for special audience, a drunken reading in Greek per week. We will see that. But I think actually that also the Jewish and Christian religions would not have existed without this Alexandrian development either. Not only because the empire was used as a material and practical vehicle for the spread of Judaism and Christianity, but I think even substantially in the theology,

in their so-called philosophy, they arose as reactions to Alexandria and world civilization claims. I know this is a strange thing. I say many, especially if you're religious, you think these religions in the Bible are older than 323 BC and after, but I don't know, I don't know. I think some religions certainly existed prior to that, but the full religion as you see it in the Bible, including the Old Testament, I think that post-dates Alexander actually, and it was rewritten by priests quite some time after Alexander. You see how the book of Maccabees begins, And I think that it was during this time that Judaism and what came to be Christianity were actually formulated explicitly against the Alexandrian and later the Roman view of nature and the world,

inspired by them and also against them, an inversion of them. But I know that is bigger claim. In any case, what would have happened without Alexander's conquests if Athens and the other Greek states had successfully resisted them the way liberal and classical liberal historians and others wish if Demosthenes had had his way and did Phocion fail Greece and did he fail freedom in this way? But no, I think more likely what would have happened is Greek states, it would have been like a Papal State situation in medieval and Renaissance Italy, you know, where the Greek states would have, even if they had been united and resolute and lucky, They have still been too weak to become important in world fairs ever again, but they may have been just strong enough from stopping Macedon to achieve

this world-spanning destiny, through which Greek culture also triumphed. So eventually, both would have been conquered maybe even soon after by some outsider anyway, and in that case, maybe the modern world wouldn't even exist, I don't know. I don't think progress is a given in history, by the way. It's possible antiquity would have just continued indefinitely in various cycles, as might have been the case even before for thousands of years. And I think if Phocion had something like absolute power, or at least greater power in Athens and Greece, even if just greater power of persuasion, the opposite maybe would have been the best course of all. In other words, maybe the Greeks resisted the Macedonians too much, and instead they should have joined them in some kind of confederation.

Macedonian-led, but yes, were Athens and the other few Greek city-states would have continued some greater independence and self-sovereignities, and they ended up with anyway. And maybe they would have been able to bargain for a greater role and more important positions for their own elites in the new Macedonian world order, the world empire, after the conquest of Persia. And I think that would have been even better than what happened and better than if, let's say, Athens and Thebes and such had managed to maintain some nominal sovereignty and independence for a little longer. And there's some evidence for what I'm telling you now, at least according to Plutarch, Plutarch claims Phocion tried to, that he was the one who tried to convince Alexander no longer to attack his fellow Greeks,

but to direct his drive, his glory, his need for conquest against the barbarian and the Persian. And he implies that Alexander listened to this. So I think this would have been the wiser course anyway, and I think Fokion rightly saw that the blood of Numenor was largely spent in Greece itself. And he tried then to make the best of a very bad situation of a people who had become weak and effeminate and frivolous, and that maybe its best attributes could have continued instead in a hopeful new adventure of conquest with Macedon at the head. You know, Macedon being a kind of rustic barbaric Greeks with a bent for conquest. I think maybe the same could be true of our world, you know, today where the best and most vehement blood in the European world is from the same area actually,

the Balkans, is this okay? and West Europe and many other such with their internecine wars and their welfare state exhaustion. And maybe America too should accept the boorish barbaric, barely European, East European and Balkanoid insanity at its leadership ranks and embark on a new era of conquest of Asia and such, maybe even together with Russia. Would you like that? Is this crazy to hope for? No, I'm not hoping for anything for myself. I'll be poolside in Thailand, you know, I'll be organizing orgies, I'll be face down in a brothel in Medellin. Please forgive me, but I will applaud next Alexander, yes, as it was said, I am not he, but I prepare the way for his coming.