Turning Point AAA, Turning Point Argentine Anti-communist Alliance. Look up what this organization did in mid 1970s Argentina in response to snowballing leftist communist terror that had begun in the late 1960s in that country, targeting prominent conservative right-wing and just center-right normal individuals. As I was about to record this episode, I heard, I saw Charlie Kirk assassinated just a few hours ago, speaking in Utah University. And if you don't want to happen, what happened in the country I just named in the 1970s and certain other places, it also happened, of course, at a bigger scale in Lebanon, in parts of Europe and Italy and so on, where you had escalating tit-for-tat violence, the right

paramilitary groups responding to leftist terror and each in an escalation, that kind of violence tears nations apart. It's not possible to establish deterrence doing that. People are thinking falsely when they think, oh, if the right did the same that would establish deterrence. It doesn't work like that. It just leads to endless escalation. It tears countries down to bits where trust is permanently destroyed and I think if you want to stop possibility of something like this, Mr. Trump or whoever in administration who's paying attention online or maybe even to my show, you have to take action soon that has to be both showy, in other words spectacular and satisfying, and also effective. And I'm not sure yet what the latter could be, but I suspect that you should target Antifa.

You should target the people who have created this atmosphere of hysteria, of leftist hysteria in the United States that has made it fair game to target right-wingers or really Mr. Kirk was not by any definition far-right or alt-right or whatever. He was very much a centrist, center-right man, and I think that the atmosphere where it's legitimate to target people with violence, which has been created by Antifa in this country, you must find it is an organized biome of sorts. They have foundations, they have think tanks, NGOs, they have certain media organizations to which they get funneled. There are politicians and businessmen protecting them. There are major leftist billionaires funding them. During the 2020 Floyd riots, in which in May 2020,

there was an attempt to storm the White House, now largely forgotten, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave public guarantees that they would not interfere with the noble protesters. In other words, there was a stand-down order effectively given to Washington D.C. law enforcement to allow they would have killed Trump then. And I think back then I was also recommending to Mr. Trump do not go necessarily after the street fighters who are all, you know, whatever, who cares, go after the people funding them, the people organizing them. It's an organized leftist terrorist communist network. And I'm sorry to sound like, yes, 1970s or 1920s far-rightists talking about communist terrorists. These people understand themselves as communist terrorists.

Don't call them that then if it makes you uncomfortable or whatever. It doesn't matter. But I'm saying it is an organized group of sorts that are people who fund it, find legal ways, RICO or whatever, I'm not a lawyer, to put a few leftist billionaires in handcuffs, the heads of their NGOs and so on, make it speedy, I don't know. Otherwise you risk happening what I say and it's an adventurous time for enterprising individuals when you have something like 1974-75 Buenos Aires and the American Consul there was saying, you know, I think this was before he was kidnapped and killed himself, he was saying something, it's essentially in a state of civil war. But it wasn't a civil war with armies moving and like the Spanish civil war. It was this clandestine terror tit-for-tat attacks.

It's terrible. Excuse me. And it's, you must take all measures to stop it. It's a real risk that it could balloon into that. And I want to remind you that from 1973 to 76, the Argentine government was ruled by one Isabel Peron, I think. I think she was the wife or the sister, but the wife of Perón and a weak leader, a kind of right wing leaning, right wing but weak leader who outsourced the response to leftist terrorism to what I'm saying is the Argentine anti-communist alliance, which was a kind of semi-private secret society paramilitary group with informal support from the armed forces and some law enforcement establishments and so on. But the point is she was a weak leader and this terrorism continued back and forth until

the only way to establish order in that type of situation generally either it balloons and cities get destroyed as in Beirut getting turned to rubble or what happened Argentina in 75-76 there was a military dictatorship established and they managed to establish order, including what sounds like a rightist wet dream, a military operations against universities. Oh, the University of Tucumán, the 70% of the professors are communist leftist terrorist enablers. We are going to send in soldiers and arrest them all. Well, you don't need to get to that. But Antifa is a self-conscious, violent terrorist organization operating in America for a long time now, doing violence since at least 2020. This is not the first attack. There was, of course, also assassination attempt on Trump in the summer.

If these things are not enough to wake you, I don't know. I don't know. There were previous murders, though, is what I'm saying. I've spoken about them on this show from time to time. Leftist terrorist murder, firebombing of Republican election offices, finding election officials and decapitating them on their lawn. This happened somewhere I think in Pennsylvania either in 2016 or 2020, but they are by no means unique. And so it's an escalating hysteria in the United States where first you lose your livelihood and then there is lawfare, you might get sent to jail by an Antifa prosecutor as happened almost to my friend Douglas McKee, and then it graduates to actual physical violence and assassinations and you don't want it to go out of control is all I am imploring

so anyway look I this episode is not about this I was not prepared for talk to you about this and I don't have special insight on it other than to ask you to keep a record of all the ghouls online who are celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder which includes of course leftists and trunes transsexuals free freakazoids and so on but also strangely enough men like Matthew Dowd who ran I think George Bush campaign in 2004 saying essentially on MSNBC that Charlie Kirk deserves this. Find records of people making such statements and just keep them. But aside from that, I feel very sorry for Charlie Kirk. He was very, I'm saying this in the best way, He was a pleasant goofball man, very lovable. All he wanted to do was debate and talk, not even a politician.

And minimal standard of liberal society, yes, you have debate and now very nice man with nice looking family gets showily shot in the neck on TV. I don't know. We either have Turning Point AAA or, I don't know, have it be through legitimate government immediate extreme action to put a stop to any possible escalation. Very good. I will be right back. Yes, so just now the American Congress, Parliament tried to hold a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk after his assassination, and the Democrats, the leftists, whatever they are, congressmen and so on, heckled it. And maybe they don't realize how this makes them look. It seems completely crazy, and indeed, Francais, it feels like in the world or certainly in

the United States this last week, there has been everyone acting completely insane, multiple snuff videos in media now, including widely publicized in days prior to this assassination. And I think Mr. Charlie Kirk's last tweet concerned this grisly murder, completely senseless, pointless murder of a Ukrainian pretty girl on a – it doesn't matter if she's pretty or not. It's just a horrible thing. I wish I had not seen the second video I was trying but it was presented so many times I couldn't miss it. It was very disturbing and this negroid complete subhuman kill her for no reason. I don't know if you've seen this and I guess I wanted to ask you, have you thanked, ladies and gentlemen, have you thanked your local African Americans today?

I highly recommend that you extend greetings and thanks to your local African Americans in particular, to go to a group of them and say, I thank you, African Americans, for being a docile and law-abiding group. For example, if you see a group on the bus or such, if in fact they are law-abiding, maybe if they are not law-abiding, you can shame them by your irony. You can say that, you can shame them into pro-social and lawful behavior. But go ahead, go to a group of them, African American gentlemen, tell them, I thank you for being docile and tame. you're exemplars of public order and quiet, and you're a credit to your race. Maybe you don't need to add that last part. I always wonder, is it racist if you go to a group of blacks and you say out loud with an earshot

of the monkeys go back to Africa without pointing at them or anything? Because if they interpret you merely saying that in proximity as racist toward them in particular, they are the ones who are racist, maybe self-hating, who have internalized racist self-image, believing that they could ever be thought of as monkeys. Whereas it's entirely possible that if you say this, you're just making a statement literally about simians in the New World that they do not belong there, that monkeys, the howler monkey, the capuchin, the spider monkey, these are monkeys found in South America, Central America, et cetera, they all have to go back to their ancestral Africa. I sorry to repeat this is favorite theory of mine.

The New World evolution of the human, possibly, you know, the out of the Americas, as opposed to out of Africa theory, deduced from circumstantial evidence that, but I like unusual theories, things like that New World monkeys versus Old World African apes, based on arguments like because the New World monkeys have extensive vocalizations, the African great apes do not, The New World monkeys have paternal investment in the relative monogamy, usually, and the Old World apes don't, and other things like that. The counterargument is that the African apes can use their fingers and so on to make kind of primitive tools. But I don't think it's true that the New World monkeys cannot. I know for sure, I have seen and I've been told of the Miku, these are the Capuchin monkeys

in Brazil, they use stones to break open the Brazil nut, you know. And then there are other such clues, including the diversity of languages in the New World, the greatest diversity of languages anywhere by far from anywhere else before Columbus arrived. So I don't know, very odd things will be discovered in the coming years, I'm sure. An out of Australia theory I've mentioned before has also considerable circumstantial evidence, maybe I invite friend to discuss this, but unrelated, more evidence of contact between New World Indians, the Native Americans and the Polynesians. And I, I read a very interesting article paragraph on this, I look, I'm sorry, can I talk various things on this episode that are not so heavy, I, I don't have much more to say, we'll find out what happens.

I hope, again, Trump administration take decisive action, treating Antifa as a terrorist organization and its funders, arrest them. Anyway, do it soon. Anyway, but I read interesting paragraph recently on how a very, a kind of very particular canoe, like a boat canoe, common in Polynesia, but it's not at all found in the New World, in the Americas, except in a certain part of California, It's very believed to be brought from Hawaii. And then also uniquely, other than California, it's only found on the island of Chiloé, in the south of Chile. You can see it on the map. It kind of stick out in the Pacific a little bit. So, excuse me, I want to go there. I've driven across south Chile, but not the island of Chiloé. I was told it's mostly dry and windswept.

I was at the point where I needed lush, green, wet forest. You can find plenty of that in South Chile. I like very much the smell of these, the wet ferns and mosses in the temperate rainforest. It's always something like 50 to 60 degrees, something, I like this kind of weather, even though I don't know if the humidity is very good for thinking. But anyway, where was I? Another schizophrenic blackazoid goes on a rampage, kills Ukrainian pretty refugee girl. I felt really bad for her seeing that video. I wish I hadn't seen. North Carolina on a train. I have to keep away from Twitter. Only this lately. I'm telling you, another gruesome murder. I have to here see every aspect of it. It's bad energy. And yes, I understand the possible political uses of that crime on the train.

And I see now, there was the Department of Transportation guy, he went on news, on TV. He wanted to remove federal funding for trains and such, railroad and things. One, that this would be removed from states. I guess he was floating the idea. To remove such funding if they continue to allow schizophrenic homeless freaks to menace people. And listen, forget just stabbing in the neck, okay? What about the smell, even that? How is that allowed too, and not a public health hazard? Can I come on a train with extreme smell, fermented goods, for example? I remember, I haven't had this any time recent, but long ago in Japan, I went to Izakaya Drink Place. They had a special that week called kusaya, a food specialty of the Izu Islands. These are just off.

If you look on the map of Tokyo and look a bit south, there's this peninsula sticking out and there's islands south of that in the Pacific. And on those islands, they have this bottled version of fish that's highly fermented. And when you open it, it smells like half a block away, extreme smell. And I like strange foods, but even I could not force myself to try that. It smelled so horrible. And if I took this on the train, I would be arrested, kicked off the train at least as a public menace. But homeless, they are allowed to be that. and how is that? Why are they allowed? That's called two-tier policing. They're allowed to be that fermented fish themselves. I can't bring fermented kimchi and other goods to

enjoy on a train with a big slab, cured bacon, fresh garlic cut with a thick blade, the bacon, eat garlic in public on a train like an East European peasant does on a midnight train to Odessa. And then they tell you, close the window, you're causing a draft, I will catch a cold, I need to eat this garlic, you know. So if you remember on last episode, I recommend that they do just this though about the homeless problem. In other words, threaten some kind of federal funding withdrawal, consequences like that. It's a huge quality of life issue in so many cities in around the civilized world, not just the United States. And now Now I see it's the ideas being floated by someone from the transportation department.

It's great that this administration, Stephen Miller very strong on this and Trump commenting also and listening obviously to what's going on online, talking about this insane murder on this train, apparently racially motivated. Look, just because some crazy person, just because somebody is mentally ill doesn't mean you can wave it away, oh he's schizo, it's random, you can't look into it. people are still amenable to incitement. In fact, that's the point. They're more suggestible. And leftist and black anti-white hysteria got this girl killed in the same way that leftist hysteria got Charlie Kirk killed. Whoever the killer may be, you say it's a schizophrenic lone shooter. They didn't come out of nowhere. They are weaponizing schizos

to do stochastic racist terrorism. There you have it, leftist communist terrorism and racist terrorism against white people. So on one hand, it's good that this administration takes the initiative on such stories when the rest of the media was going to bury the news, not on the Charlie Curta. He couldn't have done that. He's mega celebrity. But on that girl, if it was not for Twitter, it wouldn't have been known widely to Americans. But on the On the other hand, if you're online, you've seen that story maybe 200 times by now, and maybe much saturated by this. And it's not, I have to tell you, a unique crime. In other words, I've seen other many horrible crimes, racial crimes carried out by bantoids against white people, including horrible tortures, torture murders, murders of infants.

I remind you that the purpose of signature media stories is to use them as a catalyst if you already have a plan in place, which the left did, for example, prior to the Floyd riots. In that case, that plan was the federalization of the police, the neutralization of local police, its replacement by federal analogs they could control. And they had in place to achieve that already NGOs, public officials on their side to push for such things, DAs. I'm not saying they engineered the Floyd thing, but they were waiting for a pretext like that and they had an organization ready in place. Whereas I'm not sure that, for example, emoting, just emoting online, I'm raising public awareness about black criminality, of which there's plenty.

But I'm not sure that the right has any workable plan to address this. What is the plan? What is the suggestion to stop crime? Now look, if they can capitalize on it with some procedure to deal with the homeless, I think that will be a notable achievement. But it's not what I talk about on this show. I want to talk more pleasant things. You will have plenty of heavy things in the coming days to see online. What I find then a puzzle is why such a troublesome minority is tolerated in America, which is There's a more interesting question, you know, the iteration of the 1,000, 1,000 Chimp Out Black Murder, of which there are, again, many much worse than what you've seen. There are quite a few that are the homie voodoo, the homie this tribe from Benin, extremely

violent, the homie king, voodoo-tier murders, torture again. There's no lack of stupid, depraved murders, including of shooting infants in baby carriages. If you remember this from, it was from 10, 15 years ago. So I would wonder, this is a costly and troublesome minority. Why would people tolerate having them around at all? And I think the answer to, I think it's very, I mean, it's a very interesting answer. They could have been deported, for example, to Africa in the 19th century, you know, and it's not sufficient to say, well, they were brought to the United States to do slave labor, which they were not very good at, by the way, or very efficient laborers. They had to be brought in again because the American Indian could not tolerate slavery,

and that speaks to the heronfolk status of the Native American tribes. That is a master race, literally, in the Hegelian definition. If you want a noble savage, there you have one. After a rough kind of nobility, they were not trustworthy in any sense. Their notion of honor had nothing to do with European medieval honor. They were devious, extremely vicious and violent, even against the weak. But at least the Comanche and such, they just absolutely could not tolerate being enslaved. Whereas the African in the New World, as in Africa, the Zange, it was called on the East Coast and other places, by the Arabs, they prosper under slavery. But in my opinion, it's just not a very efficient worker. And recently there was an article in Jacuzz, which all of you should subscribe to, excellent

magazine. online zine, this poster, Andrew had good article about the debates leading up to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1923, which is product of WASP reaction against too many at the time Ellis Island fraternity immigrants coming in since the 1880s. And this act limited migration again to Northwest Europe, I think that's appropriate wise choice for America. But many of these men, if you read these Andrew article very useful, he presents passages from their works, they weren't at all, the Yankee was not at all friendly to slavery from the south. Okay, they mentioned offhand where they say things like we already have plenty of problems with this African minority and it was thought that it would bring in cheap labor.

We already have plenty of problems with them, let alone we have to bring in new people. And the price of all of this cheap labor was a troublesome and unassimilable minority, can't really function in a modern industrial technological urban civilization. These accounts from 100 years ago, and even 115 years ago, so they say exactly, they sound very contemporary arguments, and Lincoln wanted to send them all back to Africa, to Liberia after the Civil War. So the Yankee was the real racist, you see, the racist, the progressive racist does not approve of slavery, doesn't want slavery. So you can't say, well, yes, I suppose that is why the blacks are in America, but it's not the reason anymore why they're tolerated, and in many ways celebrated despite their countless faults.

And I think the reason they are appreciated overall in America, whereas the Chinese, for people, much less so, and the Indians, even less than that. And the reason fundamentally is music. It's the same reason and even much more repulsive minority than the blacks. In East Europe and Russia, the gypsies, they are tolerated historically. Don't get me wrong. What I mean by tolerated isn't in the modern sense necessarily of equal rights and even more than equal rights and forced respect for the minority and protections, which you know falsely under the word wokeness. No, they were still outcasts always in in the East, in East Europe and Russia, which even among European leftists, West European leftists, they cannot take these people to the gypsy. But the question is, gypsies are so nasty

in other words, so hostile, clannish, every aspect of their existence is so incompatible with any civilized life. They still live nomadic life and so on. They smell terrible. I used to hear stories from East Block Country. If you made a mistake, let's say, in the workplace of inviting a gypsy group to clean your windows, it would smell like campfire, and worse than that for a week in the office. I knew as a small boy to run away whenever I saw a group of gypsies. I used to train wild dogs, stray dogs. I used to train them to attack gypsies, and to maul and attack disgusting old people also. I had a girlfriend when I was six years old. her grandmother didn't like me. She had a retarded brother. I still think sometimes

what must have happened to this girl. Look, I don't want to get sentimental. Blood blastered. Bloody bunch of blasters. I love my street dogs more than I will ever love any hole. They attack people I dislike and they love me. I almost started to cry thinking of the poor street dogs I used to play with. So listen anyway, why ever would gypsies be tolerated even though even your West European bleeding hard libtard cannot take the gypsy and yet they lived for a long time in the East and you can say well at least the Jews brought a skill set professional skills that were often rare in medieval and Renaissance Europe it's why they were invited in places like Poland and so on more on that in a moment but why ever what the hell do

gypsies bring that makes them at all worthwhile and very plainly there the answer is also music and now most Americans you say well how can that be does it sounds horrible they don't enjoy gypsy music but I think they easily could it's instantly attractive if you give it a chance it's a rhythmic it's exciting Balkanoids East Europeans and the Russians I don't know if any more but historically they went crazy for gypsy music any wedding any any joyful occasion anything like that a public party you invite gypsy music troupe you pay them something. They play brass band or in Russia it was with violin and so the favorite pastime of the Russian aristocrat was when he was in Russia and not absconding away to his apartment in Paris but in Russia it was obsession

with his gypsy musicians and French champagne and mistresses and the Russian nobility began you know they were civilized very late so I don't know can I use this word is it they were nigger rich of course you know there in In other words, there were Slavic Negro apes, Courvoisier and Bling. I named my daughter Chantelle Mayakovskaya or something like that, she French. My daughter Chantelle, she French. She not Chanico, but Chantelle, she French. So anyway, that's why in Rossiya and such, the gypsy was, it's not that he was tolerated again because of, there were many fights, there were repressions and collective retaliations happened, but the odd part is, didn't get expelled, didn't get exterminated, or is internally exiled to the point where that made his life impossible.

He even prospered at times. And don't say it's not possible, okay, to expel a people or make them fade out. All states, including European states, did do that at times, extermination and expulsion, I mean, just see what they did to heretics. Now, as regards the Jews, the answer for toleration usually is given that despite arguably untoward personal qualities and certainly theological mutual hostility, they were invited and tolerated because their financial and professional skills. And in most of European history, in most of Europe, they were not easily found. And in fact, the Jews were not unique in being a kind of professional class invited in at times. Others were invited also for same purpose, for example, Florentines and other Italians.

They are actually the inventors of modern banking and so on, but it wasn't just Florentines. I think they were the Lombards, they were the Sicilian and others. And then the expulsion, on the other hand, of the Jews from Spain in 1492, also the Muslims, of course. That's a unique thing, though. And I say this because you often hear Internet meme, Jews got kicked out of 109 countries. But to me, that's not so surprising. It would be strange for people to like and love this minority. What's surprising is that they were tolerated to exist in Europe at all and at times treated very well and protected, often by authorities, at all times by the church. And those 109 times that they were expelled I think is a bit misleading because the vast

majority of those expulsions were actually just local kings or kinglets or nobility. They got in debt too deep, and then they kicked them out as a way to avoid paying back, which no hate on the opportunistic kings who did that, okay? Gobineau says the ancient Romans also treated their creditors like beasts to be beaten, but it's not exactly the reasons modern anti-Semites give for these kinds of expulsions, whereas the Spanish case, that's very different, I think. Machiavelli recognizes it, everyone saw this already, you know, is very different, is unique striking event referring to Ferdinand's pious cruelty in this mass expulsion of Jews and Moors and Muslims. That was not like the other kind. So it had a lot more to do with national identity and the like, but the other expulsions not

so much. And even so, it's interesting to me that Ferdinand just asked them to leave. He didn't force kill the Jews and the Muslims in Spain and such, because you may remember modern states and churches at times had no hangups about mass extermination. They did that to the Albigensians. The Cathars just killed them all. They were not allowed to leave on ships to Africa or something, to Turkey. They massacred the Waldensians. So, it's odd you know that the Cathars would be treated this way and also pagan holdouts would be treated this way, meanwhile the Church protected the Jews and made them prosper in Europe. Well, I'm talking about somewhat different things at the same time, I like to go on tangents. The reasons the Church had to do that, going back to antiquity, the reasons the Church

protected the Jews were theological reasons. are in fact sister or cousin faiths, in large part they are codependent, both of them would like usually to deny this, but looking away from that and actually to why Jews despite occasional expulsions for unrelated reasons, but why in fact mostly they enjoyed how societies quite warmly often prospered in them for a long time, for centuries at times, despite I say all the personal and theological hostility, I don't think that's so much just because they offered professional services and skill set, but because they had stand-up comics and entertainers. And I think they had these comics going back quite a bit actually, the Italian, the traveling Italian classes from Florence and such, they also had stand-up comic that were quite beloved.

They had traveling tour show in Europe, wherever they went, it brought enormous amount of goodwill for those nations. The best PR you can have is to have that. So I think you underestimate this, that you think this is unimportant and frivolous because you are foolish. This is extremely important to all mankind. In fact, such frivolous things may be more important than anything else, and it's a huge weakness of many sections of the right, same as many sections of Marxists, that they don't pay enough attention to this aspect of life. Men lives much more for pleasure than for necessity, I think, and many senseless decisions in history that you can't understand your reading. I don't understand why this king did that or this group did that.

They're made at the national level in foreign affairs, usually out of pride and vanity, not because of anything rational. And in many social and domestic trends and so on, they happen because of pleasure pursuit, of which music and humor are. Do you understand, fools, that life would be unbearable without this, without music? that men don't live for survival, but for pleasure. That Nietzsche say life would be a mistake without music. Schopenhauer say in music you have a representation of the inner essence of the world, complete within just this weird sound that's on your ear. Sorry to repeat myself, I remember when the fool, Steven Pinker, could not in his foolish way understand why people enjoyed music so much. He thought it was just like auditory candy

or something completely unimportant. No, it speaks to man's most profound dire need to live and enjoy. Now, don't get me wrong. It's impossible to have conversation now on Twitter or X call it, because if I say this, what I told you now, immediately I'll have idiots claiming I'm praising black music or whatever, which I never listened to it. I don't like it myself. I find it inane, but it would be putting your head in the sand to say that the blacks haven't generated over many years, many different music styles, not just what everyone unfortunately listens to now, the hip-hops, but there was ragtime and jazz and others before that that people have enjoyed all over the world, and I think that's a big reason they're tolerated and loved, at least as much as

because of Wright's doctrine or belief in humanitarian things. Actually, it's much more because of the music and the entertainment aspect, you know? Consider by contrast the Indians, where it's become fashionable now, even for libtards to attack Indians. That in turn, by the way, is a big reason I decided to defend them at times because I don't like it when something becomes a fashion and carries no cost. And that's the thing, you know, it carries absolutely no cost to be nasty to Indians online or in saying things now. And I find that outrageous. It carries no cost and they, you can just say, you know, it comes from people whose racism I suspect is not genuine, in other words. people who, a few months ago, they were waxing romantic abuelitas and virtuous immigrantes,

roofers, you know, the virtue of immigrants and the virtue of the Mexican. And you know, aside from which, by the way, many of the stereotypes about Indians traded online about them are completely off the mark. For example, Dravidian, Tamil, South Indian elites, they are quiet spoken, they are very They are genuinely professional, not showily just professional. They are good speakers, they are appreciated in many professional settings because they do bring some interesting spirit of try to innovate in some ways. I disagree completely with just attacking them in this way where you say, oh, Indians are bad for bad. I am against very much mass immigration of anyone, no matter who they are, into the United

States or West Europe in particular, especially from the global south, despite of whatever good or bad qualities they have. You don't need to make up things about someone to… There are many, many reasons why there should not be mass migration or any great amount of migration of any kind into these nations, let alone from the global south. But I ask you the following, I ask you the following, why has it come to be that it's become carry no cost and even a fashion to attack Indians and I'll tell you why and well a few reasons but for my Indian friends I warn you most of all to stop your countrymen from running customer support centers and if you have a problem today with I don't know your phone or something goes wrong with I don't know any service you use in United States

your TV subscription cable or Airbnb from what I hear, which is a site I no longer use myself, partly for this reason. I'm saying the most negative experiences I've had in the last two years has been to deal with Indian customer support. And it sounds like it's a small thing, right? But it's not. The customer support was never great, but now it's something else. It's entering hell. And I don't know what you could do about this, though, because for whatever reason, American companies outsource customer support to India and people there need jobs, they need money, so they take them. But it's the worst. I'm warning you, it's the worst thing that can happen to you for your image because people's only experiences with Indians and India things is intensely negative hellish experiences

with customer service, stonewalling, lying, disingenuous and evasive behavior and so on. There's almost no redeeming aspect displayed to the average person you see. I myself like Indian food, I like Indian music, sitar, LSD, Ravi Shankar and such, but most people today don't know that, and it's a far distance what's happening now and the experience they get of Indians from the press that India got in the 1960s and Hindu spirituality, which of course the hippies borrowed as they borrowed nudism from you know who. I can't get into that, this is family show and I have an image to uphold, I can't tell you where the hippies could have come up with these ideas, such as LSD, psychedelics, nudism and youth culture. I don't know where they could have gotten those.

Let's say 1890s movements in Germany. Let me start that way. But unfortunately, that romantic aspect is very far from anyone's experience of Indians now. Not sure what you can do about this. But if you can, try to foist customer support jobs on some other country, I mean, as well as just reduce the number of our compatriots in other countries, simple. My advice to others is avoid customer support. No problem, even the simplest, nothing ever gets solved now, customer support. Basically companies in America have decided to fuck their customers and whoever has made the vehicle of that shearing will be hated more than anything else. listen my point here is even in a case like the nice everyone you speak to when they're not they don't have to front online they will tell you the Tamil the

Dravidian South Indian elites are very nice people and very professional people and yet it doesn't help them it doesn't get them goodwill what gets goodwill in society some goodwill it's music and it's analogues entertainment pleasure some kind of presentation of pleasant aspect but I need to put on some musics for you and to take a rest my central nervous system is amped up too much from too much coffee and nicotine over the last few days I will be right back to continue talking musics and pleasure and such but yes to go back to the blacks as with gypsies and in a different way as with Jews and others it is music entertainment make such minorities relatively welcome in many societies despite very obvious problems, and despite at all times tensions, even intercommunal violence,

whereas others can even be law-abiding net taxpayers and become intensely hated by all because they don't offer this pleasant aspect. And I think anti-Semites underestimate the amount of goodwill Jews have gained through the entertainment industry generally, not just comedians, I mean, who I've talked about from time to time, but it's a standard trope by anti-Semites to point to control of Hollywood or such or some parts of music industry the bad effects this has on society to point that out and this last part in most people's minds is not something they've established and most people in fact when they hear that they're likely to say oh that's great i like that movie i like that musician i i must i must like their producers because i like you know so

This is a more plebeian a popular version plebeian version of saying what plato fags and political philosophy fags say in a different way they say the same in a higher way when they claim that the real fights and conflicts in political life aren't so much over survival and existence as over notions of the good or of the noble and Aristotle says the city comes into being for the sake of survival but continues to exist for the good life. His problem is he ends up moralizing also about that. Well, more on that in a moment, but that kind of high-flown language for now, what are any of these things today? A lot of puffed up words anymore, I think. How can you talk of nobility or the good life now is there are specimens like Barry Weiss walking around. We live in incredibly debased time,

yet mankind does live in some sense for things that are higher than what your average Markzoid with his dialectical materialism and economic determinism believes and also your average rightist who wants to talk only about crime rates and cheap labor versus jobs in this and the industry of the nation and disease rates and whatever else even if not for the noble and high then men at least leaves for pleasure and the occasional spots of pleasure in his life that relieves this heavy pressure and strife. That's what normally life is to most. They seek relief. And the rightist and the conservative today, I think he forgets that spiritually. I'm not saying, of course, I talk about those other things too. But look, for example,

he considers the argument of the libtard about the availability of tasty food to be so frivolous that you can just ignore it. And I tell you that you can't ignore that argument either. Obviously, On one hand, it's absurd sophistry when Tyler Cowen, poet, it's, you know, these people, Tyler Cowen, I forget the blog, but other libtards too, they make this argument that diverse cuisines available in an American city is proof that mass migration is a good thing. I'm not saying that's good argument, you know, you know why already, you know, you can get the food just by training chefs abroad as Japan does. And number two, of course, the costs are too great, even if that were the only way to get authentic foreign cuisines.

But come to think of it, maybe Cohen, Tyler Cohen, has a point that it's the only way to get authentic foreign cuisines. In other words, to have an immigrant community living there. Not so much the chef issue, because, yes, you can train people abroad and also the staff in these places is Mexican anyway. but also because for example without the critical mass of Chinese students there wouldn't be a sufficient market for authentic Chinese flavors that not readily they're not directly accessible to Westerners so even if you had chef trained in authentic session cuisine he'd go out of business if you wouldn't have enough customers without a without a massive natives maybe of some kind to enjoy it and these people the libtards of this type they don't want to spend

money to travel. So, but they want the pretense of unique experiences. And so to them to go out to an also branch real and authentic, I don't know, Afghan or Ethiopian restaurant in their neighborhood is just more hick lib, hick lib, part of a new self assertion. They feel it distinguishes them from their bumpkin cousins or what, you know, and it's really all that by the way, I'm not sure on the average that they even enjoy this food, but for them, cheap way to get one over they consider beneath themselves in the same country who don't have access to these kind of you know so but that said moving away from this to to look at life in an Asian city which Asian cities are what they are steaming rat piles okay I mean spiritually okay even when they're nice

and clean nicer and cleaner than Western cities it's not hard to do today and use Seoul, Bangkok even, Tokyo certainly, Singapore, they're far safer, they're not always cleaner, Bangkok not always clean and so on, Saigon not clean, but not to take the safety aspect and the orderly aspect. Well let me rephrase that, actually Asian cities are quite chaotic, they're not that orderly but they're safe, relatively clean, you don't get bothered by homeless and so on, but they have certain advantages, certainly over modern Western cities right now. Nevertheless, individuality is a Western thing. Don't knock individuality saying, I'm a Eurasianist fool. Don't maybe understand. You don't understand the annihilating anonymity of Asian life.

This is something very profound about Asian life since forever. It's not changed by sparkling clean streets of Tokyo or LED lights or beautiful skyscrapers in Singapore or anything else material like that, because the undercurrents fundamentally of that way of life is anonymous self-erasure. It's reflected in everything about Asian life, although Japan uniquely actually made some strides with production of great individuals during its period of 100 years of war before 1600. But aside from that rare exception, and no matter how great their economies get at robotics, and it's ultimately just the reproduction of a way of life, that for all its good points, it's experienced by the peoples of that whole region of East Asia and India, India too.

It's a crushing, escapeless eternity, which is why they openly long for annihilation in their religions on one hand, and why the Buddha simply, he had to, he felt it in his nature, his animal nature that he had to escape all society and form his own brotherhood, because of the suffocating enclosure of that world and the way denies personhood. And that's Buddhism becomes a great deconstructionist enterprise well before the deconstructionist doctrines of the modern world. Why? crushing emptiness of the roles that are forced on you in Asian society that subsume who you really are under something that's not you. A script of life always imposed by the encrusted demands of traditions, expectations, grandmothers, olds, things like that to eternity. So you're living in a shell that's not you

forever your whole life and this and in the home it's the same. So this all calls for destruction first of all within you where you learn to peel away these fake identities these fake desires that were the tension the foreign tension that's not even yours that was planted in you it warps you as it masks you even from yourself not to speak of others and this in this anonymous ratpie life hampered in most cases by by heavy work as well although not not always not all over East Asia the may lays are said to be the gentlemen of East Asia they are famously lazy nevertheless I'm saying a deliverance from all of this a low level deliverance but still something one of the few points of relief is the amazing foods of these regions and you think I'm exaggerating you'd be wrong listen when

I said above about the conservative fixation on the vital necessities of life racial survival national survival national emergency cheap labor etc these things geopolitics I I don't talk about those things I'm not saying those things are not important but both the conservative and the mark soy they keep emphasizing, forget about the importance, the immense importance of this other aspect of life, because ultimately, men live for this and for the pleasure of social relations of various kinds and not for the heaviness of necessity. But anyway, without the food in these areas, life would be, I think, almost unbearable for those people. The extremely tasty food and then the communal aspects of eating out together, enjoying it in crowded restaurants, laughing and such.

It's not only a great point of pride for these peoples, in this case, well-deserved pride, but it's one of the few joys where they get to feel an actual pleasure that belongs to them individually, them alone as individuals, in other words, their own bodies which you don't share with anyone. And therefore, also, I think maybe this whole subject for others shows the nature of prostitution and brothels in East Asia. The East Asians have this very liberal attitude towards sex and prostitution, by the way. I think it's motivated by the same thing I just said with regard to food. Call it an expression of individuality only in base animal desire, but it's nevertheless something. It makes life less heavy for them.

It's one of the few points of escape from the crushing demands of anonymity and role-playing. Lately I enjoy especially the food of Indonesia. It's not as easy to find in Europe or America as other Southeast Asian cuisines. I think it's better though, I just, personal preference, I like better the particular spices they use than the Thai or Vietnamese spice combo. And one other thing on this, not that I recommend going to Bali anymore for now, but if you ever find an Indonesian or Balinese restaurant abroad serving babi guling or suckling pig Balinese style. I highly recommend this. This is extreme delicious spiced pork with crisp skin served in multiple ways and versions and with accompaniments. It's very delicious.

Why I mention it? Because in deriding the importance of food for life, you forget one other great thing and how central it is to national and ethnic identity. It reminds me of the gay activists who they go around saying, you've heard this before, why would you categorize or classify people by their sexual tastes or practices? In the ancient world, they claim that would have been seen as absurd, classifying them by their culinary habits. So it's the same old... Why would you categorize someone by whether they eat broccoli versus whether they prefer, I don't know, asparagus? I'm sure you've heard this cliché, which yes, that's literally what I've told you now, what some classicists say in some pro-gay books to which Kamil Paglia responds,

Hey, retards, as a classicist, you might be aware of the Odyssey, where a lot of attention is paid exactly to food habits and categorizing different kinds of people by what they eat. And ancient Mediterranean peoples especially made an obsession of this, as you know, you might find in the dietary laws of the Bible, among many others. And when it comes to Bali, I noticed something I saw in Spain as well, the extreme relish with which these people emphasized pork as part of their national identity. And I think that's to stick it to the Muslims surrounding them and to differentiate themselves. Now pork, of course, is big in many other parts of the world. China, biggest pork eater, maybe even per capita, I'm not sure.

Much of Japan, Okinawan food is pork-based as much as it is seafood-based, people don't know that. France, of course, almost all of Europe is very porky in that way. But Spain, it's another level. It's very emphatic almost. It's weirdly defiant, national identity, important character, like, whoa, okay, you love pork. It's very self-conscious love of pork. And I sense that in Bali too, like very self-conscious, the relish with which people just always inform me that, oh, Babi Guling is my favorite and characteristic dish, they would say. I mean, it's delicious, but I think it also gratifies them that Muslims can't eat it and And they are a Hindu holdout that still eats it. And I wonder if I've never been but Nepal or Kashmir or other such areas, I'm very interested

in visiting someday or in parts of Burma, where conflict exists specifically with Muslims. I wonder that if that pork thing has if it's the same self conscious national identity status of eating pig, you know, it's the same reason Muslim hate dogs. Why do they hate dogs? Because Zoroastrians worship the dog and so Muslims hate dogs as a way to stick it to the Zoroastrians. I mean just, mankind is a vicious creature, but it's interesting in his viciousness. More so than if, see the difference is the conservative mind as the Marxoid mind and the materialist mind is likely to say, oh no, the Muslim hatred of dogs has to be based in a real material concern. For example, medical, they were carrying diseases

at the time or such. But often, maybe more often than not, and maybe in the most telling cases, these customs don't have that kind of necessity meaning. They're just a way to try to stick it to your neighbors, to set yourself off and above them. And well, yes, I go on tangents. I guess I'm talking about slight something slightly different here. But Tyler Cowen and the libertards are idiots when they try to say that diversity of ethnic restaurants is a reason to accept mass migration. But rejecting that outright as if as a food is not important to people, or as a minor frivolous childish concern. I think that's very foolish mistake by like, again, conservatives with a small C, I mean, men, sometimes they're

liberals or Marxists are like this to sometimes men who think that those concerns are childish and that life only functions in the response to threats to life to public order, things having having to do with birth rates, survival of races or peoples or classes, grand historical forces or geopolitics at the worst, and they scoff at music and so on. I think a lot of it is the characteristic thinking of austere people, which can be admirable, but I think mankind is determined again in its behaviors by such frivolities much more in the same way that in international affairs, again, they're less determined by the hard truths of geopolitics and balance of power, necessity, and geography, and whatever resources

or as people think, and much more so, often great decisions, meaning consequential decisions. Big events happen because of foolish pride, or even the caprice or insight of certain individuals. A lot is just foolish accident and pride. And I want to read for you a favorite Nietzsche passage, not directly related, but I think fundamentally a point it's been pointed out to me this matter by Stefan Ruitenbeek of the key rock art collective and I'm watching their movies now with interest and I will talk this soon and here Nietzsche criticizes Aristotle among others listen what I'm trying to say is on this show I'm trying to talk about not policy or such but some very fundamental aspects of the shortcomings of the conservative mind and spirituality, of which I consider Aristotle

and Plato to be conservatives in this sense, and you'll see what I mean in a moment. It's very deeply ingrained way of thinking and feeling that sees man primarily as driven by pressure, by necessity when the truth is, I think, very different. And this attitude, expressed at a much shallower level than what I'm about to read, I mean expressed through a thousand intervening plebeian and political filters is what I think in the long run leads to serious handicap for the right and for conservatives, which is that in the modern world, meaning the world since 1800, they are unable to win the youth because they don't have a pleasant and compelling vision of the future. They have only the talk of duty, only the talk of the doctrine of necessity, the pressures

of various kinds. And even when they talk, for example, about the religions and traditions of the past, which you'd think they're in love with, and they're supposed to have genuine love for, usually their love at most is a kind of mawkish nostalgia. And they this nostalgia is unconvincing. And I think, in part because on that too, they have an entirely utilitarian political, social understanding of those things like religion, they can't express to you or or even to themselves, what is pleasant and good actually in those traditions as such. They have only the pleasure of duty and pressure and social need to preach to you. But that's just I say the everyday superficial expression of it, whereas what I'm about to

read for you now in closing this segment, it's from Nietzsche's The Gay Science. It's a favorite passage. In his criticism of Aristotle and others, it's a very deep spiritual basis of this debate I've been alluding to. So this is from Gay Science, aphorism title, Art and Nature. The Greeks, or at least the Athenians, like to hear people talk well. Indeed, they had a craving for it that distinguished them more than anything else from non-Greeks. And so they demanded, even of passion on the stage, that it should talk well, and submitted gladly to the unnaturalness of dramatic verse, filled with delight as they were by what they heard. passion is so sparing of words, so dumb, so embarrassed. Or if it does find words it is so unreasonable, crude and shamefaced that it compromises itself.

Thanks to the Greeks we are now accustomed to this unnaturalness on the theater stage and endure it, just as we endure and even enjoy the unnaturalness of the singing passion thanks to the Italians. It has become a need of ours which we cannot satisfy out of reality, to hear men talk well and at length in most difficult situations. It delights us now to hear the tragic hero still finding words, reasons, eloquent gestures, and a whole intellectual clarity where real life draws near to the abyss and where a real human being usually loses his head and certainly his fine language. This kind of deviation from nature may well be the most delightful repast for man's pride. Hence he loves art in general as the expression of heroic, high-flown unnaturalness and conventionality.

It is quite proper to criticize a dramatic poet if he does not turn everything into reason and word, but always leaves some residue of silence, just as one is dissatisfied with an operatic composer who cannot find a melody for the highest passion, but permits only a natural, in quotation marks, stammering and screaming. Here nature must be contradicted. Here the charm of the illusion must give way to a higher charm. The Greeks went very far in this direction, terrifyingly far. They made the stage as narrow as possible and reduced its effect by depriving it of all background. They made it impossible to overlook the movements and play of features of their actors, turning them instead to solemn, stiff, masked men who declaimed in a pompous manner. In this way,

they imposed on Passion itself a law of fine speech. Indeed, they really did everything to counteract the elementary effect of frightful and pity-arousing scenes. They wanted no pity and no fear. Aristotle is quite wrong when he says otherwise. He missed the basic point of Greek tragedy where he said that the goal of Greek tragedy was the arousal of such emotions. Rather, let us ask the Greek poets what it was that brought them their greatest pride, their inventiveness, their wit, their resourcefulness in competition. That is what they wanted to demonstrate before an audience. The Athenian went to the theater to hear beautiful speeches, and beautiful speeches are what Sophocles had wanted to provide. Forgive me this heresy, how differently the situation stands with the serious opera.

All its masters did their utmost to prevent their listeners from understanding their characters. A stray word picked up by an inattentive spectator might help him explain the situation to himself. What a dreadful thing! They all wanted words to be mocked, and nothing could have been more repugnant to them than reality speaking for itself. For them the tone was everything, the word nothing. The actor in opera is not meant to be believed on the word but only on the tone. That is the difference, that is the beautiful unnaturalness. For this one goes to the opera. Even the recitativo secco is not really listened to as word and text but as tone. The half music of it must first refresh the ear and grant it a little repose to rest from

melody the most sublime and at the same time the most fatiguing form of enjoyment of this art, but soon the impatience and resistance of the listener grows, his desire for the whole, for melody, swells once more. How differently the matter stands with Wagner's art! Or does it? Often I had the impression that in his works, words and music were learned separately, as if the performer had memorized them from outside. Otherwise, how could it happen that one often heard neither the words nor the music? Yes, do you like this? He gets a bit into too much detail on opera at the end, but if you replay what I said it makes sense. But do you like this? He's saying it's not what you think. Art is not what you think. What is important to people in art isn't what you think. I'll be right back.

Yes, welcome back to show I want to tell you about Elagabalus, a man of pleasure, the most outrageous Roman emperor, who I began to discuss last time. You can find his life told in Historia Augusta, you find online. It's not very well written, but has a lot of colorful, very salacious details, which is why men like Gibbon emphasize this emperor as the most degenerate, decadent of the emperors. And I have to make one clarification. I say on last episode, Elagabalus was kind of transsexual, and in a technical sense, he was in that he probably asked doctors to look at sex change operation or something like. But in another sense, I don't want to imply that modern transsexualism has really any precedent. Elagabalus was likely motivated by two things in his push. One was sexual,

one was religious, maybe some combination. His sexual desires was such that he had frequently his aides, his agents gathered all kinds of service workers, bakers, things like that with huge cocks and so on. And he was obsessed with that, collecting the men with the biggest cocks in Rome, you know, that kind of guy. And then the religious because there were priesthoods in East where he came from, he was from Syria, and they worshiped the great mother and the priests of Cybele in Anatolia, I think, practiced self-castration, and this isn't confined to the ancient world. Such things exist. The Scopzi sect, a heretical sect in Orthodox Russia, they also practice self-castration, claiming to have found the reasoning for that in the New Testament.

So such sects have always existed, and sexual perversions of all kinds, of course, also. But this is very different from modern transsexual movement, which is an identity doctrine that contests hegemonic western identity as they understand it. It's that rather than anything to do with sexual desire as such, let alone actual religious belief. They do have very strange beliefs when it comes to the case they make in public such that you have a disembodied essence that can be at variance with your body and that this essence can have male or female nature. It's very odd that it can be wrongly configured in your body. But although that's nonsense, I don't think it's comparable to real religious belief or to ecstatic religious cults that I just mentioned.

It's bizarre and barbaric, these cults, but I don't think you should believe the propaganda of the trannies and the gays when they claim that this or that precedent exists for them in history or in the ancient world. I just wanted to clarify that. As for Elagabalus, aside from this extreme, let's say, cock-hungry depravity, where he even invited prostitutes into the imperial palace and held contests with the prosthees to show them he could make more money than them as a prostitute, he was also unique and mega-extravagant besides this luxurious lifestyle. He introduced certain innovations in this. He was the first to wear silk only. I think Churchill also only wore silk next to his skin. And after Elagabalu, silk-wetting at the Roman imperial court became illegal for a while,

I think as a reaction to this man. But look, silk is nothing. I want to read for you because you get the sense of it. It's amusing. You get to see local color, ultimate Roman emperor vibes. He purchased, I'm reading, he purchased, he purchased, it is said, a very famous and very beautiful harlot for one hundred thousand sestertias, and then kept her untouched as though she were a virgin. When someone asked him before he was made emperor, Are you not afraid of becoming poor? He replied, So they say, What could be better than that I should be my own heir and my wife's too? He had abundant means besides, bequeathed to him by many out of regard for his father. Furthermore, he said that he did not wish to have sons, lest one of them should chance to be thrifty.

He would have perfumes from India burned without any coals in order that the fumes might fill his apartments. Even while a commoner, he never made a journey with fewer than 60 wagons, though his grandmother Varya used to protest that he would squander all his substance. But after he became emperor, he would take it with him, it is said, as many as 600, asserting that the king of the Persians traveled with 10,000 camels and Nero with 500 carriages. The reason for all these vehicles was the vast number of his procurers and bods, harlots, catamites and lusty partners in depravity. In the public baths he always bathed with the women, and he even treated himself with a depilatory ointment, which he also applied to his own beard, and shameful though it be

to say it, in the same place where the women were treated and at the same hour. He shaved his minions' groins using the razor with his own hands, with which he would then shave his beard. He would strew gold and silver dust about a portico and then lament that he could not strew the dust of amber also. And he did this often when he proceeded on foot to his horse or his carriage as they do today with golden sand. He never put on the same shoes twice and never, it is said, wore the same ring a second time. He often tore up costly garments. Once he took a whale and weighed it and then sent his friends its weight in fish. He sank some heavily laden ships in the harbour and then said that this was a sign of greatness of

soul. Sorry, this is making me lash. Do you see this man's, his innovations? He weighed a whale and then the same weight in fish he sent to friends. Yes. Sank heavily laden ships in the harbour and said that this was a sign of greatness of soul. He used vessels of gold for relieving himself and urinals were made of murrah or onyx and he and he is said to have remarked if I ever Never have an heir I shall appoint a guardian for him to make him do what I have myself done and intend to do. He was accustomed, furthermore, to have dinners served to him only of the following kind. One day he would eat nothing at all but pheasant, serving only pheasant meat at every course. Another day he would serve only chicken, another some kind of fish and again a different day

some kind pork or ostrich or greens or fruit or sweets or dairy products. He would often shut up his friends in halting places for the night with old hags from Ethiopia and compelled them to stay there until morning, saying that the most beautiful women were kept in these places. He did the same thing with boys, too, for then before the time of Philip that is such a thing was lawful. Sometimes he laughed so loud in the theater that no one else could be heard by the audience. He could sing and dance, play the pipes, the horn and the pandura, and have also performed on the organ. On one single day, this said, he visited every prostitute from the circus, the theater, the amphitheater, and all the public places of Rome, covering his head with a mulleteer's cap in order to escape recognition.

He did not, however, gratify his passions, but merely gave an aureus to each prostitute, saying as he did so, let no one know it, but this is a present from Antoninus. That was one of his titles. He invented certain new kinds of vice, even going beyond the perverts used by the mochis of old, and he was well acquainted with all the arrangements of Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero. Do you like this? But I need to say something. In all that I've read for you, there is the search not only for great pleasure, but for entirely new pleasures and also for desperate search for self-distinction and shocking people through entirely seemingly random behavior. Oh, I will shipwreck heavy ships in the harbor because that shows greatness of soul.

But this kind of retreat into private pleasure is by definition degenerate for a ruler, but I want to add that it's no less degenerate for an emperor to neglect his real duties and his station in order to write treatises or to write philosophy, or to paint even great paintings if he had the skill to do so, or more often what happens is such men retreat into the pleasures of private family life, they become good family men. But that too is just a pleasure, or it's supposed to be anyway. And if you lose your kingdom, you lose your empire. And that leads also to the deaths of many people and to civil war and the destruction of your nation possibly as it did with Louis XVI and especially the execrable Tsar Nicholas

II who was a retarded man celebrated today by traditionalists when in his stupidity he lost his empire because of repeated bad decisions and he's celebrated by these men because he was a pious man in private and a good family man. And I see that also as equal degeneracy. You know, at least Mr. Elagabalus did not destroy his empire, you know. Conversely, Mao, who was very much the opposite, he was a founder, not somebody who lost a nation, someone who gained one and maybe an evil tyrant for sure and a mass murderer but a man nevertheless who founded a state and kept that state with great energy and terror and he passed it to his successor and at least if you believe the biography made by his doctor he had the roman emperor tier practices

Mao did not so much when it came to food or dress but his sexual appetites and such as bad as as anything, almost as bad as anything Elagabalus did or Caligula, Mao, or the China Man. So the point here would be that personal habits and sexual practices, the modern mind places outside importance on them. And I agree with Nietzsche in some sense that one specific type of sensuality reaches into the pinnacle of one's character or soul, but that you need a keen psychologist to understand what that means. direct or determinative as modern audiences think in a vulgar sense, and my friend, I think, poster Magamimnon on Twitter rightly said that when it comes, for example, to artistic scientific genius, you have all types of men, you have family men, conservative family men

when it comes to their private practices, you have Libertines, you have also incels and volcels and ascetics, and there's no real relationship to the magnitude or achievement of their output. And it's only in the gynocratic norms and distortions of our own times, it places undue importance on such things in a crude way without realizing the way in which they are actually important but it makes statements, oh, to be a great scientist, you must not be married or you must be married, this kind of thing. As for Elagabalus, in his striving for pleasure is what strikes me again, not just the extreme extravagance with he seems actually not so to be seeking pleasures only, but the distinction in being the first to be something new.

And this becomes apparent in this passage, where he's discussing a prophecy that he will be executed, and he wants to take measures to prepare himself for his upcoming death. I'm reading the prophecy had been made to him by some Syrian priests, that you die a violent death, and so he had prepared cords entwined with purple and scarlet silk so that if need arose he could put an end to his life by the noose. He had gold swords, too, in readiness, gold swords, with which to stab himself should any violence impend. He also had poisons ready in ceronites and sapphires and emeralds, with which to kill himself if destruction threatened. And he also built a very high tower from which to throw himself down, constructed of boards of gilded boards and jewelled in his own presence.

For even his death, he declared, should be costly and marked by luxury, in order that it may be said that no one had ever died in this fashion." I think that's the crucial phrase. But all these preparations availed him nothing. For as we have said, he was slain by the common soldiers, dragged through the streets, contemptuously thrust into sewers, and finally cast into the Tiber. So I'm saying even in his death, it might be said that no one had ever died this way before. This is his ambition, you know, which I think he's seeking, obviously, personal, renowned acclaim, not accessible, he thinks maybe to him through conquest or actual achievements as a leader, nor through the composition of poems or of art, but through this, how does it make you feel?

It's a step maybe above Temple of the Golden Pavilion or the man who burned down the Temple of Artemis in antiquity as a way to achieve immortal fame. Not that I'm praising that, I guess, I'm saying though that this burning need, not just for some kind of immortality, but for immortal fame, for an exaltation of one's unique individuality that then stands across history. It appears even in the life of Elagabalus, very markedly so, the most decadent and frivolous of Rome's emperor. even more prominently in his life, I mean, than in others, though, you know, from stories of Nero, Caligula are sometimes similar. It appears in a degenerated form, right? It's kind of a parody of the Homeric hero or of Alexander or Caesar, who sought immortal fame through world conquest and such.

But I think it's very deep need in men, this. The problem is, what is the soul? And for most, it's a series of confused desires, confused memories, scripts implanted from outside. And it's hard to imagine in this case what is meant by an eternity of the soul, an eternity of what? Most of it, what people experience as their inner life, doesn't even belong to them, and it's an accident. And I don't deny that man has a kind of individuality or soul in the sense that animal soul and behavior is uniform to a particular species. Lions and so on act more or less uniform, ants certainly do. But in mankind, it's conceivable, as Schopenhauer says, that each individual is potentially his own idea, his own species, possibly unique.

The problem is that what the man is is likely hidden under multiple layers of encrusted stale ideas, conventions from others. And then the simple assertion of individuality, you end up at best like Elagabalu. So I don't want to moralize about him at all, okay, he's bad and all that. I suppose you can claim he's an artist though, in modes of decadence and perversion somewhat, but that's easy to do, especially when you have resource of empire available. Whereas in the average case, what I would say the average such man who is desperate to assert his individuality and who desires to live his own way ends up just being random because his mind is not his own. So, and if he gets rid of the notions inherited from others, he's lost at sea. He's unmoored and ends up doing entirely random things.

Elagabalus, just random. And if you lived in Los Angeles, you've probably met many people, let's say after the age of 35 or so, who seem quite desperate in their desire to have lived a unique way of life. But it comes off like random probing around in the dark. You know, one day they are Hindu, the next day they learn spiritualism of various kinds. then they pick up Tarot or this, you know, what it means then to have your own life that's an entirely expression of something notable and unique and also fully an expression of who you really are unencumbered by foreign notions and tropes and I think actually is very old fixation of Greeks and it is the philosophers who do you understand that this what I just said now is what philosophy

really is in its birth I mean when it actually meant something it's a way of life that's geared and tie geared entirely to this to recovering who one is exactly and living a unique and entirely independent form of existence. And that's the hardest thing to do. The hippies try and mostly fail at it. Multiple early Greek philosophers, though, that's what they were that and they then they say openly of again and again, that's what it is that philosophy is the art of living well. And it's very different understanding from modern, where it's kind of like a purely intellectual discipline, right? And in the first Greek philosophers, I think you have, therefore, the most enduring new archetypes of what a man is or can be right for everyone else.

They're a type. So for example, the the peasant, the king, the chieftain, so on the priest. Eventually the warrior arrives as a new type, let's say, after 2100 BC, the warrior as its own thing did not exist before then, there were no warrior classes as such that are known to history before around that day 2100, 2200 BC. I explained this before, maybe I'll write about it. That doesn't mean violence didn't exist, I'm saying a warrior class, the warrior as a type did not exist before then. So that you could say is a new type of being, a new type of man, but the philosophers, each Each of the Greek philosophers, the early ones, Parmenides, Heraclitus, they all represent a new type of man, each of them. You see what I'm saying?

That's why their fame lasts even today, when many of their books and the bulk of their doctrines are lost to us. Thales, the first philosopher, and Anaximander, very little remains, certainly not their books, very little actually even of their doctrines, but characteristic stories of their unique personal character that resounds for thousands of years. It's right there in some sense, the most famous man of all time because other you know, who else can name and even personal character transmitted over thousands of years, and you don't even have their books let alone any evidence of conquests or such right you can become great through a conquest but I had this question when a friend came on the show to discuss Napoleon's military campaigns can you sense a great

military commander's character in their military campaigns in the same way that you can tell an artist by his touch does his character come out I think that's plausible and you see it with Alexander too but it's expressed in the things they actually do in the actual battles maybe but not so much in the extent of their empire that's more an accident of history you know what I mean so when it comes to the early philosophers the first ones they each are kind of pioneers in inventing a new mode of human existence it's a gigantic you can say even biological event in the life of mankind, each of these men. And I think it's fruitful to think of Jesus in the same way. I think that Bulgakov thought of him this way in the book Master and Margarita.

But anyway, I'll talk more of this next time, maybe the time after next time, because next episode I want to do light music show. I haven't had a music show in a long time. I think it's time. And maybe after that, I will go back to discuss the unusual life of some of the early philosophers, maybe the cynic school, Diogenes and Antistines, but what struck me was the extent to which the Greeks, who are famously by modern standards, they're a brutal ancient people, for all their famed humaneness, the Greek life of genocidal brutality, totally unfamiliar to modern audiences. It was taken as the right of the conqueror to kill all the men in a city and sell those children and women into slavery. And of course, no humanitarianism in their societies at all, slavery, that too, and many

other such things, insensitivities. But this nation, which prized heroism and warfare, a very manly nation, in the sense that it was ruled by men, actually, you could argue its character was feminine in the best sense, in the sense that it took notions from other people and nurtured them and refined them into artistic final products, you could say that's a kind of feminine artistic spirituality, you could say. But anyway, it was ruled by men, but it's not at all living under the kind of petty pressures and necessities that either Asiatics or Moderns live. They had the luxury and the greatness to admire and prize above all else. Actually, the hippie, what the hippie tries to be, I'm only saying this to make it especially

stark and vivid for a modern audience, but yes, for all purposes, a kind of hippie. See, I don't want to say saint, because then you could say, oh, they like these kind of weird medicine men or weird mystics, and that's why they like them. But no, other peoples had saints and mystics, but Greeks prized sages and geniuses who were were very openly anti-religious and mocked very often the gods of the city, Diogenes the Cynic, who was not only tolerated by the Athenians, but his impudence was celebrated and he was not alone in making remarks like, I'm quoting now from Diogenes Laertius, who writes about Diogenes the Cynic. He used to say that when he saw pilots, you know, of ships he means, he used to say that

So when he saw pilots, physicians, doctors, and philosophers at their work, he regarded man as the wisest of all animals. But when he observed dream interpreters, prophets, and those who listened to them, or those who are puffed up with fame and wealth, he found no creature more foolish than man." And this is typical. In other words, this was by no means a religious phenomenon like in any ancient tribe, they maybe in awe of mystics or medicine men who can convince them they cure disease or can summon the rain or driven by superstition and ultimately some notion of personal gain. But that's what I'm saying here. The ancient Greeks not driven by this pressure of gain driven instead by clear eye, genuine respect and admiration of this, wow, what is this

individuality, uniqueness, a way of life of the philosopher that by its own thought, its own human resources manages to pave an entirely new path, not dependent on other people, not dependent on society. It is, I think, unprecedented in history up to that point and actually extremely rare. It's rarely repeated and maintained well after this type of society that has the luxury to extol such men who can, you can think of them, yes, as hippies trying to find their own way, but in a real manner, not in the hippie or the elagabalous manner. It is unique only to those nations that were influenced by Greek idea and very rare, the preservers of philosophy, meaning the preservers of the freedom of thought and fundamentally of human freedom as such. I don't think it exists today, unfortunately.

Look, I will be right back soon, very soon with musics, bossa nova and light classical music show. We need a reprieve and music. Until next time, Bap out.